What are the specific laws governing obscenity in Japan?
Executive summary
Japan’s obscenity law is concentrated in Article 175 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes the distribution, sale or public display of “obscene” writings, pictures or objects with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment, work prison or a fine of ¥2,500,000 [1] [2]. The statute contains no textual definition of “obscene”; courts and enforcement practices have therefore developed standards—most notably the 1928/1957 case-law test about arousal, shame and violation of sexual morality—and a practical focus on censoring visual depictions of genitalia [2] [3].
1. Article 175: the written law and its penalties
Article 175 of the Penal Code is the statutory core: “A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished” — penalties include imprisonment with work for not more than two years or a fine up to ¥2,500,000 [1] [2]. Multiple sources repeat these limits, which are the concrete legal threat that shapes publishing, film and online practices across Japan [1] [4].
2. Vagueness by design: no statutory definition of “obscene”
The penal text does not define “obscene,” and scholars and reports note that the meaning has been supplied by judicial decisions and by customary enforcement rather than by statute [3] [2]. Because the code is silent, enforcement turns on case law, police practice and industry self-regulation—creating ambiguity that critics say permits uneven application [5] [6].
3. Judicial tests and historical case law
Japan’s courts developed a multi‑part test in mid‑20th‑century decisions (tracing back to the Chatterley case and subsequent rulings) that a work is obscene if it “arouses and stimulates sexual desire, offends a common sense of modesty or shame, and violates proper concepts of sexual morality.” That judicial framework remains a reference point in reporting and scholarship about obscenity rulings [2] [7].
4. Practical effect: visual focus and mandatory self‑censoring
In practice Article 175 has produced a visual standard: publishers and producers routinely obscure explicit genitalia (mosaics, censor bars) because courts and prosecutors have treated genital depiction as the key marker of obscenity [8] [9]. This operational rule explains why adult film and manga industries employ pixelation and why certain artistic works have become the subject of prosecutions and controversy [8] [10].
5. Criminal enforcement in print, film and online
Authorities prosecute distribution and sale rather than private possession in the statute’s text, but modern enforcement has reached print, video and internet dissemination—Core Magazine prosecutions and later online disputes illustrate this dynamic [2] [5]. Freedom House and other observers note Article 175 is treated as applying online as well, producing voluntary ISP filters and content‑removal requests in the digital sphere [6].
6. Areas of controversy and political context
Observers and commentators argue Article 175 reinforces social conformity and can chill artistic and feminist expression; high‑profile cases (for example, the conviction of artist Megumi Igarashi) have turned public attention to how the law is applied to gendered expression and critique [11] [10] [3]. Critics say the law’s vagueness lets authorities and social norms decide what is “obscene,” while defenders frame it as protecting public morality—sources disagree on whether reform should define or abolish the provision [11] [3].
7. Legal gray zones: age, simulated acts, and non‑Japanese production
Reporting and academic discussion show unresolved questions: courts and commentators differ on depictions that imply intercourse, pubic hair versus genitals, fictional depictions (manga/anime) and material produced or hosted overseas [9] [12] [13]. Some analyses note the law’s reach is practically limited by territorial and jurisdictional factors—material produced and sold entirely outside Japan may fall beyond Article 175’s enforcement, but available sources do not provide a definitive rule on cross‑border cases [13].
8. Bottom line for creators and the public
The statutory penalty in Article 175 is clear and consequential; what counts as “obscene” is not. Industry self‑censorship—mosaics, independent pre‑publication checks—has emerged as the de facto regulatory regime to avoid prosecutions [1] [12]. Reform debates persist: some call to clarify or repeal Article 175 to protect freedom of expression, while others argue the law serves public morals—both positions are present in the sources [11] [6].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the provided reports; available sources do not mention any post‑2025 statutory changes or specific current drafting proposals beyond the shifts and cases discussed above [10] [6].