David Kaye’s report spans media regulation, history education, elections, secrecy law, and hate speech, yet rests on factual errors.
By reframing violent obstruction as free expression, the report mirrors activist narratives rather than legal reality.

David Kaye’s arguments rest on factual errors and distortions.
Violent obstruction is reframed as free expression, ignoring due process.
The report echoes activist narratives rather than legal reality.

2017-07-07

Kaye’s claims and their problems.
Kaye’s arguments can be broadly divided into five points across eight items.
First is “media independence.”
Kaye calls for revising and abolishing Article 4 of the Broadcasting Act.
He argues that broadcast regulation should be entrusted to bodies independent of the state and that such frameworks must be established.
He also says attention should be paid to supporting journalists who cover U.S. military-related activities in Okinawa, nuclear power, and disaster impacts.
Second is “intervention in history education and reporting.”
He asserts that there should be no intervention in historical interpretations in school materials and that the government should support efforts to inform the public of serious crimes related to Japan’s wartime actions.
Regarding the comfort women issue, he calls for considering an invitation to a UN Special Rapporteur on the “right to truth” to verify public information on serious past human rights violations.
Third is “election campaigns and demonstrations.”
He urges the removal of what he calls “disproportionate restrictions” in the Public Offices Election Act to align it with international human rights law.
He also expresses concern about pressure on protests in Okinawa and asks law enforcement to ensure that opposition and reporting can occur without disproportionate punishment.
Next, regarding the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, he calls for amendments to prevent chilling effects on journalists, for exceptions protecting disclosures in the public interest, and for an independent oversight body.
Finally, on “discrimination and hate speech,” he advocates introducing broadly applicable anti-discrimination legislation.
Thus, his claims and perceptions are based on unfounded and incorrect facts.
One is tempted to suspect that someone has fed him these views.
Kaye highlights pressure on protests against U.S. bases in Okinawa and claims that citizens face disproportionate punishment, calling for correction.
As an example, he cites the five-month detention of Hiroji Yamashiro, a core member of the Okinawa Peace Movement Center, as unjust.
Yamashiro addressed the UN on the fifteenth, accusing Japan of “repression by police power” and calling his detention a “human rights violation.”
However, the detention stemmed from allegations that he obstructed the duties of an Okinawa Defense Bureau official on a construction road for helipad work at the Northern Training Area, causing injuries requiring two weeks of treatment.
Yamashiro piled approximately 1,500 concrete blocks in front of the Camp Schwab gate in the Henoko area and used force to obstruct relocation work.
He was arrested, detained, and indicted not for protesting, but for violent and illegal acts.
Since October 17, 2016, he has been arrested three times, once in flagrante delicto, and twice with sufficient grounds.
The necessity of detention was also affirmed by a judge.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
It must not be arbitrarily restricted.
But violating laws under the name of free expression and justifying illegal acts are entirely different from freedom of expression.
If protests or opposition activities comply with the law, there is no punishment.
When illegal acts occur, their removal is justified.
What is removed is not protest, but illegality.
Nevertheless, Kaye seems to suggest that violence is permissible if the aim is opposing U.S. bases.
This stance closely resembles activist claims.