Proclaiming freedom of speech while protecting only convenient opinions and silencing inconvenient ones through lawsuits. This essay examines Asahi editorials to expose their contradiction and the resulting loss of public trust.

They defend speech convenient to themselves with ornate rhetoric, yet immediately silence inconvenient speech through the courts.
2018-01-18
The following continues from the previous chapter.
Often called the “fourth estate,” can a media organization that habitually speaks in fine-sounding ideals truly behave in this way?
I cannot help but feel that Asahi is an extraordinarily capable negative example, pointing to what must never be allowed to happen.
Editorials that return like a boomerang
So how has Asahi positioned freedom of speech?
Let me introduce several of its editorials.
When the manga Oishinbo caused controversy by linking the protagonist’s nosebleed in Fukushima to radiation exposure, it issued this warning:
“We cannot support excessive reactions to a work, or statements by university presidents that would restrict the speech and conduct of faculty and staff” (May 14, 2014).
When a former Asahi reporter faced harassment over comfort women reporting, it wrote:
“The freedom to express opinions and to criticize one another is what makes society strong and rich. We want to protect the society Japan has built over nearly seventy years since the war, where diverse opinions and values intersect” (October 2 of the same year).
In addition, when a provisional court order once halted sales of the book Research on Japan Conference, which contained numerous erroneous descriptions, it asserted:
“It not only harms the author and publisher and invites self-censorship. People will be unable to know what is written in the book and will lose opportunities to deepen their thinking and engage in discussion based on it. It undermines the freedom of expression, which is of utmost importance in building a democratic society…” (January 12, 2017).
They defend speech convenient to themselves with elegant rhetoric, yet immediately silence inconvenient speech through the courts.
With such an attitude, there is no way they can earn the trust of readers.