- Convenor:
-
Kohsaku Honda
(Setsunan University)
Send message to Convenor
- Format:
- Panel
- Section:
- Law
Short Abstract
This panel aims to explore the boundary between hate speech and confusingly similar speech using expressions such as “Japanese First” in elections and “JAPANESE ONLY” at soccer matches as material. To achieve this aim, the panel adopts methods from jurisprudence and speech act theory.
Long Abstract
This panel aims to explore the boundary between hate speech and confusingly similar speech. To do so, it will examine actual incidents or events. In 2014, J-League (Japan Professional Football League) imposed a penalty on Urawa Reds (a club team), ordering the league's first-ever “closed-door match.” This incident occurred when Urawa Reds supporters displayed a banner during a match bearing the English text “JAPANESE ONLY,” which was deemed hate speech. Meanwhile, in the 2025 national elections, the Sanseito Party (a Japanese political party) ran on the slogan “Japanese First” and significantly increased its seats (from 1 seat before the election to 14 seats). This sparked controversy, including media debate, with arguments such as “Japanese First is discriminatory.”
This panel defines “discriminatory” acts as insults, exclusion, or attacks against a “inferior group” by people who accept rules such as “regard a certain group as inferior.” Therefore, hate speech is defined as using words to insult or otherwise target a group deemed inferior or its members. From this perspective, are “JAPANESE ONLY” and “Japanese First” hate speech? How can hate speech be distinguished from similar, ambiguous speech?
The key point in answering these questions lies in whether the nation-state is taken as a premise for discussion. This panel seeks to clarify the facts and therefore takes the current nation-state as its premise. If so, the questions that must be asked are: Who are the “JAPANESE”? Who are the “Japanese people”? We must first answer these questions. Only then can we determine whether the two statements mentioned above constitute hate speech by examining their context and the circumstances of the speakers.
Taking this perspective, this panel will explore the boundary between hate speech and confusingly similar speech, focusing primarily on Japanese cases while also referencing examples from the United States and Europe. The panel consists of four members: two specializing in legal philosophy, one in constitutional law, and one in international law. The cases examined will be actual incidents or events, including court cases.
| Abstract in Japanese (if needed) | 本パネルは、ヘイトスピーチと、それに似た紛らわしいスピーチとの境界を探求することを目的とする。そのために本パネルは、実際の事件ないし出来事を取り上げる。2014年に日本のプロサッカーリーグ（以下Jリーグ）が、浦和レッズ（クラブチーム）に対し、Jリーグ史上初の「無観客試合」という処分を下す事件が起きた。当該事件は、浦和レッズのサポーターが試合中に、英語で「JAPANESE ONLY」と記載した横断幕を掲出した行為が「差別的表現」とされた事件である。他方、2025年の国政選挙で参政党（日本の政治政党）は、「日本人ファースト」というスローガンを掲げ、議席数を大幅に増やした（改選前の1議席から14議席へ）。その際、「日本人ファーストは差別だ」等とマスコミを含めて賛否両論を巻き起こした。 本パネルは「差別」行為を、「ある集団を劣等集団とみなせ」といったルールを受けいれている人々による、「劣等集団」に対する侮辱や排除や攻撃であると理解したうえで、ヘイトスピーチとは、劣等集団とみなした集団ないしその成員に対して、言葉を用いて侮辱等を行うことであるとする。この定義からみて、「JAPANESE ONLY」と「日本人ファースト」はヘイトスピーチだろうか。ヘイトスピーチと、それに似た紛らわしいスピーチは、いかなる仕方で区別しうるのか。 これらの問いに答える際の要点は、国民国家を議論の前提とするか否かにある。本パネルは、事実の解明を試みるものであり、したがって現在の国民国家を議論の前提とする。とすれば、問われるべきは、「JAPANESE」とは誰か、「日本人」とは誰かである。これらの問題に解答できて初めて、上記2つの発言が置かれている文脈や、その発言を発している発話者の状況等を考察することにより、それら発言がヘイトスピーチか否かを判定することができるようになるだろう。 本パネルは、こうした観点に立ち、日本の事例を中心としつつも、アメリカやヨーロッパの事例も参照しつつ、ヘイトスピーチと、それに似た紛らわしいスピーチとの境界を探っていく。本パネルは4名で構成され、それぞれの専門分野は、法哲学が2名、憲法学が1名、国際法学が1名であり、取り上げる事例は裁判事例も含めて実際に起きた事件ないし出来事である。 |
Accepted papers
Paper short abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether a banner displayed at a soccer match bearing the English text “JAPANESE ONLY” constitutes hate speech. To this end, the paper will distinguish between “JAPANESE” and “NON-JAPANESE” and then analyze the banner,using speech act theory.
Paper long abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine “JAPANESE ONLY” and analyze whether it constitutes hate speech. In an incident in 2014, J-League (Japan Professional Football League) imposed a penalty on Urawa Reds (a club team), ordering the first “closed-door match” in J-League history. This incident involved Urawa Reds supporters displaying a banner during a match bearing the English phrase “JAPANESE ONLY,” which was deemed discriminatory expression.
To analyze whether “JAPANESE ONLY” constitutes hate speech, we must first clarify what hate speech is. This paper defines “discriminatory” acts as insults, exclusion, or attacks against a “inferior group” by people who accept rules such as “consider a certain group inferior.” Thus, discriminatory acts can be carried out using words or without words; the former constitutes hate speech. Hate speech is the use of words to insult or otherwise target a group deemed inferior or its members.
Based on the above, this paper argues that the decisive factor in determining whether “JAPANESE ONLY” constitutes hate speech lies in whether “NON-JAPANESE” was perceived as an inferior group. This is because every person on Earth is either “JAPANESE” or “NON-JAPANESE.” The issue, therefore, lies in whether the expression or statement “JAPANESE ONLY” actually inferiorized “NON-JAPANESE.” If such inferiorization occurred, the expression would likely constitute hate speech. How can this fact be confirmed?
This paper, drawing on speech act theory, argues that confirming this fact requires considering not only (1) the speaker of the utterance, but also (2) those involved in the utterance and (3) ordinary Japanese people. This is because confirming what is conventionally evoked by the utterance—in other words, what conventions exist regarding “NON-JAPANESE”—will determine whether degradation occurred. A crucial distinction to note during verification is between loanwords and English. Specifically, whether “JAPANESE ONLY” was used as a loanword—that is, in katakana as “ジャパニーズ オンリー”—or whether it was used as English. This distinction implies a difference in addressees, and a difference in addressees implies a difference in the geographical or human scope of the convention to be verified.
| Abstract in Japanese (if needed): | 本発表の目的は、「JAPANESE ONLY」を取り上げ、それがヘイトスピーチか否かを分析することにある。2014年に日本のプロサッカーリーグ（以下Jリーグ）が、浦和レッズ（クラブチーム）に対し、Jリーグ史上初の「無観客試合」という処分を下す事件が起きた。当該事件は、浦和レッズのサポーターが試合中に、英語で「JAPANESE ONLY」と記載した横断幕を掲出した行為が差別的表現とされた事件である。 「JAPANESE ONLY」がヘイトスピーチか否かを分析するためには、まずはヘイトスピーチとは何かが明らかにされていなければならない。本発表は「差別」行為を、「ある集団を劣等集団とみなせ」といったルールを受けいれている人々による、「劣等集団」に対する侮辱や排除や攻撃であると理解したうえで、ヘイトスピーチとは、劣等集団とみなした集団ないしその成員に対して、言葉を用いて侮辱等を行うことであるとする。 以上を踏まえて本発表は、「JAPANESE ONLY」がヘイトスピーチか否かを判定する際の決め手は、「NON JAPANESE」が劣等集団とみなされていたかどうかにあると考える。地球上のすべての人は、「JAPANESE」か「NON JAPANESE」だからである。すなわち問題は、「JAPANESE ONLY」という表現ないし発言が、「NON JAPANESE」を劣等化していたかどうかという事実にあり、劣等化の事実があれば、当該表現はヘイトスピーチに該当するだろうということである。この事実はいかなる仕方で確認しうるのか。 本発表は、発話行為論を参照し、（1）発言の当事者だけでなく、（2）発言の関係者や（3）ふつうの日本人も含めて、上記事実を確認する必要があると考える。当該発言をきっかけに何が慣習的に想起されるのか、別言すれば「NON JAPANESE」に関していかなる慣習が存在するのかを確かめることが、劣等化の存否を確認することになるからである。 |
Paper short abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the slogan “Japanese First” used in elections and analyze whether it constitutes hate speech. To this end, this paper will analyze the slogan using speech act theory, premised on the concept of the nation-state.
Paper long abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the slogan “Japanese First” and analyze whether it constitutes hate speech. In the national elections held in July 2025, the Sanseito Party (a Japanese political party) ran under the slogan “Japanese First” and significantly increased its number of seats (from 1 seat before the election to 14 seats). This sparked controversy, including claims in the media that “Japanese First is discrimination.”
To analyze whether “Japanese First” constitutes hate speech, we must first clarify what hate speech is. This paper defines ‘discriminatory’ acts as insults, exclusion, or attacks against a “inferior group” by people who accept rules such as “regard a certain group as inferior.” Viewed this way, discriminatory acts can be carried out using words or without words; the former constitutes hate speech. Therefore, hate speech is the use of words to insult, exclude, or attack a group deemed inferior or its members.
To analyze whether “Japanese First” constitutes hate speech, we must next decide whether to take the nation-state as a premise for discussion. This paper attempts to clarify facts and thus takes the current nation-state as its premise. If so, the question becomes: Who are “Japanese people”? This paper interprets “Japanese people” as having two meanings. One is “Japanese nationals,” and the other is “bearers of Japanese culture.”
If “Japanese First” means “prioritizing Japanese nationals,” then this slogan confirms the premise of the nation-state and would fundamentally not constitute hate speech. On the other hand, if the slogan means “prioritizing bearers of Japanese culture,” it would be more likely to be linked to the value judgment that bearers of Japanese culture are superior. And if the speaker intended the statement to imply that Japanese culture is superior in value to other cultures, thereby implying inferiority, it would fundamentally constitute hate speech. Determining what the speaker meant by “Japanese First” requires examining the context of the statement and the speaker's circumstances to identify the specific action being taken (whether it was an insult, exclusion, a proposal, etc.).
Paper short abstract
This report examines the fundamental structure of hate speech regulation under the United States Constitution, using the Matal v. Tam decision (2017) as a theoretical reference point, and explores its implications for regulating hate speech in sporting events.
Paper long abstract
This report examines the fundamental structure of hate speech regulation under the United States Constitution, using the Matal v. Tam decision (2017) as a theoretical reference point, and then explores the implications of this legal doctrine for regulating hate speech within the space of sporting events. The case concerned the constitutionality of a provision in the federal Trademark Act prohibiting the registration of trademarks deemed “derogatory to others,” specifically regarding the name “The Slants” used by an Asian-American rock band as their band name. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this provision constitutes content-based regulation. It ruled that imposing state disadvantages based solely on the potential for expression to be perceived as offensive violates the First Amendment principle prohibiting the government from discriminating against “offensive speech.” This report, building on that ruling, assumes that under the First Amendment—which strictly prohibits discrimination based on the content of expression, particularly on the basis of specific viewpoints—it is even more difficult for the state to regulate discriminatory expression by spectators in spaces managed by private entities, such as sports matches where the state is not directly involved. It then theoretically examines how hate speech regulation in sports might be structured. In the United States, stadiums are generally considered private spaces managed by private entities under the public forum doctrine, not public facilities managed by the state. Consequently, regulations imposed by leagues or clubs on spectator expression are not considered state action. As a result, hate speech occurring at sporting events has not been subject to state regulation and has traditionally been addressed through private discipline based on the facility management rights of leagues or clubs and spectator agreements.
Building upon this framework of American law, this report examines the “JAPANESE ONLY” incident in Japan's J.League to explore the permissible scope of regulation against such expression. Specifically, drawing on the requirements of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as articulated in Matal v. Tam, it conducts a comparative legal analysis of the extent to which the state or private entities may intervene regarding expression that could be deemed discriminatory.
Paper short abstract
This presentation compares hate speech cases in Japan and Europe, focusing on the “JAPANESE ONLY” banner and a European court case. It shows that words can become hate speech because of history, place, repetition, and who says them, even if the words are not clearly hateful.
Paper long abstract
In 2014, an incident occurred in Japan's professional soccer league (J.League) where supporters of the Urawa Reds (club team) displayed a banner during a match bearing the English words “JAPANESE ONLY,” which was deemed hate speech.
Around the same time, in 2013, during an international soccer match held in Croatia, Josip Šimunić, a prominent Croatian soccer player, was penalized for inciting hatred based on race, ethnicity, or religion. This occurred after the match when he repeatedly shouted “For Home!” to the crowd, who responded with “Ready!” Josip Šimunić challenged the Croatian domestic court's ruling, arguing it violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (Josip Šimunić v. Croatia). The European Court of Human Rights, while acknowledging that the expression “For Home” might not be inherently discriminatory in a dictionary or cultural sense, emphasized: ① its historical symbolism linked to a totalitarian regime, ② the highly public setting of a soccer stadium, ③ its repetitive nature designed to provoke audience responses, and ④ the speaker's influential status as a prominent athlete. The Court concluded that the expression had the effect of inciting hatred.
The purpose of this presentation is to clarify the framework for determining whether speech constitutes hate speech by conducting a comparative legal analysis of Japanese and European cases. The key point of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Josip Šimnić v. Croatia is its framework for assessment: evaluating not the abstract meaning of the expression's wording itself, but comprehensively considering the context, historical background, the speaker's position, and the audience's reaction. This framework provides important insights and lessons for examining Japan's “JAPANESE ONLY” banner incident.