Imagine sitting in a courtroom when a verdict comes down: the judge declares that a website has “significantly disrupted the healthy sexual order” of society. What does that even mean—and how does Japan define obscenity in the first place? In this post, I’ll unpack the recent conviction of the FC2 founder, explore how “obscenity” is judged in Japan, and share my own take on these weighty issues.
1. The Court’s Words: What Did the FC2 Founder Do?
In 2025, the Kyoto District Court sentenced the founder of FC2, one of Japan’s largest video-sharing platforms, to three years in prison, suspended for five years, plus a substantial fine. The court ruled that distributing explicit videos of genitalia—and making them publicly accessible—“greatly disrupted the healthy sexual order of society.”
The ruling emphasized that FC2’s structure itself was a key enabler. Since the founder created and operated the platform, the court concluded that his actions deserved harsh criticism. Although he pledged to cease involvement with the site, the court underscored that the scale of harm required punishment.
2. Japan’s Obscenity Law: Article 175
At the heart of this case lies Article 175 of Japan’s Penal Code, which prohibits the distribution or public display of obscene materials—whether videos, photographs, or texts.
The law is strikingly broad:
- What counts as “obscene”?
Courts have defined obscenity as material that needlessly stimulates sexual desire, offends the sense of modesty held by ordinary people, and contradicts the idea of healthy sexual morality. - Distribution and display:
The act of providing content to an unspecified group, even online, counts as distribution. Simply hosting such material in a place where many could access it can qualify as “display.” - Digital era interpretation:
Uploading or transmitting explicit images through the internet is treated the same as physical distribution. In other words, the virtual world does not escape traditional laws.
3. Who Decides What Is Obscene?
One of the most controversial aspects is that the law does not spell out clear criteria. Instead, obscenity is determined through judicial interpretation and precedent. Judges rely on societal standards, cultural norms, and evolving expectations.
This raises difficult questions:
- What “ordinary people” find offensive is subjective.
- Material considered artistic or educational in one context might be condemned in another.
- A novel or art exhibition may be treated differently than an online video platform.
In effect, courts act as the arbiters of morality, making decisions that reflect both legal tradition and perceived public sentiment.
4. Freedom of Expression vs. Public Morality
Japan’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but that right is not absolute. It is limited when lawmakers believe public welfare, morality, or safety is at risk. Sexual expression is often where these rights clash most visibly.
Supporters of strict enforcement argue that banning obscene material protects minors, prevents exploitation, and shields those who do not wish to be exposed to it. Critics counter that the law is outdated, overly vague, and suppresses consensual adult expression in the digital age.
5. My Perspective: A Legal Gray Zone in the Digital Era
The FC2 case highlights just how blurred the line between personal freedom and social responsibility has become. Here are three points I think deserve attention:
A. Platforms Bear More Weight than Individuals
Traditional media involved clear publishers and distributors. Online platforms, however, provide a space where millions can instantly upload and share. This places enormous responsibility on the platform itself—arguably more than on each uploader.
B. Should All Sexual Content Be Equal?
There is a major difference between non-consensual or exploitative material and consensual adult expression. Yet Article 175 does not recognize such nuance. Should lawmakers create clearer categories, protecting free expression while targeting harmful content more directly?
C. Ambiguity Encourages Arbitrary Enforcement
Because the definition of obscenity is fluid, enforcement risks inconsistency. Some content slips through, while other material is penalized harshly. For creators and platforms alike, this unpredictability is dangerous and stifling.
6. Toward a Balanced Future
The conviction of the FC2 founder illustrates how Japan’s legal system continues to uphold a strict and moralistic approach to sexual expression. Yet digital culture has evolved far beyond the mid-20th century framework on which the law rests.
The real challenge ahead is to strike a balance:
- Protecting minors and unwilling audiences from exposure.
- Preserving freedom of artistic and consensual adult expression.
- Providing clear, transparent rules so platforms know where the boundaries lie.
Without this balance, Japan risks clinging to vague notions of “healthy sexual order” that may no longer resonate with the realities of modern society.
Final Thought
The phrase “disrupting the healthy sexual order” may sound abstract, but in Japan it carries real legal force. It is a reminder that laws about morality remain deeply influential, even in an age dominated by digital media. Whether Japan will modernize its obscenity rules—or continue to let judges define the boundaries—remains an open question. For now, the FC2 case has drawn a clear line in the sand, one that may shape the country’s digital future.
