Article 19 of the Constitution of Japan, which states, “Freedom of thought and conscience shall not be violated,” guarantees freedom of thought, a historically significant right due to its absence in the previous 1889 Imperial Constitution and subsequent suppression of ideologies like communism and anti-imperialism. Post-Second World War reforms led to its explicit inclusion in the 1946 Constitution. Although there are not many lawsuits regarding whether government acts or statutes violate this right is into question, the Japanese Supreme Court (SCJ) has said something about the right. The SCJ has ruled that it primarily protects a person’s world vision or life view but does not cover all mental activities. The SCJ has identified both direct (e.g., compulsion to hold or confess specific thoughts) and indirect restrictions (e.g., a compulsion to school teachers to stand up and sing the national anthem at school ceremonies such as entrance and graduation), with some restrictions deemed constitutional if justified. In this sense, Freedom of thought is not absolute in Japan. The SCJ also addresses the balance of interests in private relations, acknowledging the indirect effect of constitutional rights.

The identity of the Japanese Constitution of 1946 is defined by the unusual story of its making process. This constitution was already born with both internal and external disharmony. The new constitution fundamentally changed the former constitution of the Meiji regime; however, it did not replace the former imperial constitution but revised it by using its amendment clause. The continuity between the former and latter regimes was disconnected in a substantive sense but maintained in a procedural sense. This is the internal disharmony. This twisted legal inconsistency can often arise in hard times after losing a war, but it was of grave concern to Japanese legal scholars who tried to justify such legalistic chaos as the “August Revolution.” Nevertheless, it was not the new constitution itself that brought about the revolutionary impact, but the Potsdam Declaration as a condition of surrender imposed by the Allied Forces on the Japanese Government. The Constitution of Japan was not unjustly imposed by the Allied Forces but was legitimately imposed by the Potsdam Declaration, which the Japanese Government itself accepted upon its defeat in the war. More precisely, it is a constitution based on an imposed revolution. This is the external disharmony.

The twenty-four accessible and thought-provoking essays in this volume present innovative new scholarship on Japan’s modern history, including its imperial past and transregional entanglements. Drawing on the latest Japanese and English-language scholarship, it highlights Japan’s distinctiveness as an extraordinarily fast-changing place. Indeed, Japan provides a ringside seat to all the big trends of modern history. Japan was the first non-Western society to become a modern nation and empire, to industrialize, to wage modern war on a vast scale, and to deliver a high standard of living to virtually all its citizens. Because the Japanese so determinedly acted to reshape global hierarchies, their modern history was incredibly destabilizing for the world. This intense dynamism has powered a variety of debates and conflicts, both at home and with people and places beyond Japan’s shores. Put simply, Japan has packed a lot of history into less than two centuries.

The twenty-four accessible and thought-provoking essays in this volume present innovative new scholarship on Japan’s modern history, including its imperial past and transregional entanglements. Drawing on the latest Japanese and English-language scholarship, it highlights Japan’s distinctiveness as an extraordinarily fast-changing place. Indeed, Japan provides a ringside seat to all the big trends of modern history. Japan was the first non-Western society to become a modern nation and empire, to industrialize, to wage modern war on a vast scale, and to deliver a high standard of living to virtually all its citizens. Because the Japanese so determinedly acted to reshape global hierarchies, their modern history was incredibly destabilizing for the world. This intense dynamism has powered a variety of debates and conflicts, both at home and with people and places beyond Japan’s shores. Put simply, Japan has packed a lot of history into less than two centuries.

The twenty-four accessible and thought-provoking essays in this volume present innovative new scholarship on Japan’s modern history, including its imperial past and transregional entanglements. Drawing on the latest Japanese and English-language scholarship, it highlights Japan’s distinctiveness as an extraordinarily fast-changing place. Indeed, Japan provides a ringside seat to all the big trends of modern history. Japan was the first non-Western society to become a modern nation and empire, to industrialize, to wage modern war on a vast scale, and to deliver a high standard of living to virtually all its citizens. Because the Japanese so determinedly acted to reshape global hierarchies, their modern history was incredibly destabilizing for the world. This intense dynamism has powered a variety of debates and conflicts, both at home and with people and places beyond Japan’s shores. Put simply, Japan has packed a lot of history into less than two centuries.

The Constitution of Japan, enacted in 1946, protects freedom of expression in its article 21. If the legislature were to enact a ban on hate speech, then the constitutionality of that ban would become a critical issue. In light of the jurisprudence relating to freedom of expression established by the Supreme Court of Japan, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of any such ban. However, constitutional academics have constructed an alternative freedom of expression jurisprudence mainly following that of the Supreme Court of United States. Under this alternative jurisprudence, it becomes much more difficult to uphold the constitutionality of any such ban, and this chapter considers whether and how such ban might be justified in Japan.