【The story so far】

In September 2019, the nationwide road show of the movie "Miyamoto to you" began, and with the enthusiastic performances centered on the leading actors such as Sosuke Ikematsu and Yu Aoi, it has become a work that is expected to receive various movie awards. rice field.

However, starting with the arrest of the performer Pierre Taki for violating the drug control law in March 2019, many events were happening behind the scenes until the movie was released.

In July 2019, despite the provisional decision to grant a subsidy from the independent administrative agency "Japan Arts Council (Geibunshin)" under the jurisdiction of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, in July 2019 The decision was made not to grant the grant due to ambiguous criteria that were not stipulated in the subsidy grant guidelines or the law at the time. This is due to the fact that Pierre Taki, a performer, was arrested for violating the drug control law.

[Impact of non-issuance decision]

As a result of the continued suspension of the decision not to grant the grant, it was not possible to carry out promotional activities.

Fortunately, "Miyamoto to you" was released as planned, but I think it was quite possible that it could not be released due to the non-delivery of the subsidy.

"Casting" in movies is a big part of expression.

This time, the fact that the subsidy was not granted due to the fact that the scene in which a specific performer appeared was not deleted or retaken by Geibunshin, an affiliated organization of the government, is a major intervention by the government regarding freedom of expression. can be said to have done

From March to July 2019, there were exchanges regarding the granting of grants with the Japan Arts Council, an independent administrative agency. It has evolved to the point where it can be done.

[Problem location]

"Freedom of expression" is stipulated in Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and this decision by Geibunshin is the same as depriving "freedom of expression." This problem also has a negative impact on the right to live a "cultural" life (Article 25(1) of the Constitution). And this will affect not only the movie industry, but also the arts and culture field in general, the mass media industry, and even university researchers' scientific research grants (subsidies related to "academic freedom" in Article 23 of the Constitution). may affect

This non-issuance disposition was done from a completely different point of view from the point of view of culture and art. In other words, the government decided not to issue the grant based on the point of view of "prevention of drug abuse" that has nothing to do with culture and art, which is completely different from a professional point of view. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and the police may be able to make expert judgments on drug abuse, but Geibunshin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, cannot make such judgments.

In the first place, the grounds for administrative discretion is that it is possible to make professional judgments, but it is also OK that the administration can freely consider and emphasize matters outside its specialty and decide whether or not to issue subsidies or subsidies. In the future, the government will use taxes to investigate and find out any scandals or events that are inconvenient to citizens or organizations that apply for subsidies, etc., with various reasons. It is fully expected that they will give a reason and make a decision not to issue. That way, we can focus on things outside our field of expertise, so we can decide whether to grant or not grant grants for scientific research, and even administrative personnel issues (such as the issue of the Science Council of Japan). The range of the harmful effects of the will expand.

For example, even if a researcher has excellent academic achievements, if he or she makes comments that are considered to be lacking in dignity in matters other than the academic point of view, they will be granted KAKENHI etc. for that reason. In some cases, the decision not to issue it to the researcher may also be legal. If that happens, citizens and organizations that seek to receive assistance and subsidies from the government for the arts and academics will find it difficult to criticize the government. You will be forced to cower and go about your work and life in fear of inappropriate (or what might be called) behavior. In other words, if the decision not to grant this time is legally permitted, the above-mentioned "withering effect" as its impact will be very large. The world will atrophy and become a very difficult Japanese society to live in.

From the above, it is definitely not a problem for us who are producing and distributing this movie.

The 10 million yen that was not granted is also a big one. However, not only that, but I had no choice but to stand up against the fact that "freedom of expression" was neglected.

[Use of funds]

① Necessary expenses for filing a lawsuit (stamps, postage stamps, etc.) / 150,000 yen

② Transportation expenses for witnesses/50,000 yen

③ Opinion fee / 500,000 yen

④ Attorney's fee／¥200,000

⑤ Other (holding of symposium, etc.) / 1,100,000 yen

[Message from Plaintiff]

The tyranny of the prime minister's office, which tramples on democracy, knows no bounds.

Now, an abnormal situation is occurring in which nationalism that prioritizes the "nation" over the "people" is spreading everywhere.

And that atmosphere has finally permeated the field of culture and art.

Japan is now at a crossroads between whether it will become a society that respects diversity and individuality, or whether it will become a unified, inconvenient and intolerant society with pressure to conform.

I decided to fight because I hope that this lawsuit against illegal and unconstitutional dispositions by Geibunshin will encourage many people to think about the "Constitution" that protects us, and that each individual will face it head-on without turning their backs on it. did.

*As of July 12, 2022, the plaintiff's representative director was changed to Yuri Date following the death of Mitsuyoshi Kawamura, who served as the plaintiff's representative director.

[Message from the attorney in charge]

The government's decision to grant or not grant subsidies based on the issue of the performers, which are the constituent elements of the film, means that the government is involved in the "content" of the film's expression. Based on this concern, in Europe and the United States, based on the idea that a certain "distance" must be kept between the administration and the expression, an expert is always placed between the administration and the expression, and the judgment of the expert is used. cultural arts subsidies are provided. However, this time, although the Geibunshin consulted with experts (expert organizations) at the stage of the offer and made a provisional decision, it did not consult with the experts at the final stage of granting or not granting. Secondly, based on the ambiguous criteria of ``from the viewpoint of the public interest,'' the president decided not to grant the subsidy. If such a decision were to be accepted, the government would be able to substantially intervene in the content of expressions through the issuance or non-issuance of subsidies, and I believe that it cannot be overlooked.

The government's decision to grant or not grant subsidies based on the issue of the performers, which are the constituent elements of the film, means that the government is involved in the "content" of the film's expression. Based on this concern, in Europe and the United States, based on the idea that a certain "distance" must be kept between the administration and the expression, an expert is always placed between the administration and the expression, and the judgment of the expert is used. cultural arts subsidies are provided. However, this time, although the Geibunshin consulted with experts (expert organizations) at the stage of the offer and made a provisional decision, it did not consult with the experts at the final stage of granting or not granting. Secondly, based on the ambiguous criteria of ``from the viewpoint of the public interest,'' the president decided not to grant the subsidy. If such a decision were to be accepted, the government would be able to substantially intervene in the content of expressions through the issuance or non-issuance of subsidies, and I believe that it cannot be overlooked.

If the court recognizes the legality of this decision not to grant the subsidy, there is no doubt that it will have a large "withering effect" on various expressive activities such as culture and art in the future. We ask for your support for the sound development of all cultural and artistic activities in the future and for the protection of our freedom of expression.

[Introduction of the attorney in charge]

Takashi Shinomiya, Daini Tokyo Bar Association, E&R Law & Accounting Office (Leader of Legal Team)

Makoto Ito, Tokyo Bar Association Hogakukan Law Office

Yusuke Taira, Tokyo Bar Association, Eisei Sogo Law Office

Yu Iseki, Tokyo Bar Association, Akabane, Iseki, Honda Law Office

Hikaru Akiyama, Daini Tokyo Bar Association, E&R Law & Accounting Office

Keisuke Tanahashi, Tokyo Bar Association, Frontier Law Office

(Contact) Yusuke Taira

If we accept that the subsidy that we had been offered will be rejected based on the extremely ambiguous criteria of ``from the viewpoint of the public interest,'' then there will be a big ``witherment'' in all forms of expression, including film, in Japan in the future. I felt that there was a possibility that it would have an effect, and I thought that this trend had to be stopped.

However, since it involves important issues of constitutional law and administrative law, Shinomiya, the head of the legal team, consulted with Attorney Makoto Ito, who is well-known as an authority on the constitution, to join the legal team, and he readily agreed. After that, lawyers Yusuke Taira, Yu Iseki, and Keisuke Tanahashi, who are also researchers of administrative law, participated in the trial, and I was convinced that I could fight with this, so I officially accepted the position.

[Request for cooperation]

At the root of the decision not to grant subsidies for the movie "Miyamoto to you", there is widespread nationalism that desecrates democracy and now prioritizes the "state" over the "people". We are now at a crossroads between whether Japan will become a society that respects diversity and individuals, or whether it will become a society that is centralized, inconvenient, and intolerant of peer pressure.

This lawsuit against illegal and unconstitutional dispositions by Geibunshin will make many people think about the "constitution" that protects us, and it will be an opportunity for each and every individual to face it head-on instead of turning their backs on it. I hope so.

Since we won the first instance, the appeal was very important, and it was a trial that will have an important impact in the future. Despite this, the case was reversed due to a literal unfair ruling based on the personal opinion of presiding judge Tetsu Adachi (the 7th civil division of the Tokyo High Court).

I have doubts about the current judicial system and the qualifications of judges, and I strongly felt that we should be vigilant about the attitude of the administration itself.

On the other hand, there are judges such as Chief Judge Chieko Shimizu (51st Division, Civil Division, Tokyo District Court), who wrote the judgment of the first instance, making justifiable judgments that try to protect the principles of the Constitution, and the judiciary is still alive and well. It is a situation that there is. However, if the appellate court ruling, which is the exact opposite of that and should not be allowed to remain, would pose a serious problem not only for the protection of the human rights of citizens, but also for the Japanese judiciary.

In addition, this lawsuit has attracted the attention of many researchers of constitutional and administrative law, and in fact, we have already received responses from several researchers asking them to write their opinions on the final appeal and petition for acceptance of the final appeal. doing.

Thank you for your support and enthusiastic expression of your intentions through the support of crowdfunding.