James,
As we talked about before, we over at TPR are of the opinion that it’s numbers 1 to 3, especially 3.

Mr. Akiyama made no mention of the bullying being a particular problem, but it seemed pretty clear that he was worried about it being public, which is pretty much what MEXT has been saying.

This is kind of bittersweet, as this e-mail is damning evidence of the points I made a few weeks ago.

Furthermore, who is the secuirty chief for the Hokkaido school board to make such a demand? Who is he to interpret human rights violations? Are these things not the domain of the law and, hence, judges?

He quoted no law and gave no reasons, just lobbed a vague threat based on vague reasoning at you. Hell, he didn’t even have the decency to find out what your name was, which would have taken about ten seconds.

While we posted the same videos at roughly the same time and got no such e-mail, I have a feeling that you are not alone in being harrassed. You may be alone in not caving, though, for which you should be proud.

- Garrett of ＜a href=”http://www.transpacificradio.com/”>太平洋横断放送

I can’t see the YouTube links from my site, but since the YouTube content has been removed, I do remember that the thumbs are as unrecognisable as the average pixelly blur on TV programs.

I believe he may be correct about the human rights (or the law relating to minors?) aspect, but since this is a news site, does the public interest trump that? I like your reply, and I wouldn’t change a thing here.

Thailand TV news cannot really affect the life of a Hokkaido schoolkid, so bringing it up seems like a red herring.

I reckon a combination of 1) and 2) are the reason for his lack of follow-up.

PS: I’ll post about it tonight!

PPS: http://digg.com/world_news/Hokkaido_School_Board_tries_to_censor_the_Internet

James,

What I see here is a lack of follow through. Akiyama sent you vague threats with no quoting of an actual statuate. If the student’s human rights were an issue, his parents would be writing to you.

Akiyama is trying to cover up the fact that his principals are incompetent. This is about PR, not the kids. If this were about the kids, you would have heard a reply. I find it personally offensive that prefectural level officials are wasting our tax money to cover up thier inability to do their jobs.

A quick phone call to the Hokkaido BOE can take care of number 4 on your list, and I’m sure there are some spare JETs floating around in there who could handle interpretation, if you needed it. And how did they find out about Japanprobe, anyway?

tarbash,

From a foreigner in the office?

We’ve had TONS of google search hits from related search terms like, “hokkaido bully youtube.” Many of them have awkward non-native phrasing. Some don’t, though. But we haven’t received an email yet, which leads me to believe that western journalists may be working something up.

Thanks for the digg submit, Ken Y-N!

tarbash:
I suppose I could have called the number he provided, but that would have revealed my indentity. If you want to call and confirm, I can provide you with the phone number.

Has to be a cover up. If this was really about the student, the parents would’ve been involved. Personally I think exposing bullying would benefit the student(and other victims) involved more than trying to remove the images from websites.

CKX, I think you’re right, especially since, by posting the video, it’s clear the bullies had no intention of keeping their behavior a secret, rather they were proud of it. Another video, this one of the girl involved in the bullying singing karaoke and, possibly drunk, acting like an ass, made the rounds of YouTube as well. What new act of rage spreading the video would provoke is unclear.

James, if Akiyama ever gets back to you, ask him what, if anything, was done to the bullies who were so kind as to remove the video from the website on which they’d posted it.

While I support James’ reaction, googling the news, I have found that it is not the case that Akiyama tried to cover it up. It is rather that school was accused by the media that school didn’t tried to cover the video up

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E7%99%BD%E9%99%B5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH2SSo_M1sI

School was aware that the video was on the Internet.
School did not do anything about it.
The media blamed the school for it.

The reasons seem to be as follows.

(1)The boy who was bullied might get another bully by this video.

(2)The boys who were just looking at the incident and the boys who bulled him might get bullied from other section of society. (You guys bullied him, you are bad boys!! ….)

(3)The privacy of the boy was bullied.

(4)The privacy of the boys who bullied him.(The Juvenile Act article 60)

(5)As an educator who is responsible for the students in question, the school should have taken care of it.

Ponta,

I can completely understand why they would want to shut down the website that the bullies used to post their own videos and amuse themselves, and if the videos were still on YouTube, I would have removed them from my post. However, the videos were removed from YouTube sometime around November 12/13, so Mr. Akiyama has a pretty weak case against my post.

Okay, I reread akiyam’s letter. He was talking about the blurred images. Hmm.I wonder why. It might be officialism.
Any video or image, however it is blurred, if it is the image of
the boys in question, should be deleted.
I can ask him if you want me to and if you give me his phone number.

ponta_at_oocidentalism@yahoo.co.jp

Ponta, I’ve been digging through the 2001 revision of the Juvenile Act and have two questions: were you referring to article 60 or paragraph 60, which enjoins officials to protect children?

A blurry image of a minor does not seem to violate the law. The names and likenesses of minors may not be released, but nowhere in the law does it say that the silhouettes of minors involved in news-related events cannot be broadcast or distributed. Minors are routinely quoted on TV with their faces blurred and voices distorted – sometimes discussing bullying.

If there is any problem with what Japan Probe or TPR did, it would be related to the consent of the victim and it would be an ethical, not a legal issue. In other words, if the distribution of the videos caused discomfort for the victim, there would be an argument that they should not be distributed. The bullies, while minors, made and publicly distributed the videos, so, faces blurred and names witheld to avoid legal trouble, I see no ethical quandary whatsoever in doing something that may cause embarrassment or hardship to the bullies – even without considering their actions.

Furthermore, the “chief of the School Security and Health Section at the Hokkaido Board of Education in Japan” has no authority to do anything more than make a request – the fact that he mentioned “in Japan” a few times, makes it sound like he thought he was addressing a blogger who was not in Japan, which blows a massive hole in his secondary-abuse idea. It also shows that he must have known he had no authority to make the request he made.
He cited no law and gave no explanation as to how or why Japan Probe’s linking to the videos, even if they had been visible, would adversely affect any student.

What seems far more likely, given the actions of school boards across Japan and the comments of Education Minister Ibuki, is that officials would like to see the problem disappear because it would be troublesome to deal with it and embarrassing to admit that they didn’t know how.

The language of the letter is vague and speaks of vague negative consequences, which is the lingo of government agencies and companies throughout Japan when they make unreasonable requests to cover their own asses, but want to make it seem as though they are trying to do something good. It’s doublespeak and should be given no credence.

My guess is that Japan Probe received a filled-in form letter and that James is not going to get a reply anytime soon.

To address your points above:
1) Possible, but unlikely. How many high school students in Hokkaido are going to come to Japan Probe, recognize the victim, and decide to start bullying him because of the video. It’s implausible.

2) Honestly, no one should shed a tear over the idea of people who would film themselves tormenting someone smaller and weaker, then publicize it getting bullied. They have it coming and then some. However, it is unlikely. Highly, highly unlikely.

3) The victim’s privacy was violated when the bullies filmed his maltreatment and posted it to websites. By the time the videos reached Thai national TV the images were far too obscured to identify the people in them. The bullies faces are better known, not because of these videos, but because of a video of the girl in a karaoke booth that she publicized.

4) See 3. Again, please clarify – a link? – on Juvenile Act article 60.

5) You’re absoutely right, but we can see from Mr. Akiyama’s e-mail how likely that is. The schools don’t seem to know what to do or how to do it. Even under ideal circumstances, they are getting very little help from Boards of Education or MEXT. Under more realistic circumstances, schools don’t seem to want to protect the children if it means making difficult decisions. We’ve already seen the refusal of school boards to dismiss teachers who bully students.

We read the opinion of Mr. James on December 11th. Because we haven’t received an E-mail from you, we cannot answer you. For this reason, we, the Hokkaido Board of Education, are sending our opinion directly to your blog.
Recently, the problem of bullying for students, and the wave of students suicides, is an important matter all over Japan.
In this situation, a bullying movie taken at Hokkaido Sapporo Hakuryo High School can be seen on your web site. We feel that we have to protect this student’s privacy, and are afraid that further bullying could occur. The Hokkaido Board of Education has asked you to delete the movie for this reason. We would like you to delete the bullying movie only, not to delete the site or the content itself.

Hokkaido board of Education:

I sent an email to the address you wrote me from, kyoiku.sports1@pref.hokkaido.lg.jp, on November 28, 2006. It is the same e-mail address from which you sent me the mail I posted here. Apparently you are completely clueless, as you:

1) Claim to have never recieved my e-mail reply, which I sent directly to the address you used to write me
2) still think there are movies that need to be deleted (As I have stated in this post, the movies are already deleted from YouTube). The movies cannot be seen on my website, as they have already been deleted. The only images that remain are too blurry to make out any of the students involved.

Please search your e-mail inbox and find the mail I sent you on November 28, 2006.

Hi Garrett
I am sorry I was late in responding.
I noticed your comment today.
I was calling Hokkaido Boad to ask it to explain the message to Japan probe. I wondered what is the point of covering up the story when the incident has been already known. The result of my calling (twice—last week and today) is the above comment by Akiyama. I asked him to send the message to James and explain the intention of his message.

I am afraid you misunderstand my point.
My point is, if I may repeat, I don’t understand why the boad wanted to cover up the story when the incident was well known.
My guess is that it was the result of the officialsm;because the school was criticized for
leaving the vide accessable, the next thing to do is to delete all the trace of the video uniformly to avoid the criticism.
I think my guess is still correct.

As for you your addressing my point, my point was summing up the criticism againt the school leaving the video on the net. It is not reason for the blurred image on Japan probe to be deleted. I also asked the boad why the blurred image should be deleted.

As for the Juvenile act, to be exact it was the artcle 61

“第六十一条
　家庭裁判所の審判に付された少年又は少年のとき犯した罪により公訴を提起された者については、氏名、年齢、職業、住居、容ぼう等によりその者が当該事件の本人であることを推知することができるような記事又は写真を新聞紙その他の出版物に掲載してはならない。”
It is about the boy and girl who are prosecuted, but the point may extend over the case of the boy who are not prosecuted.
And there was a rather famous case.
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/ja/opinion/statement/060914.html
(The media reaction was what is wrong with publicizing it.)

I hope that answered your question.