Legal hurdles keep high-profile rape victim's film off Japan screens

They’re still trying to silence this woman.

security footage of her being dragged into a hotel by her assailant 

This is a film that should be seen. And that security footage of Ito being dragged out of the taxi and into the Sheridan Miyako Hotel by Yamaguchi is very compelling! Moreover, the taxi driver and hotel doorman corroborated her account!

Ito's former lawyer and others who represented her in the high-profile case have said the 35-year-old broke a pledge to protect sources by using unauthorized security footage and audio in her film "Black Box Diaries" -- criticizing her for not getting approval from the parties involved to use the content.

How about letting that dumb detail go and spending more time criticizing... the man who raped her.

a police detective who spoke frankly with Ito about her criminal case

The detective’s comments were very enlightening. 

Viewers may be shocked to learn that four police who had been sent to Narita Airport to arrest Yamaguchi after his arrival were ordered to stand down outside the airport at the last minute by the Tokyo police chief, who afterward was promoted to lead the National Police Agency.

The film gives a good glimpse of powerful people in Japan’s government and security protecting powerful people in the media at the likely expense of a regular citizen.

Japanese institutional patriarchal corruption and manipulation of the law to protect 'the boys'.

That's what they don't want stopped, or uncovered.

Go Shiori San - kick 'em hard.

In October 2024, Nishihiro and others held a press conference in which they state that Ito's unauthorized use of the security footage, submitted by the hotel as a court document for her civil lawsuit, violated a pledge to not use it for any purpose other than the trial.

I sympathize with this woman. But she should not have violated her pledge. That's a big no no im Japan, especially to those who helped you. Unlike other countries, a lot of agreements are not actually written down and the honor system of keeping your word is still important. She should've listened to her lawyer, at the very least he is the one guy we all know is on her side.

I sympathize with the victim but she does seem to have made a career out of it, to the point that she is now being looked on negatively.

If she is just interested in getting her message out, put it out on YouTube or other streaming services.

I have a feeling there is a monetary motive behind all this as well, hidden under the guise of the crime.

The detective in charge of Ito's case explained to her that he had obtained an arrest warrant for Yamaguchi on a "quasi-rape" charge but was unable to execute it.

"Quasi rape"? What the hell is that? And no reason for why he was unable to execute the warrant? Sounds like more coverup and BS.

I would expect that, after the Nakai-Fuji TV scandal (and others), the film industry will be more courageous.

People trying hard to stop the film from being shown have probably never heard about the Streisand effect. I have heard people that became interested in the film and the whole story precisely because it has such a difficult time getting a space to be shown in public.

I sympathize with the victim but she does seem to have made a career out of it, to the point that she is now being looked on negatively.

It would be natural to think that, for her, calling attention to the crimes she was subjected is more important that being looked on positively.

@CAPTAIN

I can understand a local hotel manager not wanting the public to know that his accommodation was the site of a crime, but the greater good of the public supersedes by helping to publicize and eliminate crimes like this.

And I’m certain Sheraton’s global HQ in New York and its parent, Marriott International, would agree. They don’t want this garbage happening at their hotels.

Hopefully, the local Sheraton manager, who stopped the doorman from phoning the police and reporting this incident on the night of the alleged rape, has been made redundant.

In Australian defamation law, truth is a defence for naming people and events.

Obviously not in Japan

Truth and the expression of such truth is not always the first consideration in Japan it seems

I definitely want to see the documentary but here again, pressures to shut her mouth is everywhere. Streaming will be the solution and impact could be stronger, just a question of time. Fight Mrs Ito!

In this case, moral trumps any legal persuit. I wish them all the best in their fight to bring the rapist to justice.

Disgusting. I wonder if she could sell it to a streaming service and have it viewed that way.

Japan should be ashamed of itself for refusing to release Black Box Diaries in their local cinemas. Not only is the reluctance to screen the documentary extremely telling but the fact that it's been nominated for an Oscar and there's been no? coverage or congratulations for this honour is another very telling sign of them attempting to pretend Ms. Ito and her case doesn't exist. Not that it's going to work; the documentary has already made its rounds at popular and notable film festivals around the world last year, and did I mention it's been nominated for an Oscar? That alone is going to get the documentary a ton of media coverage. The international spotlight is shining very brightly on this case and Japan had better buck up and get ready to eat crow when they can no longer stick their heads in the sand.

I sympathize with the victim but she does seem to have made a career out of it, to the point that she is now being looked on negatively.

She's only being "looked on negatively" in Japan. Elsewhere, she's being hailed a hero for taking a stand, reporting the heinous crime, and taking the perpetrator to court. She was also already a journalist before all this happened and she decided to report on her own story because no other Japanese media outlets, newspapers, or journalists had the guts to do so. Even her family wanted her to keep mum and there's a gut-wrenching scene of her on the phone to her parents about this. In end, she chose justice. Her high-profile case will hopefully give women in similar situations in Japan the courage to come forward and put their perpetrators behind bars.

Only two things that I can get out of this. The first is don't drink to the point that you lose good judgment or worse, black out. Second, if she was your daughter, what would you do?

Japanese law at it's best - yet again.

I sympathize with this woman. But she should not have violated her pledge. That's a big no no im Japan, especially to those who helped you. Unlike other countries, a lot of agreements are not actually written down and the honor system of keeping your word is still important.

If the restriction is not specifically stipulated in a court order signed by a judge then there is no restriction.

dbsaiya - point re drinking too much - she claims she was drugged.

Others have reported similar suspicions.

And re the Academy Awards.

Japan loves to see it's artists/creators represented on the world stage.

The recent "Drive my car" and a while back "Departures" were fanatically celebrated here for their Oscar wins - as they should have been - excellent movies.

And all of the accolades on Ghibli anime were deserved and celebrated.

So this time round - with an Academy award nomination for Black Box Diaries - the silence is deafening.

Regardless of whether it's shown here or not - the media should have picked up the story in a Big Way - both the movie itself and the fame it's enjoying overseas. That would not have compromised any so called "legal" questions.

But no.

Can only be too pressured or too scared to act. Who has that power?

A real shame all round.

dbsaiyaToday 08:51 am JST

Only two things that I can get out of this. The first is don't drink to the point that you lose good judgment or worse, black out.

She didn't drink until blacking out. He drugged her drink.

Second, if she was your daughter, what would you do?

Honestly? I would have tracked that guy down myself. He'd be damn sorry when I did.

They sound more like the lawyers for the culprit than her lawyers.

The hotel, taxi driver and police officer feel the complicity as well for their tacit acceptance that a crime was committed / allowed to go unpunished under their eyes. They should have no rights for privacy.

A crime was committed and justice obstructed, ALL THE WORLD SHOULD BE ALLOWED to know ALL about it without protecting ANYONE.

Funny how J-police is hell bent and relentless in pursuing petty crime, or illegal aliens or CEO's accused by their firms of overpaying themselves yet get all flimsy and clumsy when dealing with sexual assault.

Truth does not need to be constrained by a pledge. This is what happened and everyone involved, directly or indirectly has to deal with it. Maybe hotels need to stop accepting people dragging other people into hotel rooms. Maybe taxi drivers need to deny service as well. Maybe it should be a red flag when a woman is wasted and the man is not. Maybe a police force should know better than just be a fasade and actually protect the victims, maybe society needs to be intolerant and uncaring towards culprits and not towards victims.

(granted with Japanese justice, innocence is not assumed but needs to be proven, so that hurdle still exists, so everybody needs to be very careful not to be guilty by being at the wrong pace wrong time, but that is not the point here, this is talking when guilt is clear).

Show the damn thing everywhere. Let those that need to and have to be ashamed, be ashamed.

What’s at issue is how evidence submitted to court should be used outside court. Ms Itoh could have consulted with her former lawyer before releasing it in her film,

MeiyouwentiToday  10:25 am JST

What’s at issue is how evidence submitted to court should be used outside court. Ms Itoh could have consulted with her former lawyer before releasing it in her film,

I have no real knowledge here. So, inm Japan, isn't all court evidence considered public domain? Unless there is an NDA, I would believe all court evidence enters the public domain (in some way or another), so journalist and the public can openly request it, or it is released. I would like to think.

The arguments against her using the hotel security video evidence of her being dragged into to the hotel are fragile at best. That very action by the perpretator would accentuate the effect on audiences of the brutality of that sort of crime.

The documentary can be seen on Amazon Prime Video if you have a U.S. account and use a VPN.

“The truth shall set you free.”

John 8:32

Disappointed but not surprised…

dbsaiya

Only two things that I can get out of this.

The first is don't drink to the point that you lose good judgment or worse, black out.

Second, if she was your daughter, what would you do?

You forgot "Three, don't rape anyone".

Actually, that should be #1.

Just shameful.

Anytime the word "Abe" is mentioned, nothing good comes out of it. Once again, he was involved in another cover-up.

Nothing will come out of this. Look at that Johnnys case that went on for years that the pedo died of old age before being persecuted. Or that ex-politician that raped a 12yr old in a karaoke box that got away with a suspended sentence after he apologize and settled with the victims family. How about that ex-SMAP guy who paid the victim 90million Yen that it went under the rug only until it was exposed by some tabloid reporter.

I think there is a simple way around this if Ito could fund a re-enactment of the dragging from the taxi into the hotel scene and re-enactments of the interviews in question. Then, a note in the Japanese release of the film that these events actually happened but because of Japanese domestic societial restrictions, the Japanese release contains re-enactments only for the dragging and interviews, but that they are true to the actual footage.

Funny how Shinzo Abe ordered the arrest warrant for Yamaguchi be withdrawn two weeks before a book about him written by Yamaguchi was due to be released.

Where's the legal hurdle? I did not see any mention if injunction in the article.

Two stories here, the first is the drug rape of Ito and the second is very powerful people closing ranks to defend the perp. This second story obstructed justice in the first story.

This begs the question of what was so special about the perp to Abe or some Abe lackey. Given the Abe scandal/fiasco with that right wing school in Osaka on public land, maybe it just is the "biographer" angle and such people's complete impunity to the law. Why did the state (Abe didn't do this alone) go this far to protect the perp, especially given that the victim was herself a journalist unlikely to go quietly?

It is likely that women trafficked to Epstein Island were raped by powerful people with government protection. So this isn't just a Japan thing. We still haven't been told who went there.

I can understand the criticism for the information on the taxi driver. She should have his permission. He probably fears retribution.

As for the video, she has every right to include it. I think she was too generous.

Moreover, I did not use it as is in the film but altered it (to show nothing) except for my own body movements."

She should have showed it in its entirety.

There are TV shows in Japan that show videos from all around the world. Sometimes there is a crime shown in the video. Her video is the same.

Where's the criminal charges?

Where's the legal hurdle? I did not see any mention if injunction in the article.

It is mentioned explicitly:

"For the film to be released in Japan, it should be edited so that it does not use footage from the hotel and does not include audio of the police officer," Tsukuda added.

This is the legal argument Nishihiro is using to stop the film from being shown. If you can prove this is not a valid legal hurdle you can get in contact with Ito and give her the arguments.

@Desert TortoiseToday 08:58 am JST

If the restriction is not specifically stipulated in a court order signed by a judge then there is no restriction.

That's actually wrong. If we accept the premise that such a pledge was made in exchange for receiving information, even verbally, then there is a contract involved - and Ito broke the terms. This is what the lawyer is pointing out.

It also makes you wonder what sex fiend Masahiro Nakai and his debaucherous cohorts have been getting up to for years. Luring and entrapping unsuspecting young women into heinous sexual assault encounters behind closed doors and then paying them to keep quiet.

Ito's former lawyer and others who represented her in the high-profile case have said the 35-year-old broke a pledge to protect sources by using unauthorized security footage and audio in her film "Black Box Diaries" -- criticizing her for not getting approval from the parties involved to use the content.

If there's a legal issue of course the theatres won't be inclined to show the movie

influential friends, including then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

If there is anything suspect or shady about any of this those words explain it all.

It's nothing but abuse of power that suddenly and reasonlessly canceled arrest against biographor of the then PM.

Besides, government has even promoted its responsible person as rewards despite injustice.

Women of Japan. It is time for a change. Do not accept an existence in a male dominated society. Insist on your rights. Stand up to discrimination, condescending attitudes, and social customs that unfairly favored the male species. In western societies, there are more females than males in undergraduate and post graduate studies. Many women run police departments, prosecutorial positions and judicial tribunals. Many of the leading surgeons and scientists are women. Now is the time to rise up.

The case of Shiori Ito is confusing, as various judges in Japan in various penal and civil trials over years came to totally different conclusions. Both of them, Ito and Yamaguchi, filed lawsuits not only against each other, but also lawsuits against other people who disagreed with their statements related to their case.

Noriyuki Yamaguchi was acting stupidly. He should have helped her back to the hotel entrance and ask the staff to bring her to her room and say good bye.

About the film, I see no reason why it should not be released as it is.

People in Japan who want to see it should be allowed to see it and make up their own opinion about it.

Even if not allowed in Japanese cinemas, it can be seen uncensored via internet or ordering a DVD from somewhere abroad anyway.

This is going to be really unpopular, but I just want to play the Devil's advocate here and ask a few questions about this situation.

Being that I haven't seen the documentary, maybe this has already been discussed at length, but:

Did she get an examination done immediately after leaving the hotel in the morning to prove she had been raped? In other words, was a rape kit done on her medically so she had that evidence to support that sex had even occurred between her and the accused?

Is it possible that the sex was consensual and this woman has some other agenda for going on such a campaign to accuse Yamaguchi of raping her? I mean, there is no actual evidence of her being raped other than her word and a security video that shows her being dragged into a hotel... but she was inebriated and we don't know the nature, really, of that whole exchange. I've helped female friends before that couldn't even stand on their feet because they were so drunk... to an outsider who doesn't know my relationship to my friends, that might look pretty incriminating, right?

I am bringing this up also because Ito has already proven herself to be a liar. She promised to not use that footage and then used it, therefore showing us she's capable of lying in order to get what she wants.

Also, there is no real mental health services in Japan... I've met many several Japanese women who, if you do something that they feel has slighted them, will reign down a hellstorm on you forever, in order to feel a sense of justice has been served, all perpetuated by obsessive compulsive disorder issues that go unchecked in a country that doesn't even allow proper pain medication to exist, let alone actual acute psychiatric care.

If Ito was raped, then I want her to see the justice she deserves and I mean that. But I also want to caution people against just taking her side because she made movie and wrote a book and is going on and on about what happened. That doesn't mean it's true. I hate to say that, and I certainly do not stand with nor advocate that pigs who rape women should get the benefit of the doubt ever, but there is a reason why a legal system exists to defend people... it's so that women and men can't just go around and accuse people of things without evidence. And right now... based off what I have seen and read and heard so far about this situation... it seems like Ito is the one who has lied and also has acted quite suspiciously. And it kills me to say that, but I want to be partial in this situation and not motivated by an emotional reaction in this situation to Ito's case.

I welcome constructive conversation about this topic, and please, no hate. This is Devil's Advocate talk only, to spark discussion.

djv124 - observant points to be considered.

There is a lot of info out there re the background to this sad and sorry saga.

The police were beyond negligent for one - even asking her to re-enact the ordeal with a rubber mannequin - but please check out all the details.

Some of us have been following this story form very early on - it's been almost 10 years.

That she has persevered with her challenge to both the perpetrator Yamaguchi and the archaic system and never once acquiesced gives incredible value to her case.

She has been ostracized, black-mailed, scorned, hated on, physically threatened and her family has suffered so much too.

She could have accepted an out of court settlement long ago, probably for big bucks, but she chose to fight what she saw as great injustices - firstly the rape, then all of the stalling, inactions and cover ups.

As an investigative journalist and proud woman she just couldn't see this as another paid off act and swept under the rug.

If you check on YouTube under Shiori Ito FCCJ (Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan) there are many excellent reports. Also on other sites as well.

@browny1:

Thank you for that information. It's extremely helpful to me. The fact that she didn't settle out of court... maaaaan, that takes real conviction. And I think it's absolutely awful the police would ask her to re-enact a possible rape... that just goes to show how inept Japanese police are and their severe lack of understanding of proper mental health handling of possible rape victims. Unbelievable she had to do that.

Also, it's incredibly sad that anybody would hate on her or ostracize her and her family for her being a possible victim in this situation.

As I said, if she was, in fact, raped, then I want justice for her. I want her story to be told to everybody here in Japan and used as a lesson that the Boys Club here needs shut down for good.

However...

I also have lived here a long time and have met many unstable Japanese women who do incredibly obsessive things (Just ask Chiemi Hori about this). And due process exists for this very reason, among others. So I want to make sure that people definitely look at the situation as a whole and make sure all things are considered in this case. And regardless, I think Miss Ito has definitely got a case in another way: Police mishandling and negligence, on their part, of dealing with her. Especially if a rape kit was not done (Does anybody know if it was?).

I deeply hope for the right to come out of this wrong.

It is mentioned explicitly:

No, there is no mention of any court order preventing the film from being shown.

"For the film to be released in Japan, it should be edited so that it does not use footage from the hotel and does not include audio of the police officer," Tsukuda added.

Tsukuda is not a judge and "should" does not have a meaning of mandatory in the legal sense.

This is the legal argument Nishihiro is using to stop the film from being shown.

It is only an argument, which is entirely different from a preliminary injunction, which is understandable as you are not a lawyer.

If you can prove this is not a valid legal hurdle you can get in contact with Ito and give her the arguments.

It's proven.

And even the article gives an opposing argument:

However, Hiroyoshi Sunakawa, a professor of media theory at Rikkyo University, said unauthorized use of images is "permissible in the pursuit of the truth" in some cases.

No, there is no mention of any court order preventing the film from being shown.

Court orders are not he only kind of legal hurdles that can be had, the argument of the lawyers constitute one without problem for the theaters. You have presented no reference where "legal hurdle" can only mean court orders, only your personal belief this is the case, that is not an argument.

Tsukuda is not a judge and "should" does not have a meaning of mandatory in the legal sense.

Which has no importance on it representing a legal hurdle, just your misrepresentation, therefore demonstrating your way of misrepresenting the term is not valid. You refute no one but yourself.

It's proven.

Since you could not even make an argument for this, you have not proven anything.

And even the article gives an opposing argument:

Demonstrate this is one of those "some cases" and inform Ito, else you are agreeing this is not as clear as you want to misrepresent.

dbsaiyaFeb. 10 08:51 am JST

Only two things that I can get out of this. The first is don't drink to the point that you lose good judgment or worse, black out. 

This is for sure a good advice to PREVENT certain crimes IN GENERAL.

Many crimes, from pickpocketing up to rape happen only because the victim, (gender irrelevant) was fully drunk, does not remember anything what is going on around him or her.

In Japanese cities, if you walk around in some nightlife areas during late night, you will see many people, from young girls up to elderly men, hardly able to walk or sleeping in the street.

If something is going wrong to cry later on 'they should not do that to me' will not help you.

To say this is not victim blaming, it is about crime prevention.

girl_in_tokyoFeb. 10 09:45 am JST

She didn't drink until blacking out. He drugged her drink.

This is what she says, however the Japanese high court ordered Ito to pay ¥550,000 to Yamaguchi for damages for defaming him by claiming in her book accusing him of giving her a date rape drug with no evidence. 

Ito appealed this ruling, but on appeal different judges again ordered Itō to pay Yamaguchi ¥550,000 for defamation.

djv124Feb. 11 12:07 pm JST

This is going to be really unpopular, but I just want to play the Devil's advocate here and ask a few questions about this situation.

> I welcome constructive conversation about this topic, and please, no hate. This is Devil's Advocate talk only, to spark discussion.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

The case of Ito/Yamaguchi is a very exceptional confusing case, as various judges of different courts in different trials were unable to agree and came to different conclusions and made contradictionary rulings.

Yamaguchi therefore was never convicted in a criminal court, but ordered to pay compensation in a civil trial.

Legal hurdles keep high-profile rape victim's film off Japan screens

There is no mention of any legal hurdle. This is a commercial matter caused by "theaters in her homeland that are refusing to screen her film due to legal concerns."

Court orders are not he only kind of legal hurdles that can be had,

In a civil matter, court orders are the only legal hurdle.

You have presented no reference where "legal hurdle" can only mean court orders, only your personal belief this is the case, that is not an argument.

It's a personal belief in a reality. Only a court can issue an injunction, but in this case theaters only have concerns. From a legal perspective if a domestic theater did show the film then the theater would only be legally prohibited from further showings if a court issued a preliminary or permanent injunction. Just having lawyers debate among themselves what might or might not happen is not a legal hurdle.

The article is clear about the legal hurdles—some of the footage in the film was recorded covertly and used without permission. Japan’s film distributors and theaters refuse to touch it because they know that they could get sued under Japanese law for showing it.

No, there is no mention of any court order preventing the film from being shown.

You are shifting the standard when you demand mention of a court injunction. An injunction is one kind of legal hurdle, but it’s not the only kind. In this case, distributors and theaters know the law, and they are refusing to screen the film because they know that an injunction and possibly a costly payout might result if they attempted to show it. A injunction can’t be filed until someone tries to show the film. There is no injunction yet because no one has tried to show the film. No one has tried to show the film because they fear that threat.

So, yeah, that’s absolutely a legal hurdle. The law binds the hands of distributors and theaters, who opt not to show the film rather than face legal repercussions.

There is no mention of any legal hurdle.

Yes there is, you have been corrected from the mistaken notion that only a ruling by a judge could represent a legal hurdle, you could not find even one reference where this arbitrary definition you wanted to impose is supported, making it clear that the misunderstanding is yours.

In a civil matter, court orders are the only legal hurdle.

Still no reference to support this personal misunderstanding you make.

It's a personal belief in a reality.

When you can't support that belief that means it is not reality, just a mistaken opinion that was easy to prove false. You have not been able to support the cliam that the writers of the article are wrong in nothing but your personal belief, that is not an argument, it is just repeating that belief without making even an effort to ground it in reality.

Unless you can present a definition that requires "court orders" your criticism of the article is still baseless, even if you keep repeating it.

Yes there is, you have been corrected from the mistaken notion that only a ruling by a judge could represent a legal hurdle, you could not find even one reference where this arbitrary definition you wanted to impose is supported, making it clear that the misunderstanding is yours.

 No. No legal hurdle. All one has to do is read the first sentence. It's a commercial decision made by theaters in her homeland that are refusing to screen her film.

So the decision to show the films is not Ito's.

Still no reference to support this personal misunderstanding you make.

A reference to how a court can issue an injunction? You don't understand basic law? In the article there is not even any mention that a party has asserted a claim.against her or the theaters to restrain either from showing the film.

https://www.courts.go.jp/english/vc-files/courts-en/Material/Outline_of_Civil_Procedure_in_JAPAN_2022.pdf

When you can't support that belief that means it is not reality, 

Yeah but when the belief derives from reality, it is supported.

Unless you can present a definition that requires "court orders" your criticism of the article is still baseless, even if you keep repeating it.

You need to write a grammatically correct sentence.

No. No legal hurdle. All one has to do is read the first sentence. It's a commercial decision made by theaters in her homeland that are refusing to screen her film.

It is a hurdle born from a legal matter, therefore clearly can be called a legal hurdle without problems.

So the decision to show the films is not Ito's.

This is clear to everybody reading the article, she is complaining about this decision.

A reference to how a court can issue an injunction? 

The comment clearly explains the reference you require to have an argument, what is the point of pretending not being able to read the comment? I can just put it again to evidence how you still have not brought it.

you could not find even one reference where this arbitrary definition you wanted to impose is supported, making it clear that the misunderstanding is yours.

You still have not brought any reference that qualifying something as a "legal hurdle" requires an injuction from a court. Zero, that is still a mistaken concept only you believe.

Yeah but when the belief derives from reality, it is supported.

Yet you failed to bring support for that belief even after being repeatedly challenged for it, therefore demonstrated it does not derives from reality.

You need to write a grammatically correct sentence.

Terribly transparent attempt to deviate from the necessary reference for you to have an argument,

So, do you have that definition? if not, your argument is completely wrong, as mikeylikesit also helpfully explained with arguments you could not even address.

The article is clear about the legal hurdles—some of the footage in the film was recorded covertly and used without permission. Japan’s film distributors and theaters refuse to touch it because they know that they could get sued under Japanese law for showing it.

A concerned party could sue. It doesn't mean they win.

And procedurally speaking, before they sue, they would try and get a court injunction, or a TRO (temporary restraining order).

But at this stage, no such action is mentioned in the article, only that the theaters have made the decision not to show the film. Just because they have a fear of something that might happen. So, it is a commercial decision to not show the film.

A legal hurdle would manifest if a court action were initiated, and then the legal hurdle would be to overcome the opposing party's attempt to use the judicial system to prevent the showing of the film.

It is a hurdle born from a legal matter, therefore clearly can be called a legal hurdle without problems.

No, it is written in the first sentence that theaters in her homeland that are refusing to screen her film.

There is no mention of any temporary or permanent injunction, which is a legal mechanism issued by a court that would prohibit the showing of the film. Here, read this to understand a little about the judicial system, as you do not have a legal background:

https://www.courts.go.jp/english/judicial_sys/index.html

You still have not brought any reference that qualifying something as a "legal hurdle" requires an injuction from a court. Zero, that is still a mistaken concept only you believe.

See above link.

So, do you have that definition? if not, your argument is completely wrong, as mikeylikesit also helpfully explained with arguments you could not even address.

Have what definition? Are you commenting on the correct article?

This is as silly as arguing it's not a legal issue to steal, because no "court order" has specifically stopped me from or condemned me for stealing.

A concerned party could sue. It doesn't mean they win.

That is still a legal hurdle, there is no need for the lawsuit to win to constitute one.

As described previously your argument falls completely by pretending an injunction is necessary when that is of course not the case.

A legal hurdle would manifest if a court action were initiated

You keep making those claims without providing any reference, when that happens after you have been repeatedly challenged for it it means you are unable to support these personal beliefs with anything that actually says so, thus making evident they are failed arguments without basis. Still zero references where a legal hurdle is defined only after a court action is initiated.

See above link.

Exactly zero mentions of legal hurdles, why bring something that is so obviously irrelevant? To prove you have no reference that actually apply to your argument? that is a very roundabout way to recognize you were mistaken.

Have what definition? Are you commenting on the correct article?

Pretending not being able to read the comments is not really an argument that gives a good image about yourself, you are the one making a claim about what it means to have "legal hurdles" yet you can't bring a definition that fits your personal belief, that means it is not valid.

You have also completely unable to refute even one single argument from mikeylikesit, recognizing he is correct and you mistaken.

This is as silly as arguing it's not a legal issue to steal, because no "court order" has specifically stopped me from or condemned me for stealing.

Exactly, terribly obvious for everybody but the people that insist on a false definition of what constitutes a legal hurdle.

That is still a legal hurdle, there is no need for the lawsuit to win to constitute one.

No.

There is no court order. There is statute. There is no regulatory prohibition. So there is no law or regulation preventing the showing of the film.

The theaters have made a commercial decision. Just read the first sentence of the article:

theaters in her homeland that are refusing to screen her film

Exactly, terribly obvious for everybody but the people that insist on a false definition of what constitutes a legal hurdle.

There is no court order, no TRO in place, no preliminary or temproary injunction, These are legal hurdles. I know you are not a lawyer but you can easily research these concepts.

A theater owner deciding on his own no to show a film is a decision based on that owner's opinion.

No.

When you fail to give any argument to refute the claim that means you recognize it is correct and debunks your personal misunderstanding about what a legal hurdle means.

There is no court order.

There is no need for a court order, do you know how this is easy to see? the moment you repeatedly make this claim without supporting it with any reference you are accepting it is not an argument, just a mistaken concept you had.

The theaters have made a commercial decision

Based on a legal reason, therefore it is perfectly valid to call this a legal hurdle.

You have made zero arguments to support your misunderstanding of the term, you made no arguments against what Kazuaki Shimazaki and mikeylikesit have commented (and they clearly refute also your claim).

You are just making unrelated claims that do nothing to support your claim that there are no legal hurdles as the article correctly describe, the same as the irrelevant source that you brought that don't even mention the term.

There is no need for a court order, do you know how this is easy to see? 

There is no court order, and so no legal hurdle, and as you point our it is true no court order is needed for the theaters to make the commercial decision to not show the film.

Glad you finally understood this issue!

Based on a legal reason, therefore it is perfectly valid to call this a legal hurdle.

A legal reason such as a court order, a regulatory provision, a provisional or temporary injunction? If not, then the decision is a commercial one. That's how it works in the business and legal world.

You are just making unrelated claims that do nothing to support your claim that there are no legal hurdles as the article correctly describe,

Again, according to Japan's judicial system. there are legal mechanisms that can prohibit the showing of the film, yet none have been asserted, according to the article, and so the theater could show the films without breaking any law, as is pointed out correctly in the article.

There is no court order, and so no legal hurdle

That is just your mistaken concept, this is already clear when you are completely unable to find any source that says a legal hurdle can only happens after a court order.

It is also telling that you are unable to refute anything in the comments of Kazuaki Shimazaki and mikeylikesit, openly accpeting they are right when they say you are completely wrong.

A legal reason such as a court order, a regulatory provision, a provisional or temporary injunction?

Or a legal argument, the part that you desperately try to gloss over but exist and represents a valid legal hurdle.

Again, according to Japan's judicial system. there are legal mechanisms that can prohibit the showing of the film

And again, the description of the problems as legal hurdles as the article does do not require any court order or injuction, that is still a false belief you had that you are absolutely unable to support by the professional opinion of anybody else, you reduced yourself to simply repeating the mistaken claim over and over again without any basis.

And again, the description of the problems as legal hurdles as the article does do not require any court order or injuction,

Circular reasoning. I can see you do not have a legal background and do not understand the distinction between a commercial and legal decision, and what a legal hurdle constitutes.

that is still a false belief you had that you are absolutely unable to support by the professional opinion of anybody else, you reduced yourself to simply repeating the mistaken claim over and over again without any basis.

Here's a professional--if you had read the article:

However, Hiroyoshi Sunakawa, a professor of media theory at Rikkyo University, said unauthorized use of images is "permissible in the pursuit of the truth" in some cases.

"In the case of sexual violence occurring behind closed doors, I think this may be the case," he said.

Circular reasoning

Nothing circular about it, the article is correct unless you can prove the term is wrong, you are unable to prove it with any reference just repeating your mistaken belief.

Repeating a mistaken concept do nothing to refute the article is correct.

Here's a professional--if you had read the article:

And you already conceded this is not an argument the moment you accepted you could not prove this is one of those "some cases" as in your previous comment. Without proving it the legal hurdle remains.

And again, you are unable to refute anything in the comments of Kazuaki Shimazaki and mikeylikesit, openly accepting they are right when they say you are completely wrong.

Nothing circular about it, the article is correct unless you can prove the term is wrong, you are unable to prove it with any reference just repeating your mistaken belief.

Circular reasoning saying the term is correct because you believe it to be so.

And you already conceded this is not an argument the moment you accepted you could not prove this is one of those "some cases" as in your previous comment. Without proving it the legal hurdle remains.

What is the legal hurdle? You have never explained what you believe it to be. Because you can't. This means you accept the theaters are making a commercial decision to not show the film--because they decide not to do so.

Circular reasoning saying the term is correct because you believe it to be so.

Again, there is nothing circular with the description done by the article (not me), you are the one making the claim this is incorrect, but failed to bring any reference to prove it. Other two commenters have made the same arguments, you are mistaken in your criticism of the article unless you can prove your claim is correct, you can't do it, so the mistake remeains.

What is the legal hurdle? You have never explained what you believe it to be.

That is because I did not make a claim about it like you did.

Your claim is that the term is wrong in the article, but when challenged for a reference to prove it (a definition of the term legal hurdle that says an injuction has to be in place for it to be used correctly) you are unable to provide any.

My claim is that you calling the term incorrect is baseless, and therefore can be ignored. Other commenters have also the same opinion:

This is as silly as arguing it's not a legal issue to steal, because no "court order" has specifically stopped me from or condemned me for stealing.

The article is clear about the legal hurdles—some of the footage in the film was recorded covertly and used without permission. Japan’s film distributors and theaters refuse to touch it because they know that they could get sued under Japanese law for showing it.

Again, there is nothing circular with the description done by the article (not me), you are the one making the claim this is incorrect, but failed to bring any reference to prove it. Other two commenters have made the same arguments, 

And what is the fallacy called when someone is trying to use the "Other people believe the same thing!" technique?

Come on . . .

Your claim is that the term is wrong in the article, but when challenged for a reference to prove it (a definition of the term legal hurdle that says an injuction has to be in place for it to be used correctly) you are unable to provide any.

You misstate I position. I said there is no legal hurdle such as a court order, preliminary or temporary injunction, regulatory prohibition....

Let's look at the below so you can understand what an example legal hurdle is:

*A federal judge on Wednesday removed a key legal hurdle stalling President Donald Trump ’s plan to downsize the federal workforce with a deferred resignation program.*

*The Boston-based judge’s order in the challenge filed by a group of labor unions was a significant legal victory for the Republican president after a string of courtroom setbacks.*

https://apnews.com/article/trump-elon-musk-federal-workers-buyouts-e8cd4f40ac16220bd0a399a00c5b9f63

And what is the fallacy called when someone is trying to use the "Other people believe the same thing!" technique?

This is not a fallacy, other people also argue the same thing, and you have not been able to refute any of their arguments either.

When you ignore an argument that refuted a mistaken belief you had, that means you accept you had nothing against those arguments so they effectively refuted yours.

You misstate I position. I said there is no legal hurdle such as a court order, preliminary or temporary injunction, regulatory prohibition....

Which is still a baseless claim that can be dismissed since you have provided no reference to prove this is a requirement to describe something as a legal hurdle.

Let's look at the below so you can understand what an example legal hurdle is:

Your claim is based completely on NOT including things as hurdles, that is what you have not been able to prove at all. There are many other things that can also described as legal hurdles, but that in no way means the situation in the article is not included as well. For that you still have provided no reference.

Is like someone saying that an infection is a medical problem, if someone comes and brings a description of a fracture, an insufficiency or a chronic disease as medical problems that in no way proves that the infection is not a medical problem.

This is not a fallacy, other people also argue the same thing, and you have not been able to refute any of their arguments either.

Here's refuting (disproving) one of their arguments.

mikeylikesit

A injunction can’t be filed until someone tries to show the film.

False.

A party could seek(file for) a preliminary injunction even before anyone showed the film. It's telling that no one has filed for that. Hence, there is no legal hurdle.

If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, then the court can grant such injunction before (or during) any trial.

Parties can appeal the judge's decision on whether to award a preliminary injunction.

A party could seek(file for) a preliminary injunction even before anyone showed the film. It's telling that no one has filed for that. Hence, there is no legal hurdle.

You still have not provided any reference where any kind of injuction is an indispensable requirement for something to be called a legal hurdle. Zero.

This is the absolute requirement for your claim to be supported, but you gave up trying to get a definition where this is written. Obviously appeals to authority can't be made from anonymous accounts, so just repeating that you believe this to be the case is not an argument either, you still require a definition that explicitly mentions this.

Your claim is based completely on NOT including things as hurdles, that is what you have not been able to prove at all. There are many other things that can also described as legal hurdles

You misread. Read the example again. You'll the legal hurdle was the  *challenge filed by a group of labor. *

See? The claim filed by one party is the legal hurdle removed by the judge's order in Trump's favor.

That was easy.

You misread. Read the example again. You'll the legal hurdle was the challenge filed by a group of labor. 

No misreading, your claim is based completely on NOT including things as hurdles, nothing in your source says that "challenges filed" is a requirement for something to be called a legal hurdle, only that this is ALSO validly called so.

It is the difference between something being sufficient and something being necessary.

You have not provided any source that says it is necessary to file challenges.

You still have not provided any reference where any kind of injuction is an indispensable requirement for something to be called a legal hurdle. Zero.

I did in my posts above.

Case closed then, since you cannot provide any example of a legal hurdle used where a party makes a commercial decision to do or not do something. Zero.

I did in my posts above.

As the replies easily proved you have not, you keep bringing examples of things that can ALSO be considered legal hurdles, but never any where the situation in the article can not be considered one.

That is still something you keep claiming without proving it with any reference.

You are completely free to "close" your arguments, but when they can be easily refuted you are just accepting you can't defend them.

The article is perfectly correct in calling the situations "legal hurdles", unless you can finally bring a definition of "legal hurdle" that clarifies that legal rulings, or files, etc. are necessary for this.

No misreading, your claim is based completely on NOT including things as hurdles, nothing in your source says that "challenges filed" is a requirement for something to be called a legal hurdle, only that this is ALSO validly called so.

No, I wrote There is no court order, no TRO in place, no preliminary or temproary injunction, These are legal hurdles.

So in my source quoted, it showed a filing by one party that was defeated by the other party. That filing was the legal hurdle.

There is no filing preventing the theaters from showing the film.

Can you quote in this article where any party has filed against the theaters? If not, then there is no legal hurdle.

Can you quote from this article where a judge ordered the theaters not to show the film? If not then there is no legal hurdle.

Easy.

No, I wrote There is no court order, no TRO in place, no preliminary or temproary injunction, These are legal hurdles.

These are ALSO legal hurdles, not only.

So in my source quoted, it showed a filing by one party that was defeated by the other party. That filing was the legal hurdle.

But in no part your source says the filing is the only way to qualify something as a legal hurdle, so it fails to support your claim.

Can you quote in this article where any party has filed against the theaters? If not, then there is no legal hurdle.

Can you quote from this article where a judge ordered the theaters not to show the film? If not then there is no legal hurdle.

Unnecessary since you have repeatedly failed to prove this is a requirement, just that you mistakenly believed so.

So, case not so closed then?

These are ALSO legal hurdles, not only.

Where is the legal source in the article as you think?

But in no part your source says the filing is the only way to qualify something as a legal hurdle, so it fails to support your claim.

Nowhere did I day a filing is the only way to qualify something as a legal hurdle.

Unnecessary since you have repeatedly failed to prove this is a requirement, just that you mistakenly believed so.

If you cannot comprehend the sentence, that says alot.

Case is closed because you have not shown any legal hurdle here, and I have shown how a legal order involves a court, and a party filing a claim.

These are ALSO legal hurdles, not only.

Show me in the article where it says anything is a "legal hurdle" as I first asked.

iknowallFeb. 10  12:52 pm JST

Where's the legal hurdle?

Where is the legal source in the article as you think?

The lawyers make legal arguments, you have never provided any source that say these do not represent legal hurdles.

Nowhere did I day a filing is the only way to qualify something as a legal hurdle.

Then you are accepting that the article do correctly call the problems legal hurdles even when no filling is done.

If you cannot comprehend the sentence, that says alot.

When you are unable to refute the argument and instead claim lack of comprehension that is what says a lot.

Case is closed because you have not shown any legal hurdle here

You are the one that have not shown that to call anything a legal hurdle it is required a ruling, filing, challenge, etc. If that makes your arguments closed that is your prerogative, but the argument is still defeated since you have brought no source to prove "necessity".

The lawyers make legal arguments, you have never provided any source that say these do not represent legal hurdles.

You believe a lawyer making a legal argument is a "legal hurdle"?

Show me in the article where it says anything is a "legal hurdle" as I first asked.

Again, you are the one making a claim, that the term "legal hurdle" is wrong in the article, you are then the one that have to support that claim with evidence.

If you accept that you have no such evidence and therefore the term is not incorrectly used, that is fine. My claim (that I have to support) is that your claim of the article being wrong is completely baseless, it coincide with what other people have argued as well.

You believe a lawyer making a legal argument is a "legal hurdle"?

You believe the article description of the problems is not enough to be called validly a legal hurdle.

Yet you have been repeatedly incapable to prove it by any reference that says anything is "required" for the term to be used validly.

My claim, is that without that reference your claim is still absolutely baseless.

The lawyers make legal arguments, you have never provided any source that say these do not represent legal hurdles.

You believe lawyers making legal arguments are enough to be called validly a legal hurdle.

What source do you have to support that claim?

You believe lawyers making legal arguments are enough to be called validly a legal hurdle.

You believe the article description of the problems is not enough to be called validly a legal hurdle.

I believe the article is correct and you have not offered any evidence the term is incorrectly used.

What source do you have to support that claim?

Your comments, where there is no reference proving any kind of requirement for the term prove the claim that the claim you made is baseless.

The lack of evidence proves my claim that there is no evidence.