The “AV Appearance Damage Prevention and Relief Law,” which went into effect on June 23, could not include an article that would invalidate contracts for sexual intercourse that directly lead to sexual violence damage in AV production. The reason for this is that there is a basic principle in the Civil Code, the “principle of freedom of contract,” which states that contracts that do not offend public order and morals are “valid” and that the state should not intervene in contracts as long as they are the result of free choice by the parties. Using this principle as a cover, the porn industry has conventionally been guilty of egregious human rights violations, including sexual violence, unwanted pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases.
The question of whether or not a contract for sexual intercourse in adult filming offends public order and morals required the accumulation of judicial precedents. As you are aware, “mistress contracts” involving sexual intercourse have been considered invalid from the viewpoint of human dignity and basic human rights, and many victims have been civilly rescued. However, the AV Performance Damage Prevention and Relief Act was designed to close the hole in the right of 18-19 year olds to rescind as soon as possible, and it failed to include an article that would allow for the invalidation or rescission of contracts for sexual intercourse.
During the process of deliberating on the bill, there was fierce opposition to the idea that it would “legalize the contracting of sexual intercourse.” was raised as a vehement objection. PAPS has never changed its view that sexual consent cannot be bound by a contract and should not be the subject of buying and selling.
PAPS has received many consultations on various types of damage in the filming of adult videos. In the future, it is necessary to advance as a national movement about the state of sexual video productions in order to prevent further AV damage.
PAPS has been sounding the alarm for three years from the aspect of AV damage about the issue of 18- and 19-year-olds acquiring the right to contract due to the revision of the Civil Code to be implemented from April 1, 2022. This is because until now, the only weapon to deal with AV damage was to use the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds do not have the right to contract under the Civil Code as a shield to cross the line with the companies, claiming that contracts for that age group are invalid.
Since there has been no effective legislation against AV victimization to date, the average number of new victimization consultants remained unchanged at 82 in 2018-2020 (the past three years). On the other hand, in FY2021, the number of victims under 20 years of age who consulted with us about AV victimization was 20 (three times as many as in the previous year, or 20.4% of all AV victimization consultations). The number of victims reported to our organization was a small fraction of the total number of victims, and even if a case was reported to the police, it was only AV production companies that could make a case, leaving AV production and AV sales unchecked.
Even if a criminal case is made, “suspension of AV publication” is a different matter, and many young women are forced to cry themselves to sleep, so we assumed that there was a large number of victims in the dark.
The number of victims under the age of 20 consulted may seem small (20), but this shows that the right of annulment functioned as a deterrent; after April 1, we assumed that the number of victims aged 18-19 would increase dramatically.
At the urging of support groups, a project team was set up by the ruling party starting in 2018 to develop a draft proposal for AV victim relief. However, due to the Corona disaster from 2020, lobbying activities were not possible, and the transfer of Diet members due to the House of Representatives election coincided with the lowering of the age of adulthood. The fact that the law was enacted as a law was extremely unusual.
We believe that this exceptional situation was made possible by the cross-party movement of the Diet members of the ruling and opposition parties who were directly involved in the drafting of the bill, who understood the reality of the damage caused by pornography, and by the efforts of all parties involved, including those in the actual practice of law. In the process of enacting the bill, it was assembled based on a draft prepared by a project team of the ruling party. The law was the result of a very complex balance of power relations, where compromises were made and where they were not, and the overall status of this process is not clear at this time. We await further evaluation and analysis from those directly and indirectly involved.
The official name of the law is very long. “Act on Special Provisions Concerning Performance Contracts, etc. for the Prevention of Damage Caused by Performances in Sexual Video Productions and for the Relief of Performers, in Order to Contribute to the Formation of a Society in which Individual Dignity is Respected.”
We believe that the greatest achievement of this law is that it formally acknowledges by law that harm exists due to pornography.
Article 1 of the law states, “In view of the fact that the production and publication of sexually explicit visual products may cause, and is causing, irreparable and serious harm to the physical, mental, and private lives of performers in the future,” first of all, it predicts the existence of AV damage and the possibility of AV damage occurring in the future. For a long time, there have been vocal arguments, especially from pornographers and consumers, that pornography is simply entertainment and that there are no victims. With this law, it is first acknowledged that there are victims.
The voices of hundreds of porn victims, which PAPS has spent 10 years digging up, are straightly reflected in Article 1 of the law. The weight of this is immeasurable.
Since the law is based on the concept of “contract,” the damage caused by pornography (≒digital sexual violence) is too great to be dealt with by “contract” alone. First of all, I would like to point out that this project has led to a breakthrough at the entrance of the damage.
We are now under pressure to create a new legal framework to deal with the 21st century digital sexual violence that takes place in the Internet space, and we are only at the beginning of the process. PAPP's counseling and support staff are responding to the victimization consultations that come in every day.
Since the enactment of the AV Appearance Victim Prevention and Relief Law, we have received even more heartbreaking consultations from victims of child pornography and revenge pornography.
We will continue to enhance the consultation and support system of PAPPS to eliminate not only the damage but also the perpetration of pornography. We would like to change society by working together with you.
Read other Mail Magazine about AV Law:
Comments