This report examines the Supreme Court decision （December 6, 2017） on

the receiving fee lawsuit of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation （NHK）, and

considers the way public broadcasting and receiving fees should be.

　　The Supreme Court of Japan decided that there is a legal obligation to conclude

a receiving contract, but this judgment must be said to be anachronism in

that it does not take into account the trend in the latest theories and the

changes in the broadcasting environment. The judgment raises two problems.

The first is that the suspicion of the violation of the constitution cannot be

wiped out, and the second is that the rights of viewers may be lost and the way

of public broadcasting may be distorted.

　　The most important role of public broadcasting is to monitor the public

power as a journalism institution, but it is hard to say that NHK plays such a

role. The viewer can correct the attitude of NHK by refusing to pay the receiving

fee. In order not to prevent the exercise of such viewer sovereignty, the

conclusion of the receiving contract should be interpreted as an effort, not a

legal obligation.

This paper considers the “public media” that Japan Broadcasting Corporation （NHK） aims for, the role required of the public media, and the way it should be, based on discussions on the Internet business and the bloat of NHK.

NHK has engaged in the simultaneous distribution of broadcast programs to the Internet, which differs from its original mission, while it faces criticism regarding conducting Internet business based on the fees collected for the purpose of broadcasting. Additionally, NHK has expanded the scale of the group through for-profit projects conducted by related organizations, despite being criticized for its organization’s bloat.

This paper clarifies these problems and highlights the following.

The role of the public media is to fulfill the “journalism mission” of monitoring public authority and providing citizens with information that contributes to the formation of public opinions, not only through broadcasting but also through the Internet. It also compensates for the weaknesses of other media, such as commercial broadcasting.

Conversely, if the management of commercial broadcasters and newspapers becomes difficult due to the bloat of NHK, freedom of speech and the diversity of information may be impaired, leading to restrictions on the people’s right to know.

If NHK continues to expand its Internet business, it needs to provide a compelling explanation to dispel such concerns.