Authoritarian repression is obvious when you look.

In this period of time when political norms are abandoned and journalists a spied upon and jailed; citizens are spied upon and jailed; the government abjures freedom of religion, speech, assembly, petition, and due process; repeatedly attempts to implement formalized censorship and when rebuffed, coordinates with major corporations to implement censorship anyway, it is disturbing to see past parallels.

From The Pacific War 1931-1945 by Ienaga Saburo.  Page 12.

As long as that mentality and policy were dominant, a military confrontation was unavoidable with a China which sought a new national identity and had begun to resist imperialist domination. Why were the Japanese people intolerant of Chinese and Koreans? Why did they lack the capacity for critical analysis of imperialist policies and the wars they bred? I think the answer lies in the state’s manipulation of information and values to produce mass conformity and unquestioning obedience.

[snip]

In 1868, the new Meiji government moved immediately to control newspapers and publications in order to suppress support for the former regime. A series of internal security laws, starting with the publishing regulations (1869) and the newspaper law (1873), restricted freedom of speech. These laws carried sweeping provisions such as “To publish indiscriminate criticism of laws or to slander individuals is prohibited” or “To add indiscriminately critical comments when describing government actions and laws is forbidden.” Officialdom sought immunity from criticism by these regulations.1 The 1875 libel law and newspaper regulations were extremely severe; there was for a time a reign of terror against journalists.

A vigorous nationwide challenge to the new government, the People’s Rights movement, occurred in the 1870s and 1880s. To divide and weaken the movement, authorities dangled the carrot of financial rewards before some of the opposition. Others were harassed, locked up, and silenced. Strict enforcement of ever-tougher internal security laws proved to be the most effective weapon against dissent: regulations on assembly (1880), revision and amendment of the same law in 1882, revision of the newspaper regulation (1883), and a law prohibiting the disclosure of petitions to the throne and the government (1884). Freedom of assembly and association were also severely restricted. The People’s Rights movement was destroyed, and political activity of any kind became extremely difficult.

[snip]

The Meiji Constitution did not guarantee basic human rights. Freedom of expression was recognized only “within the limits of the law.” The liberties granted in the constitution could be virtually abolished by subsequent laws. Restrictions soon tumbled from the government’s authoritarian cornucopia. Freedom of publication was affected by the Publication Law (1893) and the Newspaper Law (1909); freedom of assembly and association by the Assembly and Political Organization Law (1890) and its successor, the Public Order Police Law of 1900; and intellectual freedom by the lèse majesté provision of the criminal code and by the Peace Preservation Law (1925). Movies and theatrical performances were strictly controlled by administrative rulings rather than by laws passed by the Diet. Thought and expression were so circumscribed that only a small sphere of freedom remained.

[snip]

The Meiji political system gagged and blindfolded the populace. Denied the basic facts and a free exchange of opinion on the major issues of state and society, the public could hardly participate in charting Japan’s future. The sensitive areas noted above were stated in the law as vague categories; they could be interpreted broadly and stretched to trap the dissident. Any major contemporary issue might fall under one of the dangerous categories. There was always the fear that newspapers, other publications, and public speeches would be prohibited by an arbitrary police ruling. No appeal was possible against police harassment. Scripts of movies and plays were subject to prior censorship and controlled in the same way as publications and public speeches. Furthermore, these internal security laws carried criminal penalties. Under the lèse majesté provision and the Peace Preservation Law, individuals with beliefs repugnant to the government, even if those beliefs were not expressed overtly, could end up in prison.

Of course, not every idea that incurred official wrath was a valuable contribution to Japanese political life. But a healthy political and social consciousness cannot develop in a society where the exchange of vital facts and ideas is fettered. Leaving other deleterious effects aside for the moment, the impossibility of reporting information essential for informed, independent judgments about war and national security left an intellectual vacuum. It was filled by official militarism, and the public, unaware of the truth or of alternatives, automatically came to support the government position.