THE BAILIFF: All rise. The court is now in session. Justice Bea Yeller presides.

DEFENCE: Objection!

JUDGE: We haven’t even begun yet, counsel.
DEFENCE: We're here, your Honour. We're here, we’re (not) queer, and we’re loud and clear.
JUDGE: Oh, do sit down. (To the Prosecution): Now, what is the substance of the claim here?

PROSECUTION: A JBL programme, your Honour. Love is Poison. We claim that it is another predictable, pointless and a disappointing addition to the canon, and that, though it is often enjoyably silly, in 2024, it feels dated and retrogressive.
DEFENCE: Spoilsports!
JUDGE: Is that a legal ground for objection, counsel?

DEFENCE: It is in the show!

JUDGE (sighing): They don’t pay me enough for this.
THE JURY: Nor us, your Honour.
JUDGE: Alright, I’ll hear from the Defence first. What do you have to say?

DEFENCE: We say, simply, that LIP is a fun, funny, quirky, and delightful BL, that warms our hearts, and fills us with joy. It does not aspire to anything more than that. And it should not be taken to task for not being anything more than that. The entirety of Prosecution’s case rests on what it *wants* a BL to be, not what it is.
JUDGE: And what is it? 

DEFENCE: A BL.
PROSECUTION: Objection, your Honour. Facts not in evidence.
JUDGE: Sustained. Counsel, you can't just go around begging the question. What do you mean by "just a BL"?
DEFENCE: It’s a fantasy in which two men fall in love. That’s all. It is governed by a set of well-established conventions, and Love is Poison merely follows those conventions. That does not make it derivative or dull, even if it is predictable.
JUDGE: Alright then. What makes it so fun and enjoyable? What is it that warms your hearts and fills them with joy?

DEFENCE: Two very handsome leads, one nerdish lawyer and one sexy rogue. Workplace romance that is half Suits, half Legally Blonde. A light, almost wafer-thin plot which we can comfortably ignore as background noise. People talking to succulents, succulents talking back. Food porn. Manga-style very loud interior monologues. (Japanese sounded never more masculine.) A killer soundtrack. (With helpful furigana to sing along.) The assurance of a happy ending. And, it is very, very funny. What more could you possibly want?
JUDGE: Does the Prosecution dispute any of this?

PROSECUTION: No, your Honour.
JUDGE: Then why are we here?

PROSECUTION: May we put certain questions to the Defence, your Honour?
JUDGE: Why?

PROSECUTION: Latitude, your Honour.
JUDGE: Go ahead. I need to file my nails anyway.
PROSECUTION: Those two very handsome leads, do either of them call themselves ‘gay’?
DEFENCE: No.
PROSECUTION: Is there a character in the show that explicitly does?
DEFENCE: Yes.
PROSECUTION: Is he handsome, this openly gay person? Is he shown with his lover? Are the two shown in any intimate light? Is he anything more than an unattractive, supportive sidekick?
DEFENCE: No. No. No. And no.
PROSECUTION: Do the leads kiss?

DEFENCE: Objection, your Honour. Where are they going with this?

JUDGE: Overruled. Continue.
PROSECUTION: Do the leads kiss?
DEFENCE: It depends on what you mean by kiss.
JUDGE: I think we all know what kissing means, counsel.
PROSECUTION: You'll be surprised, your Honour. We must be grateful we are not in a South Korean court. But to clarify, we mean a kiss that clearly shows two men desiring each other. Not a kiss in which one man presses his lip against another as if he might catch the plague, or worse, turn him “gay”.
JUDGE: No need to be snippy, counsel.
PROSECUTION: Cheerfully withdrawn.
JUDGE: Very well, do they kiss?
DEFENCE (looking a bit hapless): We refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate us.
(The JUDGE rolls his eyes.)
PROSECUTION: Alright. Is there an intimate scene in which, rather than show any body contact, one actor just planks on top of the other, again, you know, because… eww… gay…
DEFENCE: Objection!
JUDGE (at the same time): Counsel! You are on a short leash here.
PROSECUTION: Apologies, your Honour.
JUDGE (to the Defence): Answer the question.

DEFENCE: No, there isn’t. But the actors…
PROSECUTION: Oh, we actually do have a statement from the actors, your Honour, in which they say they have no problems whatsoever with same-sex intimacy. That it is part of their job. That the homophobia was not theirs.
DEFENCE: Objection. There’s no homophobia in the show.
PROSECUTION: We don’t disagree, your Honour. There *is* no homophobia in the show. That is part of what makes it enjoyable. Right? 
It is pure fiction.
DEFENCE: Yes. So what? Is that wrong? Many of us need that fantasy to escape this world, and we are well within our right to.
PROSECUTION: We take no issue with that. But everything around and about the show is, shall we say, more 2014 than 2024. After all, why introduce a gay character with no individuality, no depth, and no heart, except to support the very straight-coded leads?

DEFENCE: Straight-coded? Are you suggesting the leads be effeminate to conform to a stereotype?

PROSECUTION: Not at all. But the Defence has already admitted to the existence of BL conventions by which LIP abides. Did you not? Would you not then agree that this is one of them? That the leads must, to all appearances and in all aspects, act ‘straight’? One consequence of which is that they can never identify as ‘gay’? And another consequence of which is that effeminate or openly gay characters don’t ever get to be the leads?
DEFENCE: Objection, your Honour.
JUDGE: What is it this time?
DEFENCE: Relevance? Must these people ruin everything that is fun by making it about something grave and important? 

PROSECUTION: Might we remind the jury that BLs are, by the defendants' own definition, stories of two men in love? Which makes the question of whether or not they are gay or bisexual more than relevant.
JUDGE: Overruled. Hurry up, counsels. Some of us have to go to lunch.
PROSECUTION: Your Honour, what the Defence calls conventions, we call clichés. What they call silly, we call stupid. What warms their heart, makes us cringe. What fills them with joy, fills us with regret.
JUDGE: Isn’t this all a bit subjective, counsel? What exactly do you want me, and the jurors, to do about it?
DEFENCE: Exactly. Why harsh our mellows?
JUDGE: Is that a legal code now, "harshing one's mellows"?

PROSECUTION: Your Honour, we don’t ask for realism from BLs. Not at all. That would be an oxymoron. We just think that many of the conventions, as the Defence calls it, or tropes, as we call it, are backwards and regressive. They are exclusionary, even discriminatory. We would also enjoy LIP a lot more if it did not resort to these tropes in 2024. When the majority of Japanese are in support of gay marriage. And when Japan, as a society, seems apt to move on.
JUDGE: What does the Defence say?

DEFENCE: We don’t believe in telling people what to make, your Honour. We just enjoy what is given.
PROSECUTION: But not telling people what to make is to tacitly endorse what they are already making. By claiming to enjoy it for what it is, you are voting for more of the same. For stasis and mediocrity. And it shows.
DEFENCE: Objection.
JUDGE: Overruled.
DEFENCE: Your Honour!
JUDGE: O-ver-ruled. (To the Prosecution): Wrap it up, counsel.
PROSECUTION: Your Honour, we would love to do nothing more than enjoy the same BLs that the Defence does. Nothing would make us happier. But many of these outdated conventions leave a very bad taste in our mouths. We love the cactus choreography, we love the blinding white camera flares, and we all love the strategic towel drop that accidentally reveals the nerdish lawyer’s unexpectedly hot body. We love the stupidity of the BL insistence that every student, lawyer, doctor, be a genius and the best in the whole country. We love the even greater stupidity that they all also happen to be hot, popular, and surrounded by girls who do nothing but shout ‘kawai’, and run around with gifts and flowers to give the ‘ikemen’. (Of course, we won’t talk about how JBLs treat the women in the show, which is a whole different can of worms.) All we ask is that gay people’s identities be not erased in the name of appealing to the masses, and pandering to the homophobes. We don’t think we are being unreasonable.
JUDGE: Anything more to add?
PROSECUTION: No, your Honour.
JUDGE (to the Defence): Counsel?
DEFENCE: The Defence rests, your Honour.
JUDGE: Very well then. Jurors, deliberate, and when you come to a conclusion, let me know. I’m off to Bianca’s.

THE JURY: Still out there.