Question from a reader:
I have doubts about Masahiro Nakai’s claim that he “agreed to lift the confidentiality obligation.” If that were true, the confidentiality would have been lifted. The third-party committee is a neutral body that conducts investigations, and if both parties agree, there should be no reason to refuse the lifting of confidentiality. Furthermore, the women who reported
the harm and their lawyer at the time have clearly stated that Nakai’s side did not agree to lift the confidentiality obligation. I have heard that the lawyers from the third-party committee shared the same understanding. In other words, it was precisely because Nakai’s side said “we won’t lift it” that the contents of the investigation report were not publicly discussed. It seems odd to me that now, he is claiming “I agreed to lift it.” This suggests that the victims and the third-party committee were lying, but why has he remained silent until now? He could have said this much earlier, and he hasn’t provided any evidence to back it up. Given this situation, I can’t help but feel that he is merely trying to manipulate public perception and gain sympathy. If he were truly innocent, he should hold a press conference and boldly declare “I did not commit sexual violence,” so why doesn’t he do that? If his reputation has been harmed, he could simply sue the third-party committee. What do you all think about Nakai’s claim that he “proposed to lift the confidentiality obligation”? Is it truly credible, or…?
Reflecting on Masahiro Nakai’s Confidentiality Obligation Issue
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about Masahiro Nakai’s assertion that he “agreed to lift the confidentiality obligation.” Honestly, I am interested in this issue, and it raises several thoughts for me. First, it is indeed strange that while Nakai claims he “agreed to lift it,” the victims and their representatives are saying the exact opposite. If he had truly lifted it, the contents of the report should have been made public much earlier. I find myself wondering, “What is going on here?”
Manipulation of Perception and Its Background
Some opinions suggest that Nakai’s side is trying to attack the third-party committee and the victims by claiming they “did not lift it.” Indeed, if he were to hold a press conference and assert “I am innocent,” it might earn him more trust. However, there may be some reason he has opted not to take that path. I personally enjoy comedy and often appreciate the backstories of various narratives and characters, but when it comes to real-life issues, my emotions become complicated. If I were in Nakai’s position, I would want to prove my innocence, but at the same time, I would have to consider privacy and legal risks.
Personal Experience and Empathy
I remember a time when I went to a comedy live show with friends, and the comedian said, “Lying is easy, but speaking the truth is difficult.” Indeed, people’s hearts have a variety of circumstances, and it’s not always easy to say what is “right.” Nakai might have his own reasons for his claims. I also recall a friend who struggled with a problem and worried that “telling the truth might make things worse.” Therefore, I feel I can understand the emotions of people in such situations.
Share Your Opinions!
What do you think about this issue? Can Nakai’s claims really be trusted, or are they just manipulation of perception? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments! I would like to think more deeply about this as well.
