Question from a reader:
Is Masahiro Nakai really a “sexual offender”? Recently, lawyer Toru Hashimoto claimed that the report from the third-party committee of Fuji Television stated, “This is not sexual violence,” and I found his argument very convincing. If what Mr. Hashimoto says is true, then Nakai can be considered “not guilty” both legally and procedurally, yet he has been
erased from society. Isn’t this tantamount to “vigilante justice”? Mr. Hashimoto evaluates Nakai’s actions legally and states that they do not fall under “sexual violence.” He also points out that the third-party committee’s report has significant flaws, with ambiguous facts and a lack of essential verification. Despite this, is it acceptable to conclude that it constitutes “sexual violence” and impose social sanctions? Furthermore, Mr. Hashimoto emphasizes that it is dangerous to label Nakai as a perpetrator of sexual violence solely based on claims of “non-consent,” and that imposing social sanctions in such a manner is unacceptable in a democratic nation. Currently, the media and social media create an atmosphere where individuals are considered perpetrators the moment a claim of lack of consent is made, leading to the denial of their character and social ostracization. At this rate, one might worry that heartbreak could become a crime. Mr. Hashimoto states that sanctions cannot be imposed based solely on one party’s claims; a comprehensive judgment is necessary. He also argues that it is unreasonable to assert “sexual violence occurred” based solely on post-fact circumstances. In the industry, high settlements are not uncommon, and the public, unaware of the actual circumstances, often misunderstands and judges, leading to erasure like that experienced by Nakai.
Reflecting on Masahiro Nakai’s Case
Recently, there has been a flurry of opinions regarding Masahiro Nakai being reported as a sexual offender. Lawyer Toru Hashimoto’s claims have particularly garnered attention. He strongly argues that the report from Fuji Television’s third-party committee states, “This is not sexual violence.” Hearing this made me reflect on several points. For instance, legal evaluations and social evaluations do not always align. Even if one is deemed not guilty from a legal standpoint, they can still be socially erased. This reality is quite dangerous. Especially in today’s age of social media, information spreads rapidly, and people often make one-sided judgments based on ambiguous facts, leading to social sanctions akin to vigilantism.
The Gap Between Law and Society
As I listen to Mr. Hashimoto’s opinion, I am reminded of how cautious legal evaluations must be. He emphasizes that evaluating solely based on claims of “non-consent” is dangerous. I deeply empathize with this point. For example, the emotional pain of a breakup can sometimes cloud rational judgment. If we cannot calmly assess such emotional situations, wouldn’t society as a whole become very unstable? I personally feel that my knowledge of the law is still lacking, but I sense the fear of emotions and opinions taking precedence. In conversations with friends, I often hear opinions like, “That person is definitely in the wrong!” However, when I think about it calmly, I realize that there are often more complex circumstances at play.
What We Can Do
Considering these situations, I believe what we can do is to first calmly organize information and not be swayed by emotions. In Nakai’s case, it is crucial to discern the facts clearly. We should not make judgments based solely on media or social media information but strive to think from as many perspectives as possible. Finally, I would love to hear from readers. What do you think about this matter? Do you feel anything regarding the societal issues highlighted by Nakai’s case? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
