Question from Readers:
Do you think it’s reasonable for Masahiro Nakai’s team to impose a new confidentiality obligation on the female announcer? According to a document released by the third-party committee of Fuji Television, Nakai’s lawyer proposed to the victimized woman that she must not disclose anything discussed in the committee to external parties. Despite the woman’s intent to completely nullify
the original confidentiality agreement, Nakai’s side made this proposal citing concerns over potential information leaks. The third-party committee rejected this proposal, stating it was “not reasonable,” but doesn’t restricting the victim’s freedom to share her experience appear to be a way to conceal facts or silence her? On the other hand, Nakai’s side might genuinely wish to prevent unlimited dissemination of information. Nonetheless, attempting to make even the discussions within the investigative body “off the record” could negatively impact the victim’s rights and the pursuit of truth. How do you feel about this new confidentiality proposal? Do you think it’s a legitimate consideration, or do you see it as unnatural control?
Thoughts on Masahiro Nakai’s Confidentiality Proposal
Recently, Masahiro Nakai has been a topic of discussion in the news. What do you think about the story regarding the attempt to impose a new confidentiality obligation on the female announcer? Personally, I feel quite conflicted about it.
What is Confidentiality?
Confidentiality certainly has essential aspects. Particularly, ensuring that discussions in the third-party committee remain undisclosed may be necessary to prevent information leaks. However, it makes one wonder whether it is truly correct if this ends up restricting the rights of the victim. I know someone who struggles to keep work-related secrets. He often says, “If information leaks, trust will crumble,” but he also acknowledges, “However, there are things that need to be said for the sake of truth.” I find this balance to be challenging.
What is Nakai’s Intention?
I can understand the intention behind Nakai’s proposal, citing concerns over potential information leaks. However, it seems problematic that the freedom of the victim to share her experience is being constrained. Just as we often create new issues by hiding something in our daily lives, controlling information does not always lead to positive outcomes. Recently, I found myself in a situation where, after sharing a secret with my child, I was told, “Dad, you can’t say this!” and I was suddenly bound by confidentiality. Children can be quite amusing. At times, I feel the weight of their words. It makes me think that the worries adults face might actually resonate with children in a similar way.
What Do You Think?
How do you feel about Nakai’s proposal? Do you think it’s a reasonable consideration or an unnatural form of control? I would love to discuss this issue further. How do you balance the “things that should be said” and “things that are better left unsaid” in your daily life? Please share your thoughts in the comments!
