Question from a reader:
I think the statement from the upper management of Fuji TV that it’s a “private matter between men and women” is just an excuse to protect Masahiro Nakai. When reading the report from the third-party committee, the presidents are saying, “This is a personal issue,” but since he is the face of the program and an important
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
Recently, I’ve been reflecting on Masahiro Nakai’s rebuttal against the third-party committee at Fuji TV. The third-party committee is a voluntary organization established by companies to investigate internal issues with external experts, and it does not have legal authority. Therefore, it is true that there is no obligation to disclose
Question from readers:
I’ve been feeling that Masahiro Nakai may have acted inconsistently regarding his confidentiality obligations. When looking at the responses from the third-party committee from Fuji TV, the confidentiality aspect stands out as particularly concerning. Nakai’s side stated that “the matter of the closed room is not under investigation,” but in reality, the third-party committee only said it was
Question from a Reader:
I have some concerns regarding Masahiro Nakai’s rebuttal document. The third-party committee’s report explicitly states “sexual violence,” yet Nakai asserts that “there was no actual occurrence.” This rebuttal could easily be interpreted as implying that “the women’s claims are false.” Moreover, I’m curious about his expression, “ordinary Japanese people think this way.” Who determined that standard?
Reader’s Question:
What do you all think about the comments made by lawyer Hashimoto Tohru in defense of Masahiro Nakai? Recently, a third-party committee determined that “sexual violence occurred,” yet Hashimoto claimed that “this does not constitute sexual violence,” stating that social sanctions have gone too far. Additionally, Professor Yasutomi Ayumu from the University of Tokyo countered Hashimoto’s opinion, pointing out
Question from a reader:
What is the reason for Masahiro Nakai’s move to New Zealand?
Recently, I’ve heard talk about Masahiro Nakai moving to New Zealand. The reasons for his relocation might be the comfortable living environment and the abundance of golf courses, as some people suggest. In fact, I’ve heard that New Zealand
Reader’s Question:
I heard that the interactions with Masahiro Nakai were deleted. Is Nakajima P the superior of the victimized woman, or is he a subordinate of Masahiro Nakai?
Recently, I came across the news that interactions between Masahiro Nakai and a certain woman were deleted. This brings up a lot of emotions when I
Recently, I’ve been reflecting on Masahiro Nakai’s objections to the term “sexual violence.” He claims that the term is too strong and that the evidence is unclear, but there seem to be complex issues behind his statements. As someone who works in a judicial scrivener’s office, I have doubts about Nakai’s assertions from a legal
Question from a reader:
What do you think about Tōru Hashimoto’s claim that “Masahiro Nakai’s actions are not sexual violence”? While I can understand his legal perspective that “not having consent alone does not constitute a crime” and “the social backlash is too severe,” it seems to overlook the voices of actual victims and the circumstances on the ground. Isn’t it
