Question from a reader:
If the rumors about Taichi Kokubun sending obscene images to staff and engaging in power harassment are true, shouldn’t this be a matter to consult the police? If such incidents did occur, it’s also possible that, like Nakai, he might have paid a settlement and chose not to involve the police. What do you think?
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion surrounding Nakai Masahiro’s attempt to impose new confidentiality obligations on a female announcer. Honestly, I feel a mix of surprise and confusion regarding this issue. In this post, I’d like to share my thoughts on whether this proposal is reasonable from a legal perspective.
Question from Readers:
Do you think it is reasonable for Masahiro Nakai’s side to impose a new confidentiality obligation on the female announcer? The third-party committee of Fuji Television has published a response document to Nakai’s side. Within this document, it has been noted that Nakai’s lawyer proposed a new confidentiality obligation stating that the victim must not disclose any information
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
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?
Question from a reader:
It seems that Masahiro Nakai wants to express his opinions, but does that mean he is not listening to the opinions of the victimized women? Does this mean he has no intention of lifting the confidentiality obligation? Is my understanding correct?
Recently, various opinions regarding Masahiro Nakai have been circulating in
Question from a reader:
If Masahiro Nakai’s rebuttal is true, it means that the third-party committee is lying, right? If that’s the case, it suggests that they colluded with Fuji TV to make Nakai a scapegoat. Don’t you think that sponsor companies should reconsider advertising with such a company? Additionally, it seems that the push to publish the report by
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
Question from a reader:
It seems to me that Nakai-kun is trying to escape by saying he initially considered lifting the confidentiality agreement but ultimately decided against it. Is it just me who feels this way? Can his excuses really hold up? Why does Nakai-kun always use vague phrases like “I’m not at fault,” “it’s a misunderstanding,” and “it was a
Question from a reader:
I have a question regarding the situation with Matsumoto Hitoshi. There are victims involved, some of whom are filing lawsuits, yet Matsumoto is trying to sue for defamation instead. What does this mean? I’ve also heard that the victims did not take the stand to testify, which seems odd considering they filed a lawsuit. What exactly
