Question from a reader:
Attorney Hashimoto Toru stated, “Based on the facts I understand, Nakai’s actions do not constitute ‘sexual violence.'” What does he mean by “facts”? He also mentioned in the same post, “I haven’t heard anything from Nakai or his representative lawyer.” However, he has not heard any details from the female party involved, so it is completely unclear
how he can claim to have “grasped the facts.” Additionally, he said, “If the facts I understand become public…” which suggests he possesses undisclosed information. If this information is hearsay from Nakai’s side, there could be a violation of confidentiality. On the other hand, if Hashimoto’s statements are based on personal speculation or incomplete information, is it not irresponsible to declare in a public forum that “it is not sexual violence”? Moreover, the lack of impartiality is also a concern. Hashimoto made evaluations regarding the recognition of the “facts” of the alleged harm without hearing anything from the female party, presenting this assessment to an undefined number of viewers. I believe this contradicts journalistic ethics. If we allow this, it could lead to the dismissal of all third-party investigations as “overstepping authority.” Unilateral fact recognition, unclear sources of information, and disregard for journalistic ethical guidelines. Given these factors, can Hashimoto’s claims truly be regarded as a “calm legal evaluation”? What do you think?
Reflecting on Hashimoto Toru’s Statements
Recently, Attorney Hashimoto Toru’s comments have become a significant topic of discussion. His assertion that Nakai’s actions do not amount to “sexual violence” has sparked various opinions. I would like to share some of my thoughts on this matter. Firstly, it is indeed contradictory that while he claims to “understand the facts,” he has not heard any information from Nakai’s side or the female victim. In our studies of law, we learn how crucial the “source of information” is. I’m curious about where Hashimoto’s so-called “undisclosed information” comes from. Perhaps he is merely speculating.
Journalistic Ethics and the Lack of Fairness
Still, making a “fact recognition” without hearing from the female party raises questions about journalistic ethics. I believe that this kind of unilateral evaluation is very dangerous when considering the impact it may have on a wide audience. The belief that reporting should be fair is a fundamental principle. Moreover, as noted in user comments, while it is understandable for a celebrity attorney to defend their client, doing so in a way that lacks ethical consideration is truly problematic. If there is evidence that Nakai’s actions were premeditated, it should be properly disclosed.
Personal Feelings and Reflection
Personally, I enjoy comedy and pursue laughter daily, so I seldom engage with serious topics like this. However, it reminds me that such issues do occur in human society. I feel confronted with the reality that life is not solely about enjoyable experiences. So, what do you think? I would love to hear your opinions and experiences on this matter in the comments. Perhaps through discussion, we can uncover new perspectives. I’m looking forward to your thoughts!
