About the Definition of Sexual Violence by Fuji TV and the Third-Party Committee
Recently, the report from Fuji TV and the third-party committee has garnered attention. It’s understandable that many people are questioning the definition of sexual violence, especially since Masahiro Nakai has been named as a perpetrator. I have also taken some time to think about this matter. From
a legal standpoint, it is a very complex issue. First of all, it is concerning that the report categorizes the situation as “sexual violence” despite the lack of concrete evidence regarding any actual conduct. Most people would associate the term “sexual violence” with coercive acts. However, the report states that such actions have not been confirmed. This certainly seems to be a misleading expression.
Reasons for Lack of Accountability
Why is no one seriously questioning accountability? It seems that the unique environment of the entertainment industry may play a role. Nakai is extremely popular, and at the same time, Fuji TV has its relationships with sponsors to consider. The fact that sponsors returned after the report was released likely reflects these underlying circumstances. There are opinions suggesting that Fuji TV may have painted Nakai as the villain to protect its corporate culture and its stakeholders. Indeed, the possibility of impression manipulation cannot be denied. It’s not just me who feels that the content of the report is overly biased.
Defamation from a Legal Perspective
It is also puzzling that the third-party committee hasn’t responded to Nakai’s claim that he offered to waive his confidentiality obligations but was told that it was out of the scope of the investigation. If this is true, it could potentially amount to defamation. Being ignored in this way raises both legal and ethical concerns. Furthermore, it is troubling that the content of the hearings has hardly been reflected in the report. While the victims’ testimonies are detailed, the claims of the accused have been overlooked, which raises serious questions about fairness. It seems inappropriate to call themselves “third-party” under these circumstances.
Final Thoughts
I believe many people still have opinions on this matter. I want to continue to deepen my understanding. If anyone has other perspectives or opinions, please feel free to share in the comments. By gathering our thoughts, we may achieve a better understanding of the situation. By the way, this issue has also come up recently at my part-time job at a judicial scrivener’s office. From a legal perspective, I feel that these issues are becoming increasingly complex. What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.
