Will Li Chen’s reputation violations be reversed?It is too early to conclude the defeat

Will Li Chen’s reputation violations be reversed?It is too early to conclude the defeat
On April 16, Beijing Internet Court issued the first-instance civil judgment on the dispute between Li Chen and Li Jiwei on the legal liability of the network, and decided to dismiss Li Chen ‘s lawsuit.# 李晨 名 admiralty infringement case lost # on hot search.The reasons for the public’s attention are: 1. This is a rare star reputation right case that was dismissed. 2. The article was also forwarded. In another case, the defendant was fined. Why did the result differ?3. How can ordinary people comment on the Internet without discriminating?After the judgment of the first instance, Li Chen’s lawyer made a partial statement.Li Chen lost?Will there be a reversal in the second instance?First of all, we actually incorrectly characterize Li Chen ‘s reputation right case by “losing the lawsuit”.At present, the judgment made by the Beijing Internet Court is a first-instance judgment. When the plaintiff refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed to the second-instance court, the first-instance judgment is in an unexecuted state.The case has already filed an appeal, so it cannot be called a “lost suit” now.The court of first instance did not determine that the reprinter was illegal, because the court believed that the reprinted content was not subjective and malicious, and Li Chenfang should have a certain tolerance.However, the scope of the tolerance obligation should be based on objective facts and completed reasonable suggestions. Those who are judged to be uncorrected will be reprinted without verifying the reprinted article, and bear the responsibility of Weibo VThe corresponding duty of care expands the consequences of rectifying damage, and it is not that there is no subjective fault and should bear corresponding responsibilities.The Air Force, the producer of the original article has assumed responsibility, and a forwarder has also assumed legal responsibility.Although China is not a case law, it still needs to pay attention to the basic principles of the same judgment and the relative stability of the judgment.In fact, because the case has already been appealed, there is a high probability that the judgment will be changed in the second instance because the court must maintain the consistency of the judgment.The original article’s producer Air Force was found to be fouled.The results of the two forwarders are different, is it related to the copy?The forwarders need to be treated differently.If he reposted a highly personally aggressive article, then whether or not he has some aggressive wording comments or hints of guidance, he may be admitted.If he reposts articles that are relatively neutral, or some articles that are not very personally offensive, just repost and maintain a neutral comment, I think it is okay.If it is an article, the content of which has personality derogation, the duty of attention when forwarding is stronger.For example, in another case, the defendant Hu Dandan ‘s repost at the top of the reprinted article was: “The scumbag Li Chen is now in shape, and then read later.” She was fined in the first instance in October 2019, and her copy has subjective judgmentGuiding factors.The Li Ji Committee’s reprint in the lawsuit stated that “the article is true or false without comment,” the court of the first instance held that Li Jiwei’s actions did not constitute a dispute, considering that the possible forwarding language was not judged and guided.However, due to the derogatory nature of the analyst, Li Jiwei’s Weibo account has millions of followers, which belongs to the large V scale and has a large influence, so his duty of attention should be higher.If there is no fraud, how to determine?There are many standards and precedents for punishment in such cases.First of all, for the content publisher, you are responsible for the authenticity of the content, and the forwarder also has a certain duty of care for this content.Second, if this matter is true, you may infringe on the ownership rights of others; if it is not true, you may infringe on the right of reputation.For rumors producers, they may face civil liability for stopping infringement, restoring reputation, eliminating influence, paying apology and compensating for losses, administrative liability for fines or crimes, and criminal liability in cases where they constitute crimes.The rumor communicator needs to bear the same legal responsibility as the rumor producer to a certain extent, even under special circumstances, the responsibility is greater than the producer.As a rational communicator, when faced with online information, especially those with a wide range of ethnic influences, properly verify the authenticity of the online information, and comments about knowingly infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others are still being spread, furthering related rumorsSpreading, aggravating the consequences of damage, transmitting wrong guidance, and properly correcting the rumor spreaders have serious subjective faults, and they need to take communication actions to bear corresponding legal responsibilities.How to identify alternatives for articles with initials?This often happens in practice, such as L male, Y actress.There will be a certain insinuation.There are also many judicial precedents, and the appropriate standard here is whether or not the basic judgment of ordinary people can be enough to associate with the relevant actual personnel.Although he is not said to be him, the few characteristics mentioned let everyone know that he can reach this level, and he must also bear responsibility.If the defendant has few fans, will it affect the verdict?To a certain extent, the number of fans can directly determine the size of the range of influence of the published remarks. Subjects with a large number of fans are publishing, and they should bear a higher duty of attention when reprinting relevant comments. At the same time, relevant comments are misleading to most people.If the object of knowing that the relevant comments related to the suspected infringement of the communication is again included in the public opinion, we can initially identify and disseminate relevant reports with subjective observation.In the court’s hearing of honorary rights cases, the scope of influence of the remarks involved in the case will be regarded as an important factor in the degree of subdivision, especially for the reprinter, whose fault and scale are closely related to the scope of influence.However, the size of the scope of influence does not necessarily determine whether the comments involved in the case constitute a problem, and may affect the amount of compensation for the case.If the main system trumpet for the first rumors is released, the number of fans is very small, but it is reprinted by the body with a large number of fans. Unless other comments are not published, it will also cause the spread of the rumor damage and spread, causing greater damage to the victim.Then, both the originator and the reprinter can assume responsibility as defendants.In order to avoid the situation that different local courts determine “different judgments in different types of cases” in cases where the plot and facts are basically the same, the existing relevant regulations make it clear that the responsibility of the “reproducer” is assumed.Judge its “duty of care”.The “obligation of attention” is somewhat, and the degree of fault is possible.As a subject with a large number of fans, it is reasonable to know that the published information will affect many people, and it will have a higher duty of care in law, which will lead to stricter determination of faults.In addition to Weibo, would similar information be added in the circle of friends?Although the audience of the circle of friends is far smaller than that of open social platforms such as Weibo, the constituent elements of the infringement of reputation rights are “1. The fact that the perpetrator objectively damages the reputation of others is known to a third party.2. The actor is subjectively wrong.3. The victim is the correct person.4. The perpetrator is non-subjective to the victim, objectively resulting in damage, and making the victim feel an unjust social pressure or psychological burden.”Therefore, whether it constitutes a right of reputation has nothing to do with the carrier of the release, but rather whether it satisfies the constituent elements of infringing on the reputation right of others.As long as the reposter can judge the information as a rumor or false information in the subjective consciousness, even if it is forwarded in the circle of friends, the audience is large, it may constitute an infringement of the right of reputation.Is there any conflict between the definition of the right of reputation and the right to criticize public figures?Since public figures have special identities, their reputation rights are also special.Public figures have a better social status than the general public, and their deductions in the legal protection of personality interests are what we often refer to as “tolerance of public figures”.Therefore, public figures accept legitimate and reasonable suggestions for accepting behavior, as well as questions and criticisms based on public interest or public interest.However, the principle of “putting things right” should be adopted. Inappropriately directly insulting the personality or causing serious damage to the interests of the personality. The public’s right to know and the right to supervise public opinion cannot waive the responsibility of personal attacks. Once the limit is exceeded, it still constitutes damage.Therefore, Li Chen told the media, media and Internet users to properly review the authenticity and objectivity of the information when publishing and reprinting the information. If they are capable of verifying but not verifying, it will cause damages and be subjective.There is a certain fault.Regardless of whether it is published or reprinted, you should be cautious and prudent, increase auditing efforts, prevent intentional or unintentional participation in the ranks of follow-up hype, and you can also avoid taking legal responsibility.□ Pang Lipeng (lawyer) editor of Sauna Night Net Wu Longzhen proofreading Wang Xin