5 cases of disputes over online reputation rights

Reputation right is an important content of personal rights in China. With the continuous enhancement of people's awareness of human rights protection and the continuous improvement of China's legal system construction, the number of disputes over reputation rights has also increased in recent years. The following is a case about the dispute of online reputation right that I brought to you. Welcome to read!

Case 1: Case 1: Civil dispute between Xu Dawen and Song Zude and Liu Xinda on infringement of reputation.

(a) the basic facts of the case

On the morning of June 5438+1 October 8, 20081or so, the famous director Xie Jin died of a sudden heart attack in a hotel room. From June 2008 10 to February 2008 19, Song Zude uploaded "Don't die like Xie Jin!" Go to his Sina blog, Sohu blog and Tencent blog. "Xie Jin and Liu xx have an illegitimate child with severe cerebral palsy overseas. Thank xx! " As well as many other articles, Xie Jin died of sudden sexual death, and Xie Jin and Liu xx had an illegitimate child with severe cerebral palsy overseas. From June 28th, 2008 to May 5th, 2009, Liu Xinda uploaded "Liu Xinda is willing to testify in court. Xie Jin died of prostitution. Why do bad websites operate behind the scenes?" Liu Xinda: Beauty? This is really Li's daughter, and I really took the photo. The prediction of the 15th National Congress of Song Zude has come true! Song Zude's 22 accurate predictions! " And other articles, saying that Xie Jin's incident was witnessed with his own eyes, or that he saw it with his own eyes overseas? Xie Jin's illegitimate child? Wait for the content. From June 5438+ 10 to June 2008 165438+ 10, journalists from qtv, Chengdu Business News Agency, Beijing News Agency, Huaxi News Agency, Heilongjiang Daily Newspaper Group Life News Agency and Tianfu Morning Post Agency interviewed Song Zude by telephone. Song Zude claimed that the above article was conclusive, and qtv and various newspapers reported it one after another. After asking Song Zude that the news came from Liu Xinda, Chengdu Business Daily reporter also interviewed Liu Xinda by telephone. Liu Xinda told reporters that he told Song Zude and made a description consistent with his blog post. Xu Dawen sued Song Zude and Liu Xinda for infringing Xie Jin's reputation, demanding to stop the infringement, cancel the blog post, publicly apologize in the relevant media, and compensate economic losses of 65,438+10,000 yuan and spiritual damages of 400,000 yuan.

(II) Judgment result

The People's Court of Jing 'an District of Shanghai held in the first instance that registered users of blogs are legally responsible for the authenticity of blog articles and have the obligation to avoid causing others to suffer unlawful infringement. Song Zude and Liu Xinda each uploaded libel articles first, and Song Zude claimed that the news came from Liu Xinda? Listen with your own ears and see with your own eyes? On the other hand, Liu Xinda publicly claimed that he heard the incident with his own eyes and told Song Zude by uploading the article to his blog and telling the verification media. The two not only committed their own torts, but also had an interesting connection with Xie Jin's reputation right, which constituted a joint tort. The libel article was published the day after Xie Jin's death, and continued to slander Xie Jin's reputation in the process of verification by newspapers and other media. Subjective fault is very obvious. Song Zude and Liu Xinda used the Internet to publicly make false statements, which caused Xie Jin's reputation right to be illegally violated in a wider scope. The subjective faults of the two defendants were very serious, and the means of infringement were very bad, which caused a great blow to Xu Dawen, the widow of Xie Jin. To sum up, Song Zude and Liu Xinda were sentenced to stop the infringement and published a public apology statement to Xu Dawen in a prominent position in several print and online media newspapers to eliminate the influence; He also compensated Xu Dawen for his economic loss of 8995 1.62 yuan, and paid 200,000 yuan for mental damage. Song Zude and Liu Xinda refused to accept the appeal, and the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment and rejected the appeal.

(c) Typical significance: compensation for mental damage should be equivalent to the degree of fault of the infringer.

This case is a case of using a blog to infringe on the reputation of others. As stated in the judgments of the first and second instance, expressions from the media such as public blogs, like those through radio, television and newspapers, should abide by national laws and regulations and must not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others. Bloggers should bear legal responsibility for the content of their blogs. In this case, the two defendants used the Internet and other media to infringe Xie Jin's reputation right, and the court awarded a higher amount of mental damages according to the subjective fault of their actions, the severity of the infringement means, the infringement result and other factors, which reflected the concept and spirit of the Tort Liability Law.

Case 2: Cai Jiming and Baidu Company violated the right of reputation, portrait, name and privacy.

(a) the basic facts of the case

As a member of CPPCC, the plaintiff publicly published suggestions on holiday reform, which aroused public concern. Netizens set it up in Baidu Post Bar? Cai Jiming, right? During the year, insulting and defamatory words and pictures were published, and personal information such as Cai Jiming's personal mobile phone number and home phone number were also published. Where is Baidu Company? Baidu Post Bar? The home page stipulates the use respectively? Baidu Post Bar? Basic rules and complaint methods and rules. It stipulates that any user who finds that the content of a post is suspected of insulting, slandering others, infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others or violating the post agreement has the right to make a complaint according to the post complaint rules. Entrusted Liang to negotiate with Baidu over the phone about the post bar involved in the case, but Baidu did not handle it. Liang applied again? Cai Jiming Post Bar? Administrator, without approval, Liang sent a mass message to the management of Post Bar to apply for deleting the infringing post of Post Bar, but the management group did not reply. On June 5438+00, 2009, on June 5438+03, Cai Jiming entrusted a lawyer to send a lawyer's letter to Baidu, demanding that the company fulfill its legal obligations, delete the infringing speech and close Cai Jiming. Received a lawyer's letter, Baidu deleted it? Cai Jiming, right? Online posts suspected of infringement. Cai Jiming sued Baidu, demanding that the infringing information be deleted, that Cai Jiming be closed, that the personal information of netizens who posted infringing information be made public, and that the losses be compensated.

(II) Judgment result

The Haidian District Court of Beijing held in the first instance that Baidu Post Bar service is a network service that provides information release conditions for Internet users in a specific form of electronic interaction, and the law has no legal obligation to review the posts posted by Internet service providers one by one. Therefore, Baidu Post Bar service cannot be presumed on the grounds that the bulletin board service provided by Internet service providers is suspected of infringing personal civil rights and interests. Do you know? The fact of infringement. According to the Regulations on the Administration of Internet Bulletin Board Services, Internet service providers only need to bear the infringing information suspected of infringing private rights and interests published on their electronic bulletin boards? Early warning? And then what? Post-event supervision has the obligation to provide convenient complaint channels for obligees and ensure the effectiveness of complaint channels. Baidu has fulfilled its legal obligation to prompt in advance and provide effective complaint channels in post-event supervision, and has not violated its legal duty of care. After receiving a letter from Cai Jiming on June 5438+00, 2009, Baidu Company immediately deleted the infringing information and did not assume the tort liability. Since Baidu has deleted the infringing information and taken shielding measures to prevent the release of new infringing information, Cai Jiming continues to ask Baidu to close the litigation-related post bar, and Cai Jiming has attracted public attention? National holiday reform? Events and become a public figure, become the focus of public attention, for the sake of public opinion supervision and freedom of speech, the public should be allowed to express different voices through various channels, as long as Cai Jiming himself has not been maliciously attacked and insulted. And then what? Cai Jiming, right? It is just a channel for public opinion to express its views on public figures and public events. Cai Jiming? Naming the name of the bar only refers to the focus of public opinion, and does not intentionally infringe on its name right, so it does not support the request to close the Cai Jiming bar.

With regard to Cai Jiming's request to Baidu Company to provide personal information of relevant network users before the lawsuit, Baidu Company did not directly provide Cai Jiming with information of infringing network users according to Article 15 of the Regulations on the Administration of Internet Bulletin Board Services, and there was no fault. Cai Jiming's lawsuit requested Baidu to provide the above information, and Baidu also said in court that it could provide it technically. Therefore, Cai Jiming's request for Baidu to provide Cai Jiming with the information of network users suspected of infringement through the court is justified and supported by the court of first instance.

The second instance of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court held that Baidu Company did not take corresponding measures in time after receiving Liang's complaint, until it entrusted to issue a formal lawyer's letter, and did not take measures such as deleting information. After Liang complained and issued a formal lawyer's letter, Baidu failed to fulfill its post-event management obligations, which led to the expansion of the damage consequences of netizens' infringement and should bear the corresponding tort liability. According to the specific circumstances of this case, Baidu should compensate Cai Jiming100000 yuan.

(3) Typical significance: It is not appropriate to assume that the network service provider knows the existence of infringement facts just because of the appearance of infringement information.

This case involves the responsibility boundary of the network service provider, which has three reference meanings: First, there is a relationship between the notification mode and effect of the notification person and the publicity mode of the network service provider. As long as the notifier conforms to the notification method of the network service provider, the network service provider should take necessary measures. Based on this premise, the court of second instance decided that Baidu should bear the responsibility from the prosecution of the agent entrusted by the plaintiff to the delivery of the plaintiff's lawyer's letter. The second is to judge whether the network service provider knows that the network service of network users infringes on the rights and interests of others, and cannot infer based on the fact that the service it provides is infringing. Do you know? . Third, we should pay attention to grasping the boundary between public figure supervision, freedom of speech and infringement, and realize the balance between them. First, the court of second instance does not support the lawsuit of deleting Cai Jiming Bar, and the interests are properly weighed.

Disputes over online reputation rights Part 2: 1. Case text

One night in June 2000, Yu met the net name at a net friend's party? Beauty quiet? Girl Zhang. From March to May, 200 1 year, did you take the rest? Great Leap Forward? The screen name of "E-Dragon" has been widely published on the BBS of Xici website. Beauty quiet? Is it an a? Online escort of Xiaoyao virtue? ,? Me and? Beauty quiet? Having an affair ,? Beauty quiet? I fell in love with him online and got pregnant with his child. The post used insulting words many times, and some words were unsightly. Zhang repeatedly replied to warning Yu to stop insulting others, so he took Yu to court, demanding that the defendant Yu immediately stop the infringement, eliminate the influence, apologize, and compensate the plaintiff for mental damages 10000 yuan. This is the so-called China? The first case of network reputation infringement? .

The Gulou District People's Court of Nanjing made a first-instance judgment based on the facts proved by a large amount of evidence: What is the screen name? Great Leap Forward? The infringement fact of Yu is established, and the net name is? Beauty quiet? Plaintiff Zhang apologized on Xici.com and compensated Zhang mental damage compensation 1000 yuan.

(Source: People's Republic of China (PRC) the Supreme People's Court Bulletin 200 1 05. )

Second, think about the topic of discussion

(1) Should Yu bear legal responsibility for his words and deeds in virtual cyberspace?

(2) What right did Yu's behavior infringe on Zhang?

(3) How should I bear legal responsibility?

Third, the case analysis

Cyberspace refers to online communication space including BBS/ forum, post bar, bulletin board, group discussion, online chat, making friends, personal space and wireless value-added services. Cyberspace is the networking and informatization of real social life.

Although cyberspace is virtual, the behavior of people behind it is objective and true. Virtual society is a true reflection of the real world. Cyberspace, as a product of the high development of human science and technology, is a place for people to spread information and communicate. Just as real social life needs security and order, cyberspace should also be bound by law. Cyberspace is not a lawless place, and people can do whatever they want. No one may use cyberspace to infringe upon the interests of the state and society and the legitimate rights and interests of others. The National People's Congress stipulates in the second paragraph of Article 6 of the Decision on Maintaining Internet Security: Anyone who uses the Internet to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others and constitutes a civil infringement shall bear civil liability according to law. ? Therefore, the behavior of cyberspace should also abide by the laws of the real society. If the behavior of cyberspace violates the law, it should bear legal responsibility, and in serious cases, it should bear criminal responsibility.

Reputation is a comprehensive evaluation of the morality, reputation and image of citizens or legal persons in society. Reputation right is a kind of personality right, which refers to the right of citizens and legal persons to obtain objective and fair social evaluation. Article 101 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that citizens and legal persons enjoy the right of reputation and their personal dignity is protected by law. It is forbidden to damage the reputation of citizens and legal persons by insulting or slandering. ? Citizens' right to reputation is protected by law, and no one may insult or damage the reputation of others in any form.

Although both Yu and Zhang use virtual screen names to log on to the website and participate in the activities of the website, in real life, they already know and know the person corresponding to the screen name, but what about Zhang? Beauty quiet? The screen name and real identity are also known by other netizens. Beauty quiet? It is no longer just a virtual identity on the network. Although netizens who know each other's true identities continue to communicate with each other by their online names, the communication at this time is no longer limited to virtual cyberspace, and the communication object is no longer a virtual person, but has reality and pertinence.

Yu passed the public discussion version of the website to? Great Leap Forward? How many times has the screen name been published? Beauty quiet? That is, Zhang's remarks, fabricating facts and belittling them with insulting language? Beauty quiet? In other words, Zhang's personality is subjectively maliciously derogating from Zhang's reputation, objectively infringing on others' reputation rights, reducing others' social evaluation of Zhang, and constituting an infringement on Zhang's reputation rights.

The first paragraph of Article 120 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that: if a citizen's right to name, portrait, reputation and honor is infringed, he has the right to demand that the infringement be stopped, his reputation be restored, the influence be eliminated, an apology be made, and he may demand compensation for losses. ? Accordingly, after the defendant infringed the plaintiff Zhang's reputation right, Zhang demanded that he immediately stop the infringement, eliminate the influence and apologize, which was well-founded in law and should be supported by the court. With regard to the compensation for mental damage claimed by the plaintiff Zhang, according to the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Determining the Liability for Compensation for Mental Damage in Civil Torts, the defendant should be ordered to pay compensation, and the specific amount of compensation should be determined by the court accepting the case according to the actual impact caused by a certain illegal act.

Fourth, teaching suggestions

1. The teaching purpose and purpose of this case

The teaching purpose of this case is to cultivate and enhance college students' legal awareness, improve their ability to comprehensively apply legal norms to analyze, judge and solve practical problems, and train their legal thinking.

This case is applicable to the third section of Chapter 5 of Ideological and Moral Cultivation and Legal Basis (2008 Edition)? Legal norms in public life? , or the eighth chapter in the second quarter? China's substantive legal system? When talking about the decision of the National People's Congress on maintaining Internet security or the civil rights system, we can use this case for case teaching.

2. Problems needing attention in the use of this case

The key of this case is to judge the legal nature of the residual behavior from both subjective and objective aspects, and then apply the law correctly and deal with it according to law on the basis of accurate and qualitative analysis.

During June, 20001year, some netizens posted a post entitled "36 ways to die in a beautiful garden" on the BBS forum of the owners' committee of Beijing Sailong Home Network in beautiful homeland. Among them, there is such a saying:? I regretted being cheated out of 50 yuan by German flies. The developer promised Defi and Gao Xun to waive the property fee and adjust the big house. They were jealous to death. I laughed to death when I saw Defei's poor performance at the owners' meeting. It's a shame to live next door to a clown like Princess De. ? Since then, there have been articles such as "This was done by Germany and Britain", calling it Germany and Britain? With 128 registered owners as chips, privately reached an agreement with developers and district housing and land administration to betray the interests of owners? . On July 3rd of that year 15: 53, this BBS published the article "Owner's representative (referring to DEFA) has no right to sign an agreement with the company" again.

As representatives of the owners' committee of beautiful gardens, Deying and Gao Yuan think this is what the newspaper said. German flies? And then what? Gao Wei? This is a hint to yourself. The insulting words and fabricated facts in this article have seriously damaged its reputation and public image and reduced its social evaluation. Therefore, they think that Cellon.com should bear the corresponding responsibility for failing to fulfill the management obligation of censoring and deleting, and refusing to provide the author information of infringing articles, and then bring a lawsuit to the court.

After trial, the court held that bulletin board service providers provided services for netizens and could not delete information at will, so there was no subjective fault in publishing infringing articles on Cylon. In addition, the court did not support the plaintiff's request for personal data of the author of the article, because the plaintiff's submission time has exceeded the time limit for the website to retain personal data. And announce the cylon in court. Com's behavior is legal and faultless, and it should not bear legal responsibility. The two plaintiffs immediately said that they would continue to appeal if they refused to accept the judgment.

This is the first case of reputation infringement of bulletin board service in China. Based on the facts of this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff lost the case. The reasons are as follows: (1) The direct author of the published information was not found through the website within 60 days of the specified website information record preservation time; (2) For the infringing contents involved in the three articles and related texts, such as? German flies? 、? Gao Wei? Except for insiders in a specific range, it is difficult for the public to judge that these words are derogating from the personality of a specific civil subject, and there is no subjective fault in Theron's behavior. (3)Sailong.com, as a network service provider, provides online services for users and has the obligation not to delete user information at will.

The plaintiff essentially lost the case because the website was not required to find the information publisher within the stipulated 60 days. The reasons (2) and (3) are somewhat ambiguous. The second article is about the influence scope of online characters, and the court has not clearly pointed out the criteria for judging the influence scope of online information; For the third article, it is based on preconceived judgment, that is, the publisher's information is legal. If the information is insulting or defamatory, as an Internet service provider, Theron should certainly fulfill its obligation to delete it. It is precisely (2) and (3) that truly reflect the particularity of network reputation infringement cases.

Theoretical analysis on the infringement of reputation right by general news

Freedom of speech is a basic human right enjoyed by citizens in modern society, and it is the basic premise for citizens to participate in the discussion of state affairs and supervision by public opinion. In modern society, the mass media is the distribution center and spokesman of citizens' public opinion, shouldering the task of public opinion supervision, and is an important symbol of the process of social democratization. Legally protecting citizens' freedom of speech is not only the basic premise for mass media to realize social responsibility, but also reflects the degree of democratization of a society.