On the eve of the National People’s Congress in 2021, Li Dongsheng, a representative of the National People’s Congress, said in an interview: “Internet defamation is more common in recent years, which has caused great confusion and impact on the parties and the institutions involved.” Therefore, Li Dongsheng’s representative suggested: First, to improve relevant judicial interpretations, new regulations must be set in accordance with the information release model of social platforms such as WeChat and Weibo. Second, issue uniform judicial norms through case studies. Third, clarify the responsibilities of other social entities through legislation. For example, increase the management of real-name systems on online platforms; increase the cost of defamation of “marketing accounts”.

Legislation alone is not enough for many things. The key is the cost of law enforcement. Many people have heard the phrase “the law does not blame the public” as a way of criticizing law enforcement agencies and not doing personnel affairs. But if you really are in it, you will notice that many “small cases” and “small things” are difficult to provide enough manpower and material resources to solve one by one. In reality, petty theft is still the case, not to mention the massive amount of network information. Take Zhihu as an example. When I waited for the keyboard man to like mouth-heavy, I got dizzy when I started a government. When I saw someone replying to me with yin and yang, I couldn’t help but greet each other’s ancestors, or what “pink dog food” was. Take it well”. Playing Zhihu over the years has often been put on a completely different hat. I don’t know if I thought there was a group of people using my account. From a legal perspective, does this kind of baseless accusation or even abuse of me count as defamation? Of course it counts. But can everyone be punished? impossible. Even if you know that there will be some review mechanisms to actively delete unfriendly information, intelligent netizens can always maximize the yin and yang strangeness, and cannot fundamentally solve the problem of netizens spitting each other. As for the “marketing account” slander, I am curious: what is a marketing account? Register a Zhihu account to boast that Apple is awesome, is this a marketing account? Register an account to play China Invincible on Douyin. Is this a marketing account? Mainstream media register a platform account and use Wang Bingbing to drain traffic all day long. Is this a marketing account? There is no way to accurately define this gadget, and everything can be marketed. Therefore, how do you legislate to clarify responsibilities? There is no way to define the “subject” of the marketing account. Of course, it does not mean that some slander and rumors on the Internet can only be ignored. What really should be managed well is when a rumor spreads at an incredible speed, does it belong to the self-published behavior of netizens, or is it the “manipulation” behind it. You should remember that there was a so-called “Chinese boy beating a foreign child” a while ago. At that time, some of the “big size” obviously played a role in spreading the spread. It turned out that the reverse was reversed. Those “large” either pretended to be deaf or dumb, or when nothing happened, and the original rumors were not punished! The above link is that some netizens are more honest, investigating how this matter fermented, and who played the role of “giving the flames”. Can we be more truthful about these numbers? Breaking the chain of interests behind this and digging out some interested parties with obvious impure motives is the basis for preventing the expansion of certain slander behaviors and even affecting the three views of netizens.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

Let’s talk about one of them. I think it’s necessary to increase the management of the real-name system on the network platform! If an account does not have real-name authentication, then the information he has published on the Internet and the remarks he made are doubtful to a certain extent. Since he does not have a real name, he can defraud others of money or trust through false information, such as a certain account that appears to be a young lady, but who is sitting behind the network screen is not known. It is not sure whether it is a male or a female. It’s just as exciting as opening a blind box. It’s not only exciting, but also terrifying. He may not only have this account, but sit on countless similar accounts. feeling. Therefore, the implementation of real-name management of online platforms is of great help in increasing the supervision of publishers, and it can also deter online rumors and crooks, and be cautious.

heloword
7 months ago

Provide a new way of thinking: “Privacy” If the “Internet defamation” legislation clearly expresses the responsibility, users’ privacy information (such as ID number, real name, IP address, etc.) must be required when investigating the problem. If the software does not have the right to obtain this information, Then the punishment will not be implemented. So, the question is how to manage this information stored by the enterprise. How does the state supervise the large amounts of data that companies get? At present, this information is not strictly supervised. Even if you delete a lot of software, you will still receive a few text messages from each APP you have used tomorrow. The little red dots at that moment are really annoying ~ no matter it is every day What kind of APP, there are many personalized small ads, you can’t clear it out anyway

helpyme
7 months ago

In defamation civil tort cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove the existence of the infringement, and the crime of defamation is a crime of personal prosecution. The plaintiff’s provision of evidence is the principle, and the public security assistance to obtain evidence is an exception. “The place where the evidence is presented is where the case is lost.” Therefore, the most important thing to pay attention to in combating online defamation in accordance with the law is not the size and imputation of liability, but how to reduce the difficulty of obtaining evidence and reduce the cost of defending rights! 1. Put forward strict back-end real-name management requirements for major online platforms, and the obligation to assist in litigation cases. “Having a clear defendant” is a statutory basic requirement for the infringer to be sued. However, due to its natural concealment, the Internet has led to There are very big obstacles for the infringer to lock down the subject of network defamation. In most cases, the victim can only know the account or nickname of the detractor, but for the court, this is far from enough. At this time, the parties have only two options. One is to connect with the platform on their own and request that they provide the identity information of the defamatory account; the other is to apply for the court to order the platform to provide the identity information. However, it is still more difficult for the individual parties to initiate these two procedures. Although the Supreme People’s Court “Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Infringing Personal Rights and Interests Through the Use of Information Networks”, the people’s courts may, based on the plaintiff’s request and the specific circumstances of the case, order network service providers to provide the people’s courts The name (name), contact information, network address and other information of the suspected infringing network user. However, “ordering to provide identity information” is still one of the discretionary options of the court. There are still great obstacles to how the plaintiff can obtain the identity information of suspected defamation online users through investigation and evidence collection by himself or by entrusting a lawyer. Therefore, it should be clear that the platform is responsible for real-name management, and it is forbidden to post any information on accounts without real-name. At the same time, for an agency number registered in the name of a legal person, the other party should be required to provide at least one natural person as the person responsible for the supervision of the account. When platform users are involved in defamation and other information network infringement litigation, even if the platform is not listed as a co-defendant, it is still obligated to assist the infringed or the lawyer entrusted by it to investigate and collect evidence. Platforms that do not conduct real-name management in accordance with the law may consider presuming that the illegal information is published by the platform itself, and the platform shall bear the responsibility. If it constitutes a crime of defamation, the main person in charge of the platform shall bear criminal responsibility. Of course, emphasizing the real-name system management of the platform, and at the same time paying attention to the protection of user privacy. On the one hand, the platform is limited to the back-end management of the user’s identity information, and the platform can set up the function of anonymous speech, and the two do not conflict. On the other hand, the platform should follow strict review conditions to provide user identity information to others, and limit the scope of information applicable to litigation, and must not provide identity information that is not related to litigation. Of course, the relevant regulations for the platform to provide user information still need to be further stipulated by the law. 2. It is clear that the user has the responsibility of providing evidence and notifying the actual infringer if the user argues that the account has been used by others. In practice, it is not ruled out that part of the account identity information is inconsistent with the actual user. In this regard, exception response measures should also be provided. Based on the principle of “who claims, who will provide evidence”, if the account subject argues that “the account has been used by others”, it shall provide evidence to prove that the infringing information was published by others using his account, and inform the plaintiff of the identity of the actual infringer, otherwise Not enough to exempt or reduce liability. 3. It is clear that the platform is obligated to store user data for a fixed period of time, and to assist the plaintiff in extracting and fixing infringement-related data. In a network defamation infringement case, the plaintiff is very limited in obtaining evidence, even if it applies to the court for public security assistance. On the one hand, the court may not agree, on the other hand, the public security’s enthusiasm for investigating and collecting evidence in private prosecution cases is often not high enough. Therefore, how to reduce the difficulty of obtaining evidence for the plaintiff through legal provisions is very important. In addition, some platforms delete the information on their own after receiving reports from users or discovering that the information is infringing. If the background of the platform does not preserve the relevant data, it is likely that the original evidence has been lost after the plaintiff entered the litigation procedure, and the evidence such as screenshots or chat data provided by the plaintiff lacks third-party authentication and the authenticity of which is doubtful, and thus cannot be obtained by the people’s court. Recognized. Therefore, while clarifying that the platform has the obligation to review and delete illegal information in a timely manner, it should also be required to have a fixed period of custody of infringing information and key data such as related views, comments, and forwarding in the background (such as Three-year statute of limitations period or five-year statute of limitations period for prosecution). When the plaintiff enters the civil or criminal proceedings and requests assistance in investigating and collecting evidence with a letter of introduction issued by a court or law firm, the platform shall assist him in extracting and fixing relevant evidence, and act as a third-party witness in extracting and fixing the transcript. signature.

sina156
7 months ago

There were several typical judicial cases during the two sessions this year, such as the case of advance on-demand broadcasting, the passion fruit girl case, and the rumors and defamation case of Hangzhou Express. Among them, the Hangzhou defamation case was originally a private prosecution by the victim, which is difficult to defend rights, and it is difficult to collect evidence. The slanderer did not take it seriously and thought it was a joke. Later, the public power intervened and filed a public prosecution. The victim said in an interview that after receiving the support of the public power, he felt that he was dependent. Not to mention anything else, you can breathe a sigh of relief in collecting evidence. Legislation to prevent defamation focuses on deterring the people who “joking” again, and avoiding such a situation that infringes on the right of reputation, opens their mouths and breaks their legs while defending their rights. This proposal is consistent with the idea of this judicial interpretation.

yahoo898
7 months ago

The problem now is that the criminal requirements are relatively high, and indeed the criminal standards cannot be too low. The amount of civil compensation is too low, and in many cases it is not supported that the winning party’s attorney fees should be borne by the losing party. There are also many cases supporting it. This is because the judicial interpretation states that “attorney fees that meet the regulations of the relevant state departments can be calculated within the scope of compensation.” As a result, there are many cases where individuals sue others for infringement of reputation rights, and the courts have not ruled that the defendant shall bear the plaintiff’s attorney fees. Maybe it is because they think that individuals can sue themselves? Most of the cases that I have seen by the company supported the defendant’s attorney’s fee. And defamation often does not cause direct property losses. Economic losses are often difficult to determine. For example, when rumors have been published and sales have fallen, how can we prove this causality? From a technical point of view, it can only prove the relevance. I can’t contact those who originally wanted to buy but did not actually buy it one by one. So this also leads to very low compensation. For individuals, if it is not very straightforward, for example, it leads to being fired by the company. Even if the interview is rejected, there is no way to prove that it was because of the rejection. Therefore, if a natural person is slandered, it is even more difficult to prove economic losses. Therefore, compensation can basically only be considered for compensation for mental damage. But the amount of compensation is generally not high, mostly a few thousand yuan. Defamated persons need to spend a lot of time and money in order to protect their rights, and they can only get a small amount of compensation. It is recommended to unify the criteria for refereeing and support all attorney fees. Compensation for mental damage is judged according to a relatively high standard.

leexin
7 months ago

In fact, whether entertainment law lawyers have never thought about this issue, but in the current judicial practice, there are really too many problems. First of all, the crackdown on illegal activities can be divided into three levels: civil, administrative and criminal. Most of the handling of defamatory information is currently possible and has been done. Basically, they are prosecuted for reputation infringement at the civil level. Now there is a mature operation model, and a large number of cases have established that reputation infringement may constitute defamation and require responsibility. Benchmark cases of liability. More and more celebrities are also aware of using civil means to defend their rights, but after all, the results of civil cases come late and take a long time. Often these infringers have been at ease for a long time before they can finally receive a small amount of compensation. In many cases, the people hiding behind the marketing account may be minors or students. They have no ability to pay. When they cry and hang themselves, sometimes the stars choose to forgive them. Therefore, civil rights protection methods are too weak, and there is actually a crime of defamation in the law. However, the crime of defamation is a private prosecution. Its logical basis is that as the victim, it is necessary to prove that what the other party said is false. For example, the other party says cheating, sleeping someone else, playing big cards, etc. How can we prove that what he said is false? This is actually an unlikely task. Everyone remember that Ma Su’s defamation case was filed, but now there is no result. Remember that Guo Jingming’s defamation case was lost in the end. Therefore, for many celebrities, private prosecution of defamation, first, it is difficult to enter the procedure of filing a case, and second, even if the case is opened, it is difficult to reach the final evidence standard of the case. The crime of defamation, as a private prosecution, has too high a conviction standard, and it is difficult to include those who truly spread rumors into the management of criminal charges. If there is no such form of punishment, the cost of defamation is still relatively low overall. of. Therefore, this is actually an area of ​​legislation and judicial practice that needs to be explored. This may be the most critical issue that needs to be resolved now.

greatword
7 months ago

The idea of ​​this proposal is quite good, but how to implement it is still debatable. The committee members suggested increasing the fines and other means to deduct the defamation cost of the marketing account. If you want to achieve this, you need legislative support. Because “fines” are not fines and compensations that everyone usually understands. Fines are a kind of additional penalty, which is exclusive to the field of punishment. It is a punishment that can be added to the criminal at the same time as the penalty is imposed. If it is a violation of law and order, it is a fine, not a fine. Internet defamation can be sentenced generally because the circumstances are very serious, and the crimes involved in online defamation are mainly insults and defamation. These two crimes are personal indictment crimes, which means that unless they seriously endanger social order and national interests, they will be prosecuted. The victim himself filed a criminal private prosecution to the court, and the judiciary generally does not take the initiative to intervene. The provisions of the Criminal Law for these two crimes do not mention the application of fines, and even if fines are to be applied, it is based on the principles of the criminal law and the circumstances of the crime. In reality, very few people have been sentenced for online defamation, and they are generally dealt with in accordance with civil torts, which does not involve the issue of fines, but the issue of civil compensation. The crime of defamation is the last way to deal with online defamation, most of which are civil methods, public security violations, and some cannot be sanctioned by legal means for various reasons. This part is the “main battlefield” for managing marketing accounts. Therefore, rectifying the “marketing account” and increasing penalties is one way, but it will not solve the fundamental problem, because you must first put this part of the defamation act into punishment. The most important thing is to start with platform governance, improve civil compensation and even punitive compensation standards for reputation infringement cases, increase supervision and punishment by administrative departments, strengthen publicity and enhance self-discipline awareness, etc., and comprehensive governance can be effective.

loveyou
7 months ago

it is good! Not only slander, but also rumors! Some time ago, Weibo spread rumors that Hu Ge and Liu Yifei married? I was on the hot search, and later refuted the rumors that he was not married, and then went on a wave of hot searches. Is this a rumor? This is openly spreading rumors and openly deceiving traffic! If they are married, I think everyone should discuss it, because two stars are married and they are liked by everyone, but they don’t get married, and they spread rumors on hot search. Why should rumors be refuted on hot search? After that, is it possible to spread the rumors that Xiaoxianrou married a dog and go on a hot search to refute the rumors that Xiaoxianrou did not marry a dog, but maybe he married a pig and went on a hot search again? Who is the root cause of the rumors? It’s Weibo! To punish them severely, it is best for the state to intervene! Don’t let them fool us like this!

strongman
7 months ago

In response to the social problems of frequent online defamation, low cost of online rumors, and difficulty in protecting rights, Li Dongsheng believes that “some netizens and marketing accounts rely on the irresponsible way of opening a picture and editing the content to attract attention and disseminate content”, Laws should be adopted to regulate this behavior, increase efforts to crack down on online defamation, encourage everyone to consciously abide by online regulations, and create a clean and upright online environment. In terms of specific measures, Li Dongsheng suggested to improve relevant judicial interpretations; publish unified judicial regulations through cases; clarify the responsibilities of other social entities through legislation, such as increasing the management of real-name systems on online platforms; regulate and guide the “flow”-oriented advertising model; The defamation cost of the “marketing account”, etc., encourage citizens to legitimately defend their rights. For this suggestion, I am very supportive! In the current major online media, there are headline parties, such as “shocked! Chinese people know ****”, “WeChat groups are crazy, ***” and so on. These can be said to be No nutritious articles have a lot of traffic. It has a negative impact on the network environment. At the same time, some marketing accounts dare to say, spread rumors, and make trouble for their own interests or what they are pursuing! And some people posted some unconfirmed news in the anonymous area, and then quickly linked similar marketing accounts, fermented on various platforms, and provoked a war of words. Dissatisfied and some netizens who are full of swear words, not only spread rumors and insult others, but also affect the Internet atmosphere. Do whatever you want with the protection of the screen in front of you! I believe that after real-name, the network environment will be greatly improved. After all, many people are like “hot pen ball” on the Internet, and they are a group of people who are in reality.

stockin
7 months ago

Because most of the capitalist propaganda mouthpieces draped in “new online media” have two bones on them, a thief bone and a cheap bone. Violation of neoliberal dogma: the reasons for the lack of public opinion on poverty alleviation and the New Rural Cooperative Medical System. Among the many measures taken by the Chinese government in the past decade or so, the most tangible benefits for farmers are probably the following three: First, abolish agricultural taxes, and Since the publication of the “Opinions on Comprehensively Promoting the Pilot Work of Rural Tax and Fee Reform” in 2003, the agricultural tax was completely abolished in 2006; secondly, since 2003, the new rural cooperative medical system has been implemented, which has benefited hundreds of millions of farmers. ; The third is the comprehensive poverty alleviation that began in 2013. Among them, the first item of agricultural tax reduction and exemption has been more positively responded to and affirmed by the public opinion, while the latter two items, as mentioned above, are deserted by public opinion. In fact, the government’s investment in the latter two items, or the benefits that farmers get from them, is greater than the first item of agricultural tax reduction or exemption. Before 2003, the total agricultural tax in China was more than 40 billion yuan, which is 50 billion yuan. Divided by the number of farmers from 800 to 900 million, the abolition of agricultural tax will reduce the burden on farmers by up to 60 yuan per person per year. In order to achieve a complete, comprehensive and permanent poverty alleviation for nearly 100 million poor people, the government has invested heavily in poverty alleviation every year in recent years, which is certainly much higher than the agricultural tax of more than 40 billion yuan. As for the new rural cooperative medical system, the total amount of government subsidies directly to the residents of the country including farmers is also quite large. For example, in 2010, the subsidy of the new rural cooperative medical system by all levels of finance reached the national average of 120 yuan per person. Increased to 450 yuan per person. In 2003, the per capita income of farmers was 2,622 yuan, and the agricultural tax was reduced or exempted by 60 yuan, accounting for less than 2.3%. In 2016, farmers’ living income was 12,363 yuan, and the new rural cooperative subsidy was 450 yuan, accounting for more than 3.6%. Regardless of the actual value after excluding currency depreciation factors, or the proportion of income in the year, the amount of per capita subsidy for the new rural cooperative medical system is higher than the per capita amount of agricultural tax exemption. It is not difficult to see that the two measures of comprehensive poverty alleviation and the popularization of the new rural cooperative medical system are more helpful to farmers than the abolition of agricultural taxes. However, it is strange that these two measures have caused much weaker response in Chinese public opinion than the latter. How to explain this strong contrast? What is the answer to the question raised at the beginning of this article? The answer is: As we all know, for many years, the Chinese media and academic circles, that is, China’s public opinion circles, have been deeply influenced by the dogma of “neoliberalism” and advocated the logic of “small government and big society”. The abolition of agricultural tax conforms to the logic of “small government and big society” and conforms to the “political correctness” created by the media and academia of “tax cuts”, so it has been more affirmed. The characteristics of poverty alleviation and the new rural cooperative medical system are opposite. Obviously, poverty alleviation is a manifestation of “big government” or “promising government”, and it is relying on government actions to solve the poverty problem that cannot be solved by market forces alone; the new rural cooperative has a strong “welfare state” color. Nor does it conform to the “pure market principle” or pure profit-seeking logic. Therefore, although the two major measures of poverty alleviation and the new rural cooperative system have brought huge benefits to farmers, they have been ignored by the media and academic circles because they are not in line with the “political correctness” of neoliberalism, and have not received the attention they deserve. And sure. This is not accidental. In addition to poverty alleviation and the new rural cooperative medical system, the Chinese government has also introduced many other measures that are beneficial to people’s livelihood in the past 15 years. They have also been neglected by public opinion, and even public opinion will mislead and induce the government to abandon its original correctness. To make some choices that damage people’s livelihood. The new rural cooperative medical insurance system is part of the urban and rural basic medical insurance. In the past ten years, the government has promoted and implemented the five social insurance and one housing fund system, including medical insurance, which is very beneficial to ordinary workers. However, the five social insurance and one housing fund system It has never been supported by public opinion, but has always been resisted. Opponents generally stand from the perspective of enterprises, saying that “five social insurance and one housing fund increase the burden on enterprises and should be reduced.” Some seem to stand from the perspective of employees and promote that “five social insurance and one housing fund are not as good as direct wages”, etc. The media even made a lie that “one person’s salary stub last month was 8,000 yuan, but the income actually received was less than 5,000 yuan, and 3,000 yuan was paid for five social insurances and one housing fund” to incite the public’s criticism of the five social insurances and one housing fund. Hostile. In fact, if the pay slip is 8000, the deduction of five insurances, one housing fund and individual tax will never be less than 6000 yuan. There are related calculation tools online, which is clear at a glance. I have to admit: many media and academics in China, although they are considered scholars or intellectuals, they often have more “sweatshop” temperament than business bosses. On the one hand, they put on a daily posture of asking for orders for the people, complaining that the government ignores people’s livelihood. However, when it comes to specific practices, they turn a blind eye to what the government is doing to benefit the people’s livelihood, and even take the initiative. Create public opinion, mislead or induce the government to do things that harm people’s livelihood. On December 30, 2003, China passed the “Minimum Wage Regulations.” Prior to this, the minimum wage was in vain. Since then, it has become common practice for localities to increase the minimum wage every year. However, in recent years, the media has been aggressively creating “labor costs rising too fast”. Affected by this, since 2016, the frequency and magnitude of minimum wage and pension increases across the country have slowed down significantly. This is certainly related to the economic slowdown. It is related, but the role played by the pressure or guidance of public opinion is also obvious and undeniable. In 2007, the new labor contract law began to be implemented. The new labor contract law is still effective in protecting employees. For example, before the promulgation of the new labor law, there were a large number of phenomena in China that not only did not sign contracts with employees, but even deducted ID cards and deposits. Since the new labor law Later, this phenomenon was rarely heard. Similarly, the new labor law has not received the affirmation it deserves from public opinion. Back then, it was Taiwanese and private companies like Foxconn and Sany Heavy Industry that came forward to support the labor law. To this day, voices demanding the abolition of the labor law continue to be heard one after another. The same group of people, on the one hand, they denounced that Chinese products are not good enough, there are quantity but not quality (this is not in accordance with the facts), and lack of craftsmanship. Asked to restore the sweatshop set. Can a sweatshop cultivate the spirit of craftsmanship? There is one more thing I have to mention, this matter is also of great significance to the improvement of China’s people’s livelihood. Since the 1990s, the number of deaths from coal mine accidents in China has risen sharply each year, reaching its highest peak in 2002, when 6,995 people died in that year! This does not include underreporting. Since 2006 or 2007, the death toll has dropped sharply. This is mainly due to the large-scale rectification of coal mines and the shutdown and transfer of a large number of private coal mines or black coal kilns that do not pay attention to safe production. The death toll from coal mines in 2009 has dropped to 2,700. By 2011, the death toll had been controlled within 2,000. In 2016, the death toll from coal mine accidents has dropped to 538, although China’s coal production has increased from 1.3 billion tons in 2002 to 3.7 billion tons in 2016 during the same period. From 7,000 in 2012 to 538 in 2016, it can be said that tens of thousands of deaths have been avoided in about ten years after coal mine rectification. However, in the initial stage of its implementation, the media was attacked by the media as “the country advances and the people retreat”, “competes with the people for profit”, and “the country is rich and the people are poor” (the public opinion of the country advances and the people retreats started from then on), its history The status has not yet been recognized as it should be.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x