The boundaries of the law are clear, but the boundaries of morality, platform responsibilities, education issues in the smartphone era, and guardian responsibilities are much blurred. On October 26, CCTV Social and Legal Channel CCTV12 - "The Rule of Law Deeper" The column broadc

2024-10-29 20:43:03 entertainment 4587℃

The boundaries of the law are clear, but the boundaries of morality, platform responsibilities, educational issues in the smartphone era, and guardian responsibilities are much blurrier.

On October 26, CCTV Social and Legal Channel cctv12 - "The Rule of Law Deeply" 》column broadcast a case of infringement of the sexual rights of minors heard by the People's Court of Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province.

In August 2023, the work and rest routine of sixth-grade student Xiao Chen was very different from that during school. Xiao Chen's father discovered that his son was chatting with a female anchor on social software at night. What was even more shocking was that 11-year-old Xiao Chen had a naked chat with the female anchor and received a reward of more than 10,000 yuan. After police investigation, the anchor Zhou used online social platforms to lure minors under the age of 14 and expose their private parts in naked chats. His behavior constituted the crime of child molestation. In December 2023, the Shunde Court sentenced Zhou to A certain person was sentenced to three years in prison.

A lot of chaos in the field of Internet live broadcast has been exposed in recent years. But this case still greatly exceeded people's imagination. The 41-year-old anchor Zhou, mother of two boys, actually took off his clothes in front of another sixth-grade boy in the live broadcast room to lure him to reward him. There is really no limit and no shame in extending such sinful hands to children for money. Zhou was eventually sentenced to three years in prison, which was a heavy lesson in the rule of law.

However, the thinking extended by this matter is far from just the legal level. You know, even if the female anchor does not understand the law, for an 11-year-old child to do such an outrageous behavior, it breaks through the most basic human ethics, and the sense of shame and integrity can be said to be gone. In life, facing her children, she is probably a perfectly normal mother. However, when arrived in the cyberspace, she acted like this just to get rewards from her children. After all, she was blinded by profit. , or does cyberspace bring "alienation" to people? says that the Internet is not a place outside the law, but on the Internet, what kind of moral boundaries should be followed, or in other words, online and offline, how can everyone be "self-consistent" and be a "normal person" who can withstand scrutiny? , this is worthy of everyone’s deep thought.

Of course, many netizens also have questions. If something like this happened and the anchor involved was sentenced to three years in prison, doesn’t the platform have any responsibility? Details disclosed in the report showed that the boy involved was induced by the app’s advertising pop-up window, used his grandmother’s WeChat to successfully register and recharge on the platform, and then chatted with the female anchor. From then on, he “fell into it step by step.”

Relevant departments have long made it clear that minors are prohibited from participating in live streaming rewards, but the phenomenon of "stealing" adult accounts for rewards still occurs from time to time. How can specifically prevent adult accounts from being "theft" by minors still requires more technical responses from the platform. is like registering a live broadcast account and recharging. Should face recognition be mandatory? Based on some big data of viewing and rewards, can the risk of "misappropriation" by minors be identified in a timely manner? These may all need to be taken seriously.

In addition, the responsibilities of guardians are also worthy of discussion. In this case, an 11-year-old child watched the live broadcast late at night and gave rewards. It is difficult to say that there was no negligence on the part of the guardian. Can children of this age use electronic products alone, and should payment passwords be kept secret from children? In the current education environment, this is actually a very real problem and needs to be treated with caution by every guardian.

To a large extent, the reflection brought about by this case outside the law is actually more complicated than the simple determination of legal liability. After all, the boundaries of the law are clear, but the boundaries of ethics, platform responsibilities, educational issues in the smartphone era, and guardian responsibilities are much more blurred. Such a ridiculous case reminds us that we need to think more about these aspects, and even be more vigilant about the harm caused by some kind of "loss of control".

The boundaries of the law are clear, but the boundaries of morality, platform responsibilities, educational issues in the smartphone era, and guardian responsibilities are much blurrier.