cover news reporter Xu Yuyang
Recently, "Xiao Zhan's anti-fans were forced to execute 37,000" has been on the hot search again. According to the investigation, this is a case involving an online infringement liability dispute between Xiao Zhan and a certain netizen. The defendant Song was ordered to pay 37,150 yuan for infringing Xiao Zhan's reputation. The execution court was the Beijing Internet Court.
The Internet is not a place outside the law. This sentence is not just a slogan. Everyone must be responsible for their own words and deeds.
Xiao Zhan (Source: Xiao Zhan Studio Weibo)
This is not the first time Xiao Zhan has won a rights protection victory. In recent years, celebrity reputation protection cases have frequently been on the hot searches. The Internet has made information more agile, and it has also brought about rapid diffusion. Once inappropriate words are spread, they ferment quickly, and their harm is no less than "rumors" in real life. Xiao Zhan has won many rights protections in recent years. In some cases, some of the defendant's remarks can be said to be "difficult to look at".
Another well-known actor Dilraba Dilraba sued "black fans" for infringement of reputation rights. The court ruled that the defendant should publish an apology statement on his Weibo account and pay a total of 8,150 yuan in compensation for economic losses and mental damages. The defendant refused to execute the order and was eventually forced to execute it.
Stars' reputational rights protection cases are common. If they disagree, they will be "warned by a lawyer's letter". This seems to have become the norm in the entertainment industry. But there is no doubt that the law has its own justice. Not long ago, actor Zhao Lusi lost her case against a certain netizen for reputation infringement. It is reported that the netizen had previously revealed some suspected behaviors of Zhao Lusi at the magazine shooting scene, which triggered public discussion about whether it involved workplace bullying. Zhao Lusi subsequently took him to court for infringement of reputation rights, and ultimately lost the case. The judgment reads: As a public figure, the plaintiff, while enjoying the admiration of the vast number of fans, should also have a higher obligation to tolerate some doubts and criticisms from the public. The blog post involved in the case did not contain any obviously insulting or derogatory remarks, nor did it contain negative moral comments that violate public order and good customs as understood by the general public. It is a common topic comment behavior in the entertainment industry and should not be treated as an infringement of reputation.
stirred up a thousand waves with one stone, which gave many online bloggers the confidence to speak out. If you want to wear the crown, you must be punished. As a star artist, you have to enjoy the glory brought by the spotlight, and you must be able to withstand the crowd. When criticizing and correcting others, you should not be "glass-hearted". If someone says a few words, you will "complain" to protect your rights. However, it should be noted that there is an essential difference between criticism and questioning and slander and abuse. Although celebrities have a "duty of tolerance", this is not the basis for defamation and abuse by the Internet public, as evidenced by a series of successful celebrity reputation rights protection cases.
(picture according to the network)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-