Text/Chen Weijing
This is a tragedy related to live streaming. On October 15, beauty blogger "Luo Kitten Cat", who has hundreds of thousands of fans, came to the end of her life in one of her webcasts - she drank the enemy grass quickly in the crowd and died after rescue.
The reason for his suicide is divided. There is speculation that Luo's death is related to the emotional problems he once had. However, one of her friends told the media afterwards that Luo did not really want to commit suicide that day, but only drank poison under the coaxing of netizens in the live broadcast room. Luo's family also said that they would pursue the legal responsibility of the instigators.
In recent years, self-abuse and suicide incidents broadcast live on the Internet have occurred from time to time, and there is no shortage of jokes and encouragement behind them. The tragedy that happened to "Luo Xiao Cat and Cat" made this question hot search: the death of the anchor, should the person who coaxed in the live broadcast room be responsible? Screenshots of online transmission show that when the female Internet celebrity took out the pesticide, some netizens had left a message on the bullet screen to coax "drink it quickly".
He claimed to have been depressed for a long time and had been hospitalized for more than two months
"This is probably the last video, thank you for accompanying you all the way." On October 15, "Luo Kitten Owls" posted a video and captioned it on his personal video account.
In the video, she said that she had been depressed for a long time, and even had been hospitalized for more than two months, and the happy appearance in her usual works was only for everyone to be happy after seeing it.
"But lately I really can't hold back, if you want to know the reason, just come to trumpet to watch my live broadcast." Rest assured, this live broadcast must not be carrying goods or advertisements. In the video, she is pale and looks depressed.
China News Weekly noted that "Luo Kitten Cat" has hundreds of thousands of followers on a short video platform and also runs its own Taobao store of the same name. On the video platform, she published a total of 38 small videos, the content of which is mainly in the life dress category. In some of her videos a few months ago, some red scratches had appeared on her wrist.
In the live broadcast on the evening of October 15, "Luo Kitten Cat" first took out a bottle of brown liquid. Then, she held up the empty bottle and said to the audience in the live broadcast room, "I have drunk it just now." Then she pinched her neck and looked very uncomfortable. Soon, the bad news came, and the "Luo Kitten and Cat" died due to ineffective rescue.
"You drink fast", "Drink fast and drink fast", the network screenshot shows that on the same day, there were some coaxing and encouraging sounds in the live broadcast room.
After the incident, a netizen who called himself a friend of "Luo Xiao Cat Cat" said in an interview with the media that the "Luo Kitten Cat" did not really want to die that day, and the enemy grass was fast that she diluted the drink, and drank it because the people in the live broadcast room coaxed and drank it, and later it was also 120 that she hit.
After the incident, some voices believed that the death of "Luo Kitten and Cat" was related to his former emotional problems. His family told the media that Luo's suicide had nothing to do with his ex-boyfriend, and that the people in the live broadcast room eventually led to the tragedy, and the perpetrators of the rioters would be held legally responsible.
China News Weekly contacted the mother of "Luo Kitten" in this regard, but the other party said that she did not want to be disturbed for the time being.
Is the instigator responsible?
After the incident, the comment area of "Luo Kitten cat" was full of voices of regret and anger. Netizens shouted at the audience who had previously booed in the live broadcast room, denouncing this "network violence" behavior. In addition, the question of whether encouraging others to drink pesticides to commit suicide is suspected of aiding suicide and whether it should be held accountable has also aroused widespread discussion.
Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner at Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm and a well-known public interest lawyer, told China News Weekly that in general, legal liability is usually divided into criminal liability, administrative liability and civil liability. Whether the netizens involved in the case are responsible or not needs to determine whether the remarks of the netizens involved in the case are suspected of instigating suicide, that is, whether there is a legal causal relationship between their remarks and the death of the anchor.
Zhao Liangshan said that the biggest difference between online suicide and actual suicide is that the online world is more distant than the real world, and it is more difficult to determine whether it is true or not, that is, it is less difficult to determine the causal relationship in reality.
It is also the complexity of this issue that makes the conclusion of this topic somewhat controversial.
Ding Jinkun, a lawyer at Shanghai Dabang Law Firm, believes that if it is found that there is a direct causal relationship between the message involved and the suicide of the anchor, the netizen involved is suspected of intentional homicide. If the message does not have a direct causal relationship with suicide, but renders the atmosphere of the suicide scene, makes a disturbance, and has an indirect role in promoting suicide, it is also a violation of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" and will be punished by public security.
Ding Jinkun said that the causal relationship can be determined according to the reaction of the suicide person to the instigating behavior, such as the owner who was hesitant and the instigator firmly believed in his suicidal idea, which is a helped suicide and is suspected of committing a crime. If the owner has decided to commit suicide, but the time is undecided, and if the instigator forms a suicidal atmosphere, it is an illegal act to promote the arrival of the time and make trouble, and it is a provocation and provoking trouble as stipulated in the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law".
Zhao Liangshan pointed out that in judicial practice, instigating suicide is to make people without suicidal intentions make suicidal determination and carry out suicidal behaviors through persuasion, inducement, order, coercion and other methods, and assisted suicide is generally necessary to provide suicide facilitation or assist suicide. "Due to the complexity of the network environment, it is necessary to judge whether the instigator is aware of the suicide of others, whether the anchor's suicide intention is clearly known, and whether the directness of his remarks has led to the death of the anchor and the anchor's own mental state."
Accountability challenges
In the view of Bai Xiaoqiang, a lawyer at Beijing Jingshi Law Firm, netizens who make encouraging remarks are obviously detrimental in virtue, but it may be difficult to hold them legally accountable. He said that suicide is the punishment of the perpetrator's right to life, the law does not stipulate that suicide is a criminal act, and the netizens involved do not provide suicide tools, so it is difficult to be held accountable at the criminal level.
Bai Xiaoqiang said that most netizens do not grasp the real situation in the live broadcast room, and it is difficult to define whose sentence it is, which has a specific causal relationship on the suicide of the parties, and the remarks of some netizens or acts of ridicule are difficult to constitute disturbing social order, so it is also difficult to pursue administrative responsibility and civil liability, "At present, there is no clear law that all people should bear joint and several liability."
Zhao Liangshan also believes that the parties, as people with full capacity for civil conduct, have the ability to make independent decisions about suicide and what method to take to commit suicide, and the pesticide is also prepared in advance, and netizens are mostly spectators in the entire suicide incident, serious or suspected of instigation, "The network world itself is illusory, it is difficult to judge whether the anchor's suicide remarks are true, they should bear the main responsibility for their own death, and netizens suspected of instigating suicide may bear a small part of the responsibility." ”
Feng Peilin, a lawyer at Jingshi Law Firm, told China News Weekly that according to the Cybersecurity Law and other relevant provisions, the behavior of the above netizens clearly infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, including the right to life and health. "Because the parties have clearly shown their willingness to take their lives during the live broadcast, and netizens have indeed left messages to encourage them, then in judicial practice, it may be believed that there is a certain causal relationship between the two."
Feng Peilin believes that although it is difficult to identify the netizens who started the cajoling as deliberate, they are also suspected of negligence, "at least they have a fluke mentality about this matter."
The final result remains to be further investigated. "We should give the society a warning through this incident that such acts will need to bear legal responsibility in the future." Feng Peilin said.