Recently, the "Gu Yanyou" blogger took Zhang Xuefeng to court, which attracted widespread attention. However, lawyer Zhu Dinghao believes that the case may be more like a farce, or a legal trap set up to gain traffic from Zhang Xuefeng. This article will explore the facts of the case and analyze the legal details in order to unravel the truth of this dispute for readers.
Recently, the blogger "Gu Yanyou" took Zhang Xuefeng to court on the grounds that "liberal arts are all service industries", and the case has attracted much attention from the society. However, lawyer Zhu Dinghao's views have raised questions about the authenticity of the case, arguing that it may be a legal farce or, more simply, a legal trap set up to simply take advantage of Mr. Zhang's traffic.
First of all, from a legal point of view, Zhu Dinghao pointed out that Zhang Xuefeng's remarks did not directly involve the infringement of a specific individual, but expressed his personal views on the industry and the postgraduate entrance examination, and lacked direct infringement. This makes the accusation of "infringement" seem far-fetched, perhaps just to create a buzz.
Second, if this case can really be won, it will open the door to litigation for anyone in the future, and anyone can bring the remarks of celebrities and Internet celebrities to court through the court, resulting in a sharp increase in the workload of the court and the country's judicial resources are unbearable. It also raises questions about whether the motive for the case was merely to raise eyebrows, rather than a genuine legal dispute.
With regard to the examination and approval of the case filing, Zhu Dinghao explained that the court has only conducted a formal examination, and as long as the lawsuit meets the basic conditions, if there is a clear plaintiff and defendant, and preliminary evidence, the court has the obligation to accept it. The substantive review, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the trial court at a later stage to determine whether the claim should be upheld and whether there is sufficient factual and legal basis.
Behind this case is a confrontation between speech and the law on online social media. For this legal dispute, we hope that the court can find a balance between safeguarding individual freedom of speech and preventing unjust infringement, restore the facts truthfully, and unravel the truth behind this "farce".