The singer Shang Wenjie, who became famous in the "Super Girl" talent show, lost the first and second instance lawsuits against the law examinee for her reputation infringement.
Recently, Jiang Ge's mother, Jiang Qiulian, whose daughter was killed in Japan, claimed that she had sent three people, including Liu Xin (Liu Nuanxi), to court, and finally won all the cases!
Obviously, it is a similar defamation case that is suing for reputation infringement, Shang Wenjie of the singer and Jiang Qiulian of the ordinary person, but the results of the two lawsuits are completely different, why is this?
Let's take a look at the court confrontation between law examinee Zhang and Shang Wenjie first:
It turned out that Zhang, a student who was taking the law exam, commented on Shang Wenjie's personal social media:
"Open your bloody mouth, suck up its little artists, peel the skin, remove the bones, knock the bones and suck the marrow, and there is no bone residue left" - It was in response to this that Shang Wenjie took it to court.
In November 2022, Shang Wenjie sued Zhang for defamation infringement in the Jing'an District Court of Shanghai, and the lawsuit eventually went to the second instance.
The law student first admitted that the comments came from him, but he argued:
This comment has no clear direction, nor does it have any subject, and it does not make the public think that it is talking about Shang Wenjie, so it does not constitute infringement, and Shang Wenjie, as a public figure, has a duty of tolerance, and this comment does not exceed the necessary limit. Although her comments have more than 1,000 likes, they have been deleted in a timely manner, and there is no actual evidence to prove that they have caused any economic losses or reputational damage to Shang Wenjie. Tort liability must be conditional on the existence of the result of the infringement, and cannot be judged on the basis of the cognition of the infringed party."
Zhang also questioned Shang Wenjie's claim for compensation of 31,030 yuan for economic losses, 31,000 yuan as attorney's fees, but the handwriting of the two agency contracts signed by the law firm was inconsistent.
In the end, the court found that Zhang's comments were indeed inappropriate and criticized him, but at the same time, the court also held that:
"Zhang's comments are descriptive language that uses exaggerated and exaggerated techniques, with neither a clear subject nor specific content, and the general public cannot clearly know who Zhang is talking about after reading it."
Therefore, the court found that Zhang's comments would not lead to a decrease in Shang Wenjie's social evaluation, and Shang Wenjie, as a public figure, was inevitably commented on by the public. Although Zhang's remarks were inappropriate, they did not reach the level of derogatory personality, so all of Shang Wenjie's litigation claims were dismissed.
Let's take a look at a recent passage from Jiang Ge's mother, Ms. Jiang Qiulian:
"Liu Nuanxi's supporters have a common characteristic, let's not talk about those who have not been prosecuted, but only that those who have been criminally filed are all heroes, not only on the Internet, but also heroes in court."
"In particular, Lin Liguo is the bravest, and he is also sentenced to the longest sentence, two years and three months, and will spend two Spring Festivals in prison. Oh, and the braver than Lin Liguo, Tan Bin, continued to scold me after I was released from prison, but it seems to have stopped after I paid the lawyer's fee after collecting evidence."
"I didn't understand the behavior of these people before, but then I understood that there are still people like Chen Shifeng and Liu Nuanxi in this world."
After reading this paragraph, you can roughly know that previously, those who slandered Jiang Ge and his mother Jiang Qiulian with different remarks on the Internet, including Liu Nuanxi, who lost the lawsuit and compensated 696,000 yuan, and Lin Liguo and Tan Bin mentioned by him, were all sued by Jiang Qiulian and sent to prison.
So, why is Shang Wenjie, a public figure, and Jiang Qiulian, an ordinary person, both similar defamation cases of reputation infringement, but the final result is so different?
Of course, each case has specific characteristics, and it is obviously impossible to generalize, but through comparison, I have to say that the different elements of the identities of the two are also a very important reason - that is, Shang Wenjie is a public figure, and Jiang Qiulian is just an ordinary person.
If people's feelings are based on people's feelings, in fact, even in the defamation case of Shang Wenjie v. Law Examinee, the judge's judgment under the "free will" seems to be justified if the law test is lost, or it will not cause much controversy. But why is it that in the end, the judge's discretion is tilted in favor of ordinary law candidates?—— This shows that it has a lot to do with Shang Wenjie's identity as a "public figure"!
The honor and interests of public figures are taken from their "celebrity" status, so they should be taken for benefit and responsibility - that is to say, if a public figure gets fame and fortune from the public's love, pursuit and dedication, then it is reasonable to cede some personal freedoms and other rights, and to bear the public's comments on their more freedom, and even include harsh criticism that is not necessarily entirely correct. Therefore, when public figures face the evaluation of society, they must have a certain tolerance and transfer of power.
This reminds people of a well-known case in the United States – that is the "New York Times v. Sullivan" case of that year.
Because the reporter published an article in the New York Times to scold the government officer, the police officer Sullivan, and was sued by the latter for defamation, although the reporter lost all the cases in the first and second trials, but in the Supreme Court, the previous trial result was unanimously overturned.
The verdict of this case can be said to be a landmark event in the history of American law!
Because of this case, the strong protection of press freedom and freedom of speech by the law was finally established—— in which the principle of "actual malice" was established, that is, even if the reporting of a public figure or public event contains misinformation, the public figure or government official as the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly committed the crime or was grossly negligent in order to successfully file a defamation claim.
In other words, if the report is based only on false facts, it is not enough to inhibit freedom of speech, and public opinion should also be given a certain amount of "breathing space". This principle and the results of the judgment have greatly raised the standard of prosecution against the news media, protected the freedom of the press, and this principle has also been extended to the corresponding defamation infringement brought by public figures.
In the case of Shang Wenjie v. Law Examiner, the Chinese judges obviously also drew on the legal achievements of the "New York Times v. Sullivan" case -- first, it was obviously more difficult for Shang Wenjie to prove that the law examinee's comments had caused substantial damage and harm; second, as a public figure, he had to transfer a certain amount of personal power and have a certain tolerance for public comments.
Interestingly, recently, Ms. Jiang Qiulian also issued such a content: "Cyberbullies have begun to become conscious, and they dare not directly name Jiang Qiulian to fabricate evidence to frame Liu Nuanxi, this is progress in combating online violence, which is good!"
I don't know if these people who "cyberbullied" Jiang Qiulian have also seen the success of the "unnamed subject" in the law candidate's counter-sue against Shang Wenjie?—— they all began to comment on it, and no longer directly named "Jiang Qiulian".
However, in Jiang Qiulian, she does not have the aura of a celebrity like Shang Wenjie, so she does not need to give up a certain amount of personal freedom as a public figure, so the wayward critics should stop defying the law! [Original comment: Yu said that it is still off]