The whole network has been opened to protect rights and carry plagiarism reports
In the 2017 "Hangzhou Nanny Arson Case", the hostess's husband Lin Shengbin said that he was in Guangzhou on the day of the crime, but director Liu Xinda was skeptical of his statement.
In 2021, Liu Xinda checked a number of airlines and posted on Weibo that Lin Shengbin had no flight records in June 2017 and sent out audio recordings. In 2022, Lin Shengbin sued Liu Xinda to the court and demanded compensation.
The court of first instance upheld Lin Shengbin's claim and ordered Liu Xinda to violate his right to privacy. Liu Xinda appealed. This case reflects the controversy over the definition of the attributes of flight records of public figures and the method of public opinion supervision.
In June 2017, a "nanny arson case" occurred in Hangzhou, resulting in the death of a mother and three children. The incident has aroused widespread concern from all walks of life.
The hostess's husband, Lin Shengbin, told the media at the time that he was on a business trip in Guangzhou on the day of the crime, and there were plane records as evidence. But director Liu Xinda was skeptical about this, believing that it was necessary to verify Lin Shengbin's flight records to find out the truth.
In 2021, Liu Xinda called several airlines, including China Eastern Airlines, to inquire about Lin Shengbin's flight records in June 2017. and posted some call recordings on his Weibo account, claiming that there was no flight record of Lin Shengbin during that period.
Liu Xinda said that the purpose was to expose Lin Shengbin's lies, which belonged to the reasonable supervision of major social events. However, there were also cases of fictitious identities and unauthorized inquiries about other people's information during the call.
Lin Shengbin believes that personal flight records reflect the trajectory of private life and are private information, which cannot be queried and published without his permission. Even if the records are historical information, their properties do not change.
Liu Xinda's behavior has seriously violated his privacy and personal dignity, and he demands a public apology and civil liability for compensation.
The court of first instance upheld Lin Shengbin's claim, holding that his flight records were personal privacy, and Liu Xinda's inquiry and publication methods were improper, and he should bear tort liability.
Liu Xinda appealed, arguing that the information related to public figures is related to public events and should be subject to public opinion supervision. The court has summoned Liu Xinda himself to explain the case.
The crux of this case is how to balance the protection of personal privacy and the public interest. There are no clear provisions in legislation and justice on whether personal historical information automatically becomes public property and can be queried and published without the authorization of the person.
Reasonable supervision by public opinion also needs to comply with legal procedures. We call on all sectors of society to look at this case rationally and expect the court to make a fair judgment within the law.
This case also inspires people to reflect on the issue of privacy protection in the information age. In today's highly developed Internet, personal information is easy to collect and disseminate.
How to reasonably protect citizens' personal information within the scope of the law is a topic that needs to be paid attention to and discussed by the whole society. We need to establish a long-term mechanism to effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of ordinary citizens.
At the same time, public figures also need to pay attention to their words and deeds, and do not harm the public interest through false remarks.
This case is also worthy of deep consideration by media practitioners. Supervision by public opinion is a legitimate right, but supervisors must also abide by the bottom line of the law. It is necessary to obtain information properly, and to be cautious in disseminating information.
Failure to do so may undermine press freedom and have a negative impact on society. It is recommended that the media and communicators establish professional ethics, exercise the right of public opinion supervision under legal norms, and jointly promote the construction of a harmonious society.