4hw.com.cn: Cai Xukun is the most popular wandering student at present and has many fans. Recently, Cai Xukun sued station B, which triggered a heated discussion. The reason is that there are many videos of CAI Xukun spoofing in station B, and station B also responded. Is station B infringing? Let's have a look.
On the evening of the 12th, station B responded through its official wechat. Station B said, 'the lawyer's letter has been received after being forwarded by enthusiastic netizens. We are very concerned about Mr. Cai Xukun's feelings. Station B has always attached importance to protecting citizens' right to privacy and reputation. Legal issues are handled by professionals. I believe that the law has its own judgment. "
At the end of the article, station B recommended a comment article on the reputation right of public figures "from Fan Zhiyi's defeat to see the reputation right of 'public figures' in public opinion supervision", and attached an interest home page "watching shocking things around".
The full text of the right to reputation of 'public figures' in public opinion supervision from the loss of Fan Zhiyi in station B is as follows:
On December 18, 2002, the Shanghai Jing'an District Court made a first instance judgment on the case that Fan Zhiyi, a former member of the Chinese football team, sued Wenhui Xinmin United newspaper group for infringing the right of reputation for publishing a report on his suspicion of gambling in Shanghai Oriental Sports Daily: Fan Zhiyi's claim was not supported. This is a rare case won by the media in a lawsuit triggered by sports news in more than a decade. In the trial, the court's respect for the law of the press and advanced legal ideas played an important role in the success or failure of this lawsuit. In the judgment, there is such content:
'…& hellip; The source of information is not subjective fabrication. From the structure and content of the article, it aims to continuously investigate the authenticity of gambling rumors. Even if Fan Zhiyi believes that naming names in reports is detrimental to his reputation, Fan Zhiyi, as a public figure, should endure possible minor damage in the process of media exercising public opinion supervision. On the surface, the report involves Fan Zhiyi's personal affairs, but when this private matter is related to the public's concern about the world cup and Chinese football, this private matter is not a private matter in the general sense, but a part of the public interest. Of course, it can become the content of news reports. It is not inappropriate for the news media to investigate the focus of social attention and exercise the right of reporting and supervision by public opinion in order to give the public a clear statement. "
It can be seen that in its judgment, Jing'an District Court clearly distinguished the reputation right of public figures from that of ordinary citizens, and held that when the news media reported public events related to public figures, the public figures should bear the slight damage that may be caused to their reputation.
In fact, when we look at the history of world news, such a judgment is no stranger. In 1960, the New York Times published an advertisement by a black organization accusing Montgomery police chief Sullivan of suppressing the black movement. Sullivan sued. He listed several items in the advertisement that were untrue. As a result, the court ordered the New York Times to compensate Sullivan 500000 yuan. The New York Times appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In 1964, the supreme court denied the original judgment. The judgment holds that advocating bold debate is beneficial to society, and there will inevitably be some inaccurate statements in the debate. If we catch these wrong statements and punish them, we will stifle this important discussion. Since then, the United States has established such a principle when trying public officials' litigation cases of media infringement of reputation: public officials must prove that the news is untrue, but also prove that the media contains actual malice. Then, in the judgment of Rosenblum v. Metropolitan News Co., Ltd. in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court extended this principle to criticize public figures other than public officials. The judgment holds that although a person is not a government official, if he participates in public activities and has an impact on social welfare, he will become a public figure, and the newspaper has the right to criticize him like an official. In 1974, the United States Supreme Court divided public figures into complete public figures and limited public figures. The former refers to people who are very famous (including good and bad names), attract public attention, have the status and ability to persuade and influence the public, and often appear in the mass media. Limited public figures refer to those who voluntarily participate in important public debates in order to influence public opinion when solving controversial or dissenting issues.
Although there are great differences in social system and cultural background between China and the United States, power must be supervised is the common criterion of modern democratic system. The reason why there is a difference between the treatment of public figures and ordinary citizens in the lawsuit of reputation right is that the words and deeds of public figures often attract social attention, affect social public opinion and have a social impact. They have more social resources and bear greater social responsibilities, and should accept more severe social supervision. News reporting and public opinion supervision of events related to them is not only to meet the curiosity and right to know of the public, but also the need of a society to achieve fairness and justice. He Weifang, a law professor at Peking University, believes that the qualification of national civil servants and other public figures to file reputation litigation should be strictly limited. Because civil servants hold considerable public power, whether the process and method of exercising power are legal, and even whether their daily speech and behavior are appropriate, is very important for the security of the country and the protection of civil rights, and should be subject to strict supervision by the media. If civil servants are allowed to file reputation lawsuits easily, it will inevitably lead to the loss of the right to freedom of speech. As for other public figures, the reason why they are treated equally with civil servants is that they have the ability to use the media to clarify untrue reports. This is the embodiment of the principle of reciprocity. ② It is natural for news reports and public opinion supervision to focus on public figures, which is the normal need of a sound society. The objective attribute of news reporting and public opinion supervision determines that they cannot be as meticulous and thorough as the investigation and trial of judicial organs. If the media should be cautious and accurate in all details when reporting any event, the timeliness of the news itself can not be mentioned. At the same time, when the media criticize public figures, due to the limitations of status, it is impossible to ensure that they will never make mistakes. Only allowing completely correct criticism is often equal to suppressing criticism. Professor Zhang Xinbao of the Law Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences pointed out that in order to maintain the balance between citizens' reputation right and public opinion supervision, we should distinguish between public figures and ordinary citizens, and appropriately weaken and protect the reputation right and privacy right of public figures. ③ Of course, this is only from the perspective of the court. As journalists, we can't relax the principle of adhering to the authenticity of news under this excuse.
Fundamentally speaking, the restriction of public figures' reputation right is not because their personal rights are lower than ordinary citizens, but the balance and adjustment of the law in the face of the conflict between personal interests and social public interests. Personal privacy should generally be protected, but when personal private affairs and even privacy are connected with the most important public interest - political life, personal private affairs are no longer private affairs in the general sense, but part of politics. It is not protected by the right to privacy, but has become an unavoidable content of historical records and news reports. In 1931, justice Daniel of the United States Supreme Court expressed a similar view: 'it is necessary for the public interest to make public the private life of public candidates to voters. In this case, the right (i.e. the right to Privacy) does not exist. The right does not exist if he is devoted to public affairs and his private life cannot be completely separated from his occupation. " ④ To be honest! Many personal situations of public figures are closely related to the public interest. Their career is not only their own, but also social and public. The public has the right to know their career and the personal situation related to their career. Therefore, they can not enjoy the complete right to privacy like ordinary citizens, which is the embodiment of the principle of public interest priority.
In addition, for many public figures, if their status is not entirely created by the media, at least they have been supported by the media. They can not and should not just take advantage without paying the price. When the media publicize and build momentum, they can not ask for seeking truth from facts, but when the media criticize, they ask for hard evidence. At the same time, public figures have received enough compensation in their role interests, and their status and power make them have stronger ability to resist reputation infringement than ordinary citizens. What's more, the difference between public figures and ordinary citizens is that it has never been a mandatory obligation. If you don't want to, no one can force anyone to become a public figure. Former US President Truman said well: 'if you're afraid of the heat in the kitchen, don't come in and cook. If you want to cook, don't be afraid of the heat! "
In recent years, the supervision of news and public opinion often prevails in the lawsuit of public figures' reputation right, which makes journalists face great embarrassment. The judgment of Jing'an District Court has strong symbolic significance. It shows that China's judicial organs have noticed the important difference between the cases of infringement of reputation caused by public opinion supervision and ordinary civil infringement cases. Public figures should sacrifice certain personal privacy and endure possible minor reputation damage for the interests of the public. This undoubtedly provides more powerful support and protection for the public opinion supervision of the news media.