Is it necessary to bear legal responsibility for the scolding of the boss by the circle of friends
Four seas network: the circle of friends is widely used, widely spread and influential. There is no employee who scolds the boss in the circle of friends and is sued by the boss. Please see the details below.
Dissatisfied with the fact that she was defaulted on her base salary commission after leaving her job, Miss Wu, a Zhuhai citizen, accused the former company's head of the company with the words "shameless" and "greedy for money" in her wechat circle of friends. Unexpectedly, she was sued by the company's head on the grounds of "reputation infringement". In addition to making an apology, she was also asked for 10000 yuan in compensation for mental damage. Recently, Zhuhai Xiangzhou District Court tried the case in the first instance.
Wang Ping (pseudonym) is the head of an information technology Co., Ltd. in Zhuhai. She recently sued Ms. Wu, a former employee of the company.
In the judgment, Wang Ping said that on February 16 this year, Miss Wu put forward to leave her job for personal reasons, and soon, on the ground of asking for no commission, she slandered, slandered her, said that she deliberately didn't pay commission, said that she was' greedy for money 'and' shameless', attacked herself personally, and openly spread in her circle of friends. Even in the communication with colleagues and customers of the original company, the defendant made the chatting records between the original and the defendant public, and made unwarranted slander on his personal.
Wang Ping said that the above-mentioned behavior led to the company's colleagues and customers talking about the matter, and their reputation rights were seriously damaged. As a senior administrator of the company, he had a good reputation among customers and great prestige among colleagues. However, the behavior of the defendant made the customers, colleagues and even relatives and friends of the plaintiff's company have extremely low social evaluation on the plaintiff. The original peaceful life was seriously disturbed and the spirit suffered a lot. He asked the court to investigate the infringement liability of the defendant Miss Wu according to law.
In response to Wang Ping's accusation, Miss Wu admitted in court that she had indeed made the above-mentioned remarks in wechat circle of friends, but thought that she was only stating the facts and did not frame it, because Wang Ping defaulted on the Commission and personally attacked her family.
Person in charge of the enterprise:
The speech of the resigned employees is obviously offensive
Wang Ping (pseudonym) is the head of an information technology Co., Ltd. in Zhuhai. She recently sued Ms. Wu, a former employee of the company.
In the judgment, Wang Ping said that on February 16 this year, Miss Wu put forward to leave her job for personal reasons, and soon, on the ground of asking for no commission, she slandered, slandered her, said that she deliberately didn't pay commission, said that she was' greedy for money 'and' shameless', attacked herself personally, and openly spread in her circle of friends. Even in the communication with colleagues and customers of the original company, the defendant made the chatting records between the original and the defendant public, and made unwarranted slander on his personal.
Wang Ping said that the above-mentioned behavior led to the company's colleagues and customers talking about the matter, and their reputation rights were seriously damaged. As a senior administrator of the company, he had a good reputation among customers and great prestige among colleagues. However, the behavior of the defendant made the customers, colleagues and even relatives and friends of the plaintiff's company have extremely low social evaluation on the plaintiff. The original peaceful life was seriously disturbed and the spirit suffered a lot. He asked the court to investigate the infringement liability of the defendant Miss Wu according to law.
Staff:
The enterprise defaulted in commission, but stated the facts without framing
In response to Wang Ping's accusation, Miss Wu admitted in court that she had indeed made the above-mentioned remarks in wechat circle of friends, but thought that she was only stating the facts and did not frame it, because Wang Ping defaulted on the Commission and personally attacked her family.
Miss Wu said that she left the company at the beginning of this year. Due to the default of the base salary Commission, she began to recover it from Wu Ping in February 2017. However, the companies in charge of Wu Ping's management pushed each other seriously, and they were in arrears for almost three months. The first commission of 6199.19 yuan was not recovered until April 5, 2017, and two commissions were still not paid.
Ms. Wu said that when she first recovered the Commission, she had a very good attitude and didn't use excessive language. It was Wang Ping who used swearing in her conversation and scolded her insanity. After that, she attacked her mother and her mother on wechat and harassed her mother and husband by phone. However, her Commission was delayed. At that time, she was very angry. In June this year, she and Wang Ping's wechat Chat records are posted in the circle of friends.
Is it illegal to scold the boss
Court:
Rejection in the first instance does not constitute reputation infringement
The court found out that Miss Wu was engaged in sales work in the enterprise. When she left in January this year, her company still owed her salary and commission of about 20000 yuan, which was paid in three times until May 22, 2017.
The first instance of Xiangzhou court found that Wang Ping, the plaintiff, believed that the defendant had made the chat contents of both sides public in the defendant's circle of friends and used such offensive language as "shameless and greedy for money" to personally attack the plaintiff. However, it is a fact that Ms. Wu, the defendant, was in arrears with her salary after her resignation. It is a reasonable claim for the defendant to recover her salary from the department head and the person in charge of the company through wechat.
At the same time, the court said that from the wechat call records provided by the defendant, it can be seen that the defendant did not have excessive language at the beginning. The company didn't start paying back wages until nearly three months after the defendant left the company. After that, the plaintiff made radical remarks in the dialogue with the defendant and claimed to call directly to 'greet' the defendant's mother.
On the one hand, the defendant thinks that the company still owes it two commissions not to be paid. On the other hand, in response to the plaintiff's improper words and deeds to the defendant's family, the defendant has made some negative comments on the company and the plaintiff in the circle of friends. Although the defendant's words are also some radical, they are the responses to the company's underpaid behavior and the plaintiff's words and deeds. '
At the same time, the court said Wang Ping claimed that the defendant's wechat call records with the plaintiff were published in the circle of friends, which caused the company's customers and the head office to lower their evaluation, which may have an impact on their career, and the corresponding reputation would be damaged, but they did not provide evidence to prove that the above damage had occurred. Finally, the first instance rejected Wang Ping's claim and awarded the case acceptance fee To be borne by them.
What's the responsibility for swearing in the circle of friends
Different from social tools such as microblog and blog, wechat has stronger privacy, which is generally limited to people who add friends to each other to understand the information of their circle of friends. That is to say, wechat belongs to closed-loop communication in private space, and non wechat friends can't see the content published by their friends' circle. Therefore, some people take wechat for granted as a space to vent their personal indignation and abuse others, but they do not know that it will also bring trouble to the perpetrator and constitute infringement and even crime.
Article 25 of the law of the people's Republic of China on penalties for public security administration stipulates that those who spread rumors, falsely report dangerous situations, epidemic situations, police situations or intentionally disturb public order by other means shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than ten days and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan; those who are less serious shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than 500 yuan.
The decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the maintenance of Internet Security stipulates that anyone who uses the Internet to insult others or fabricate facts to slander others, which constitutes a crime, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with the relevant provisions of the criminal law.
Article 246 of the criminal law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that whoever publicly insults others or fabricates facts to slander others by violence or other means, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights.
Article 5 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the application of law in handling criminal cases such as defamation by using information networks stipulates that those who abuse or intimidate others by using information networks, if the circumstances are abominable and damage social order, shall be convicted and punished for the crime of provocation in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph (4) of article 293 of the criminal law.