Original title: what happened to lawyer's confirmation of apartment video? Where can I see the complete version of Liu qiangdong's apartment video
On April 22, a microblog account named @ Mingzhou incident released two surveillance video clips about Liu Qiang's case in dongmingzhou.
The video shows that Liu qiangdong and the victim did not always sit together at the dinner party. After dinner, Liu qiangdong got up with the crowd and left. The victim took the initiative to follow and open the door to the crowd.
According to the microblog account, the woman was not drunk during the dinner and acted intimately. She took the initiative to invite Liu qiangdong into the apartment.
The registration time of this account is January 31, 2019. At present, the microblog only publishes these two videos.
On April 22, the video of Liu qiangdong's apartment in Mingzhou was exposed in China. In the video, the image and name of the woman in the case were disclosed for the first time. Does this event constitute a violation of the other party's privacy? The Red Star News reporter talked with a number of legal experts to discuss whether the video infringes personal privacy. Some experts believe that this is a response to the former woman's public indictment, while others believe that this is a violation of the woman's privacy.
Event review
Liu qiangdong first exposed female client's image in Mingzhou video
On April 17, a University of Minnesota Student filed a civil lawsuit with a Minneapolis court, claiming that he was raped by Jingdong CEO Liu qiangdong in August last year. The lawsuit not only demanded compensation, but also listed Liu qiangdong and Jingdong as defendants. Subsequently, the full text of Liu qiangdong's indictment was exposed in China.
The prosecution raises six charges, including intent to harm and assault; unlawful restriction of freedom; sexual assault and assault; joint and several liability for intent to harm and assault; joint and several liability for unlawful restriction of freedom; joint and several liability for sexual assault and assault.
On the afternoon of April 22, a microblog account named @ Mingzhou chronicle released the two videos, one for restaurant surveillance, and the video was marked with the name of the woman. In another video, the woman takes the initiative to invite Liu qiangdong into the hotel, turns around in different corridors and elevators, and finally enters the room together. The video was then hotly debated and widely circulated. In response to this, lawyer @ jtn Chen Xi, Liu qiangdong's lawyer, said on Weibo: I am Mr. Liu qiangdong's lawyer. The client confirmed that the video content is true.
@Jtn Lawyer Chen Xi confirmed the authenticity of the video
The registration time of the microblog account for publishing the video is January 31, 2019. At present, only these two videos are published, and the identity of the publisher cannot be confirmed. As of 22:00 on April 22, the broadcast volume of these two videos reached 25 million and 3 million respectively.
Viewpoint 1:
Disclosure of video does not constitute an infringement of privacy, but a response to the indictment
Wang Sixin, vice president of the school of politics and law of Communication University of China, believes that:
'privacy is relative. If there is a greater demand than the demand for privacy disclosure, it can be disclosed. In this case, if there are no problems, no legal disputes, and no accusations from the other party, who publishes this video with semi private space will be involved in the invasion of privacy, but now it involves a greater interest demand, that is, to find out the facts of the case, or to respond to public opinion. It is difficult to say whether it is an invasion of privacy. '
'a few days ago, the indictment disclosed by the woman involved many details, which has caused unfair public opinion to one party. The other party also has the right to use the existing evidence materials to win more understanding for itself. As a means of game between the two sides, I don't think there is anything to blame. '
Zhang Xinnian, a lawyer from Beijing Jingshi law firm, also told Red Star News
'combined with the specific video content, as long as the video is not forged, I personally think it does not constitute an infringement of privacy or reputation. Because after the woman's prosecution, the full text of the indictment has been made public on the Internet, which has caused great social impact. The other party obviously has the right to respond and give counter evidence. What's more, the woman has accused Liu qiangdong of committing a crime with rape before. Even now, it is not possible to confirm the content of the indictment and whether the video was released by others or at the instigation of the parties. '
In addition, Lawyer Zhang Xinnian stressed, "on the contrary, it is not appropriate to publish the contents of the indictment in detail before it is determined by judicial trial. Once the content of the indictment is not true, the publisher of the indictment will seriously infringe on Jingdong and Liu qiangdong, or even be suspected of committing a crime. '
Viewpoint 2:
The surveillance video shall not be made public without legal procedures, and the disclosure of the video results in violation of the right of privacy
Pang Jiulin, director of Beijing Chunlin law firm, said:
In China, except that the media is used for news reports, it is an infringement of the rights of others to publish surveillance videos in open and semi open spaces. Similar to this case, if a woman is not willing to publish the picture when she is with other men, and the picture is published, whether it is an infringement of other people's privacy or portrait right, in short, it is an infringement of other people's rights. In China, access to video surveillance can only be obtained by law enforcement agencies, which need complete procedures. Other agencies can not obtain video surveillance without proper procedures. If such a video spreads and causes harm to the female party, the publisher needs to bear civil liability.
Zhu Wei, deputy director of the communication law research center of China University of political science and law, told red star
"In the United States, there are signs in the monitoring area of public places. People should know that this is a public place and that it may be exposed when they participate in public activities and act in public. So individuals should protect their privacy. But in this case, we can't just look at the right of privacy in public space. This case is a case of suspected rape, which involves the protection of the rights and interests of the victims. In the privacy law, it is the same in all countries in the world. The crime of suspected rape is publicly judged, but not publicly tried. If the trial process is not open, the relevant private information, including the information that may be identified in the public space, should not be exposed to the public vision. Therefore, if the information of the parties is involved, even in public occasions, it can not be disclosed to the society, because it is likely to arouse people's concern about personal information Relevance, which directly or indirectly determines the identity of the person. So after this case was exposed by some domestic media, I think it is against privacy and communication ethics. '
Zhu Wei stressed that 'the publisher of this video should bear the responsibility. We media and other related platforms should not spread such videos. Zhu Wei believes that the public interest involved in this case is the public right to know. At present, this case has become a public event, and it is necessary to meet the public right to know. However, when it is necessary to make the information public, we should anonymize the identity characteristics of the victims, including biological characteristics and identity information characteristics, for example, pseudonym, for example, face-to-face Mosaic should be done in the Department. If it is not dealt with, it is an illegal act.
'There's nothing wrong with the media's coverage of the incident, and everyone's attention and evaluation of the incident are OK. But there should be a bottom line, that is, you can't put the real identity of a person in it. So if you forward such information at this time, I think it's a tort in theory and should be corrected. '
However, Yin Tian, a doctoral supervisor of Peking University Law School, believes that:
'probes placed in hotels or other public places can't be announced casually, because it involves personal privacy. If it is to retrieve and broadcast, especially when it comes to communication, it should not have the right to broadcast to the public unless through legal procedures. '。
Yin Tian stressed that 'communication also has a middle zone. Everyone is a we media and can shoot relevant images through mobile phones to spread in a certain range. But how to arrange the appropriate degree of this situation, we should consider the protection of freedom of communication, the protection of the right to know, and the protection of the privacy of the parties involved. This is a problem that needs to be studied. Of course, we should also enhance public awareness through a process of social operation.
Back to the phenomenon that this video is hot. Yin Tian believes that 'for the case itself, it should ultimately be decided by the court and some facts should be determined. Through the video can only observe some surface, and the law for some facts, video, video this is only one of the evidence, but also combined with other things to identify. So in this case, we should wait for the judgment of the court, not the quarrel of public opinion. '