because of that Guangdong TV presenter Wang Mudi for slander, insult to the micro-blog, Fang to reputation infringement on the grounds of Wang Mudi and Beijing micro dream Techtronic Network Technology Co., Ltd. to court. Recently, the Haidian court, as part of micro-blog infringement, decree Fang Wang Mudi apology and compensation for mental solatium 10 thousand yuan and 17100 yuan rights fee.
micro-blog ridicule annoying Fang
Fang alleged that Wang Mudi since July 14, 2013 has published dozens of articles micro-blog vicious attack, and he and his wife and daughter abuse, threats, intimidation, micro-blog content no basis in fact, wanton and malicious slander insult to the reputation severely compromised, constituted of the right of reputation infringement, it is taken to court, requesting an order the two defendants delete micro-blog, apology, and compensation for mental solatium 400 thousand yuan and 37100 yuan rights fee, micro dream Techtronic company jointly and severally liable.
Wang Mudi argued that its exercise of freedom of speech and the right to question, and indicate the source and source, he questioned the hope that the ark can give a response. Related content is a public topic, so its questioning and evaluation is legitimate, and with a humorous composition of ridicule, did not fabricate the fact that insult and slander. Micro dream Techtronic company argued, as micro-blog operators can only review the form and not strictly the contents of the audit, Fang as a public figure should bear the social evaluation scale is more lenient than the average person, the question and the reasonable evaluation is not a violation of the right of reputation.
court ruled that part of the infringement
after the court hearing that in formal speech, micro-blog speech on the arbitrary stronger, more intense subjective, ridicule, satire, ridicule is more common, but the freedom of speech is relative, the exercise of freedom of speech of the micro-blog environment, should also be limited to not infringe the legitimate rights of others. Although Wang Mudi’s part of the micro-blog speech of the big party counseling, Party counseling masters and other derogatory language, but has not yet reached the severity of insult, not because there is a certain derogatory term itself is considered an insult. In view of the Ark as a public figure, more than the general public in the field of public opinion has a higher tolerance obligations, the content of this part of micro-blog, the court does not constitute infringement.
and the other part of the micro-blog speech, such as network underworld boss, money and the use of animals, mad dog, ripping the mask such as damage to Fang dignity the terms for Fang to be no evidence to support the basic facts of defamation and insult, derogatory, beyond the public figures tolerance obligation category, constitute infringement. Wang Mudi should bear to stop infringement, a public apology, compensation for damages liability. For the micro dream Techtronic company, taking into account the relevant micro-blog involving public figures and the public’s right to know, the content is controversial and authenticity, difficult to grasp the scale of infringement cases, it does not have the professional judgment, after receiving the prosecution material promptly deleted according to their own understanding that has invaded >