XXV
1.The core of the right of reputation is social evaluation.Only when the insults and defamatory acts performed by the perpetrators affect the public’s evaluation of the victim can it constitute a violation of reputation.
2.The parties who bring the lawsuit concerning the right of reputation shall provide evidence to prove whether their social evaluation is damaged.If there is no evidence or the evidence is not sufficient to prove that the relevant social evaluation has been lowered due to infringement,the party shall bear the adverse consequences.
Case 1: Reporter O of a newspaper investigated an artist’s establishment of a studio.Later, another newspaper reporter Z reposted on his Sina Weibo account the negative information that O forcibly asked the artist for advertising fees when interviewing the studio.After learning about Z’s behavior, O brought Z to court claiming that the information released were false statements which caused damage to his reputation.((2015)Xi Zhong Min Gao Zhong Zi No.00498）
The court held that: The following factors determine whether an action constitutes infringement of the right of reputation: whether there is actual damage to the victim’s reputation; whether the infringer violated the law; whether there is a causal relationship between the illegal acts and the consequences of the damage; and whether the infringer has subjective fault.The parties are responsible for providing evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based.If there is no evidence or the evidence is not sufficient to prove the factual claims of the parties, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.(https://www.daowen.com)
In this case, the main point of judging whether O’s reputation right has been violated by Z is whether O can prove that his social evaluation has been reduced due to Z’s forwarding behavior.And in this case, after Z reposted someone else’s blog in his personal account, he generated 5 comments and 11 forwards.There were not a large number of followers,reposts or negative comments, and Z deleted them the next day.In the first and second trials, O had not submitted sufficient valid evidence to the court for his factual claim that his reputation had been damaged due to Z’s forwarding action and should bear the corresponding adverse consequences.
Case 2: L once acted as an agent in the investigation stage of a case.The newspaper agency A reposted a blog post on a social platform in response to the case stating that “the lawyer’s request to transfer the client from criminal detention to administrative detention has been approved”.L believes that he has never requested the police to transfer the party from “criminal detention” to “administrative detention”.The fabrication of this false information by newspaper agency A is enough to cause major misunderstandings for the public, that is, as an attorney, L believes that the behavior of the party in the case has been publicly recognized as illegal.L maintains that the Weibo content forwarded by the newspaper agency caused public suspicion of his professional conduct and constituted a violation of his right to reputation.Newspaper agency A claimed that it did not fabricate false information.This information originally came from newspaper B, and was later reprinted by many domestic websites; it maintains that it is just a reprinting media.(Note: As of the time of the trial, the Weibo content was reposted 208 times and 90 comments were made.) ((2014)Yi Zhong Min Zhong Zi No.06844)
The court held that: The following factors determine whether an action constitutes infringement of the right of reputation: whether there is actual damage to the victim’s reputation; whether the infringer violated the law; whether there is a causal relationship between the illegal acts and the consequences of the damage; and whether the infringer has subjective fault.When newspaper agency A published the Weibo post involved in this case, it marked the source of the reprinted article and added the original link address at the end of the article; there was no insulting language in the Weibo post forwarded by newspaper agency A.Moreover, there is no defamation, leakage of privacy or any other methods to damage L’s reputation.L claimed that the post reposted by newspaper agency A had disseminated false information, but he could not confirm that the content of the post was false, nor could he confirm that the content of the post reposted by newspaper agency A caused public suspicion of his professional conduct and reduced his social evaluation.In summary, Weibo repost involved in this case by newspaper agency A did not constitute an infringement of L’s reputation.