据牛女士在视频中发布的法院判决，牛女士须在贴吧、抖音账号上发布向原告的赔礼道歉声明，"并至 少保持15日不删除、不下架"。 此前报道>> 1月15日，子被判向出轨丈夫道歉15天#话题登上微博热搜。 近日，河南女子牛女士在抖音连续多天发布向丈夫的公开道歉视频，引发网友关注。其称，因丈夫与已 婚女同事持续5年婚外情，自己在社交平台曝光二人姓名、工作单位及消费证据等，遭丈夫起诉侵犯名 誉权。法院判决牛女士需连续15天公开道歉。 据了解，自1月12日起，牛女士已连续发布4天道歉视频，其以"服从判决"名义开启"道歉连续剧"，单条 视频点赞量超50万。 视频中，牛女士还附上了法院判决书及此前发布的侵权内容。 图源：视 频内容截图 律师提醒 北京愿法律师事务所高芳芳律师指出，法院判令牛娜连续15天公开道歉，本质是"责任与侵权影响相匹 配"的体现。牛娜在抖音这类公开平台发布侵权内容，影响范围广、持续时间长，对应的道歉就需在同 一平台、以连续发布的方式进行，才能达到消除影响、恢复对方名誉的法定效果。 北京德和衡律师事务所高级权益合伙人陈燕红告诉中青报·中青网记者，关于道歉内容，法律未规定需 法院事前审理，通常由当事人按判决自行 ...

【#女子向出轨丈夫道歉视频或再侵权#】#律师解读道歉视频二次侵权边界# 近日，河南女子牛某因丈 夫出轨已婚女同事，在社交平台曝光二人姓名、工作单位及消费证据，遭丈夫起诉侵犯名誉权。法院判 决牛某公开道歉后，她自1月12日起连续发布"道歉视频"，视频中详细提及丈夫真实信息、奢侈品消费 记录、法院判决书，调侃丈夫"满足职工物质与生理需求""两人是真爱"，被网友戏称"看似道歉，实则 公开处刑"。该道歉视频是否构成二次侵权？河南泽槿律师事务所主任付建解读，民事主体名誉权受法 律保护，以侮辱、诽谤方式导致他人社会评价降低即属侵权，法院此前判决合理。付建强调，判决后的 道歉内容通常需经法院审查，若仍含泄露隐私、侮辱诽谤言论或无证据事实，导致对方社会评价进一步 降低，仍可能构成新的侵权。（记者 徐韶达 剪辑 周嘉楠）#向出轨丈夫道歉不能变成公开处刑# ...

南京晨报2026-01-15 23:34:50 今天（1月15日），#女子被判向出轨丈夫道歉15天#话题登上微博热搜。 近日，河南女子牛娜在抖音连续多天发布向丈夫的公开道歉视频走红，引发网友关注。其称，因丈夫与 已婚女同事持续5年婚外情，自己在社交平台曝光二人姓名、工作单位及消费证据等，遭丈夫起诉侵犯 名誉权。法院判决牛娜需连续15天公开道歉。 据了解，自1月12日起，牛娜已连续发布4天道歉视频，其以"服从判决"名义开启"道歉连续剧"，单条视 频点赞量超50万。 视频附上了丈夫为第三者购买奢侈品的消费记录，以及法院判决书、及此前发布的侵权内容，反讽丈 夫"满足职工物质与生理需求"，"两人是真爱"等。 牛女士在抖音曝光的消费证据） （上图为 （上图为 牛女士在贴吧发布的小故事） 据牛女士在视频中发布的法院判决称，牛女士须在贴吧、抖音账号上发布向原告的赔礼道歉声明，"并 至少保持15日不删除、不下架"。 目前，其丈夫本人及视频中所提到的工作单位（耿村煤矿机电一队）均未公开回应。 来源：都市现场综合青岛新闻网、当事人社交平台 对此，该视频内容引发网友热议。 编辑：宁宁 责编：李君伟 ...

【#律师解读司晓迪密集爆料#：#司晓迪行为已触碰多条红线#】1月3日凌晨，@iamroosie（司晓迪）密 集爆料十余名顶流男星，涵盖林更新秘恋、蔡徐坤因李汶翰删联系方式、王安宇关晓彤交往等说法，还 曝光鹿晗私密照、檀健次私聊记录，并称与范丞丞有私下往来，引发全网热议。对此，@鹿晗工作室 、@范丞丞工作室 、@林更新工作室 、@黄明昊工作室 、@檀健次工作室 、@王安宇工作室 、@关晓 彤工作室 等纷纷发文辟谣。如果爆料纯属捏造，她要付出什么代价？艺人们又该如何维权？@封面新 闻 采访到北京安剑律师事务所周兆成，他表示，首先，从法律层面看，司晓迪的行为已触碰多条红 线。第一，是民事侵权，根据《民法典》，捏造虚假事实损害他人名誉，哪怕没明说名字，只要能明确 指向艺人，就构成名誉权侵权，必须删除内容、公开道歉，还要赔偿艺人的经济损失和精神损害抚慰金 ——要知道，艺人的代言、演出可能因谣言泡汤，这些损失都能依法追偿。 第二，如果更严重的是行 政和刑事责任。《治安管理处罚法》明确，捏造事实诽谤他人，情节较重的可处5-10日拘留，还会留下 违法记录；若谣言点击量超5000次、转发量超500次，或造成艺人精神失常等严重后 ...

转自：北京日报客户端 漫画/高岳 随着互联网技术的深度发展，网络空间已成为名誉权侵权案件的高发区域。一句不负责任的谣言、一段 情绪化的诋毁，都可能成为刺伤他人名誉的"利刃"，甚至构成违法犯罪。 《法治日报》记者选取了新疆维吾尔自治区乌鲁木齐市两级法院审理的几起名誉权保护典型案例，通过 以案释法解读"何为名誉权侵权"，为诚信、友善、文明社会风尚的构建提供司法指引。 消费体验客观评价 不构成名誉权侵权 孙某接受某保洁公司服务后，因对服务质量及服务人员态度不满，以"避雷帖"为题在小红书发布个人体 验（用词包括"服务太差了""大家一定避雷"等），详细描述商家服务的细节，并附上服务前后对比照片 及与该保洁公司服务人员的微信聊天截图，引起网友对保洁公司的负面跟评。保洁公司认为，孙某的发 帖行为构成污蔑、造谣、误导公众认知，对该保洁公司构成名誉权侵权，影响了保洁公司的业务量，遂 诉至法院，请求法院判令孙某赔礼道歉并赔偿损失。 法院经审理认为，孙某基于其自身感受在网络平台发帖描述个人不良感受，虽然内容涉及对保洁公司的 负面评论，亦引起了网民的负面跟评。但法院结合孙某提交的保洁服务前后对比照片、双方沟通的微信 聊天记录、证人证 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the increasing prevalence of defamation cases in the digital space, emphasizing the need for judicial guidance on protecting reputation rights in the context of online comments and reviews [3]. Group 1: Case Summaries - A consumer's objective evaluation of a service, despite being negative, does not constitute defamation if it is based on true experiences and lacks insulting language [4]. - A customer who posted exaggerated and insulting comments about a service provider was found to have committed defamation, leading to a court order for the removal of the post and a public apology [5][6]. - In a neighborhood dispute, a person used derogatory language in a group chat, resulting in a court ruling that mandated an apology due to the defamatory nature of the comments [7]. - A case involving malicious comments made by an individual out of jealousy led to a significant compensation ruling for the victim, highlighting the impact of online defamation on mental health and reputation [8]. Group 2: Legal Framework - The Civil Code stipulates that individuals who infringe on personal rights must take responsibility to eliminate the impact, restore reputation, and apologize, with the extent of responsibility corresponding to the nature of the act and its impact [9]. - The Supreme Court's regulations clarify that online users or service providers can be held liable for defamation if they publish misleading information or fail to correct previously published false information [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the village secretary from Tengjia Town, Rongcheng City, Shandong Province, selling millet online and being accused by Xiaomi of "defaming" highlights the tension between individual creativity and corporate rights in the digital space [2][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The village secretary used a style mimicking Xiaomi's CEO Lei Jun to promote local millet, which led to a complaint from Xiaomi regarding "malicious imitation" and defamation [2]. - After the complaint, the village secretary released an apology video expressing frustration over the inability to use the term "Xiaomi," indicating a perceived overreach by the company [2]. Group 2: Legal and Platform Implications - The key issue in determining whether the village secretary's actions constituted defamation revolves around whether there was any insulting or derogatory behavior that caused tangible harm to Xiaomi [3]. - Many similar disputes typically do not escalate to court but are resolved through platform mediation, which may not adequately clarify the standards for such complaints [3][4]. Group 3: Need for Clear Standards - Xiaomi's complaints about imitation videos are understandable, but there is a pressing need for platforms to establish clear, fair, and transparent standards for handling infringement disputes to maintain credibility [4]. - The current approach of platforms, which often leads to content being taken down without thorough investigation, risks alienating both companies and individuals involved in such disputes [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around a defamation dispute where a former employee, He, claimed wrongful termination and shared his experiences on social media, leading to a lawsuit from the company for defamation. The court ruled that He did not infringe on the company's reputation as his statements had a factual basis and were not malicious [5][8]. Group 1: Employment and Termination Details - He was hired by the company on September 20, 2023, with a six-month probation period, and was evaluated with a score of 50 out of 100, leading to non-confirmation of employment [1]. - The company officially notified He of his termination on March 15, 2024, citing failure to meet the required standards during the probation period [1][2]. Group 2: Arbitration and Legal Proceedings - He applied for arbitration on April 10, 2024, and was awarded unpaid wages of 676.5 yuan and compensation for wrongful termination amounting to 12,563.92 yuan [2]. - The company contested the arbitration decision in court, but the first-instance court upheld the arbitration ruling [2]. Group 3: Social Media Activity and Company Response - He began posting on social media on September 11, 2024, sharing documents related to his termination and arbitration, using tags like "illegal dismissal" [3][4]. - The company claimed that He’s posts contained false information that harmed its reputation and demanded the removal of the content and a public apology, along with 10,000 yuan in damages [4][8]. Group 4: Court's Ruling on Defamation - The court found that He’s statements were based on factual circumstances surrounding his termination and did not constitute defamation, as they were not made with malicious intent [5][7]. - The court noted that the company failed to provide evidence of actual damages resulting from He’s statements, leading to the dismissal of the company's claims for damages [8]. Group 5: Observations on Public Discourse - While the court ruled in favor of He, it emphasized the importance of responsible expression in public discourse, suggesting that disputes should be resolved through formal channels rather than social media [9].

Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between former Hubei billionaire Lan Shili and the grain and oil giant Jinlongyu, backed by Yihai Kerry, stems from allegations regarding the unsafe transportation of edible oil using uncleaned oil tankers, leading to significant reputational damage and financial implications for the companies involved [1][4][10]. Group 1: Incident Background - The controversy began with the "oil tanker mixed transport chaos" incident, where it was reported that an oil tanker transported coal-derived oil and then directly loaded edible oil without cleaning, raising public safety concerns [4][5]. - A specific tanker, identified as冀E5476W, was tracked to have loaded edible oil at a facility linked to Jinlongyu after transporting coal-derived oil [4][6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Yihai Kerry filed a lawsuit against Lan Shili for defamation, claiming his statements about the company's products being "toxic" and the alleged stock price drop were baseless and damaging to their brand reputation [8][10]. - The Shanghai court ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, ordering Lan Shili to apologize publicly and pay damages, which he contested in a subsequent appeal that was also rejected [10][15]. Group 3: Regulatory Implications - The incident prompted the State Council's Food Safety Office to take the matter seriously, leading to a joint investigation into the transportation of edible oil and subsequent regulatory reforms [5][11]. - Proposed amendments to the Food Safety Law include stricter licensing requirements for the transportation of liquid food products, with penalties for violations [11]. Group 4: Ongoing Disputes - Following the court's ruling, Lan Shili claimed that Yihai Kerry continued to pursue legal action despite the settlement, leading to the freezing of his bank accounts and further complicating the legal situation [14][15]. - Lan Shili has since sought a retrial and is pursuing additional claims against Yihai Kerry for alleged improper conduct during the enforcement of the court's decision [15].

Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between former Hubei billionaire Lan Shili and Yihai Kerry, the parent company of the grain and oil giant Jinlongyu, has escalated from a public controversy regarding food safety to a complex legal battle involving defamation and unjust enrichment claims [2][6][16]. Group 1: Incident Background - The controversy began in July 2024 when media reported on the "oil tanker mixed loading chaos," raising public concerns about the safety of edible oil transportation [7][8]. - Lan Shili released a video accusing Jinlongyu of using uncleaned oil tankers for transporting edible oil, claiming that the company's market value dropped by 650 billion [2][8]. - The video gained significant traction, amassing 46,000 likes and over 20,000 shares on Douyin by July 30, 2024 [8]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Yihai Kerry filed a lawsuit against Lan Shili for defamation, claiming his statements were false and damaging to their brand reputation [11][12]. - The Shanghai court ruled in favor of Yihai Kerry, ordering Lan Shili to apologize publicly and pay a total of 30,000 yuan in damages [13]. - Lan Shili appealed the decision, arguing that he was exercising his right to express concerns about a public issue, but the appeal was rejected [14]. Group 3: Escalation of Dispute - Following the court's decision, a new issue arose when Lan Shili mistakenly transferred 100,000 yuan instead of the ordered 10,000 yuan to Yihai Kerry [15]. - Lan Shili claimed that Yihai Kerry did not inform the court about receiving the payment and instead sought to freeze his bank account, leading to further legal action from his side [15][16]. - The dispute has now expanded to include claims of unjust enrichment, complicating the legal battle between the two parties [16].