【#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 ...

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、证人证言、当事人陈述等证据查明， 孙某的言论并无不实之处，亦不存在侮辱性等不恰当言辞，仅系对保洁公司服务的客观、真实描述，且 受众在查看孙某发布的帖子时，亦能够根据孙某所附的微信聊天截图、服务前后对比照片客观判断孙某 所述内容是否客观、真实，并不会导致受众仅仅以孙某编写的部分激烈言辞而片面地看待双方的争执， 孙某的发帖行为尚不能达到侮辱、诽谤的程度，故法院认定孙某的行为不构成名誉权侵权。 消费者在 接受服 ...

企业、名人容忍相关的模仿和玩梗是出于"情分"，但认为有侵权风险，不愿容忍而选择最低成本的投诉 来维权，则是一种"本分"。在这一过程中，平台内容治理不能总因为怕麻烦先下架视频，最后落得企 业"里外不是人"。用透明公正的标准充分核查与说理，积极受理被投诉者的申诉等等，平台能做的事有 很多，关键是，必须克制住"先下架内容"的冲动，慎用"先下架内容"的权限。 （文章来源：南方都市报） 近年来，类似的名人模仿现象在网络上常见，是否涉嫌名誉权侵权的关键焦点就是，有没有侮辱和丑化 行为并造成一定后果。可以说，村支书在视频被投诉下架后，借助农话题模糊焦点、偷换概念，确实不 地道，但他当初对雷军的模仿视频是否"侵犯名誉权"，也同样存在争议。被投诉视频中，村支书多是在 模仿其语气、话术表达和风格等，该行为是否存在侮辱和丑化，又是否对小米公司造成了实质的侵害后 果，只有走法律途径才能下定论。 不过，类似纠纷大多没有走到对簿公堂那一步，而是通过平台解决。但显然，面对内容是否侵犯名誉权 的争议，平台恐怕只能调解，而调解的方式如果仅是告知用户"被投诉"并下架视频，必然不能解答疑 惑。还有媒体发现，近来一名以模仿雷军风格来卖红薯的博主，也 ...

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].

Core Viewpoint - The recent comments made by Luo Yonghao regarding the pre-prepared food industry have reignited public interest and placed Xi Bei and Jia Guolong in the spotlight, particularly concerning issues of defamation and freedom of speech [1] Group 1: Legal Implications - Luo Yonghao's potential lawsuit against Jia Guolong centers on the boundaries of freedom of speech and the recognition of defamation, as per Article 1024 of the Civil Code, which prohibits organizations or individuals from infringing on others' reputation through insults or defamation [1] - The term "network black society" implies organized and premeditated illegal activities, while "network black mouth" refers to irresponsible commentators spreading false information for specific purposes [1] - If Jia Guolong cannot substantiate his claims of Luo Yonghao being part of a "network black society" or engaging in malicious rumors, his statements may be deemed defamatory [1][2] Group 2: Public Figure Considerations - As a well-known entrepreneur, Jia Guolong should have anticipated the significant impact and serious consequences of his public statements, which could lead to a negative perception of Luo Yonghao's character and reputation [2] - Unless Jia Guolong can provide convincing evidence to support his claims, his statements may constitute illegal factual accusations and personal insults, exceeding the tolerance threshold for public figures [2] - The potential legal repercussions for Jia Guolong include ceasing the infringement, publicly apologizing, mitigating the impact, and compensating for reputational damages [2]

Core Viewpoint - Former Chinese national table tennis player Zhu Yuling has faced ongoing online harassment since the July competition in the United States, leading her to file a civil lawsuit in August to protect her legal rights [1][3][4]. Group 1: Background and Events - Zhu Yuling revealed on social media that she has been subjected to multiple rounds of online violence, including baseless accusations and malicious rumors, which have significantly impacted her training and competition [3]. - Initially, Zhu chose to endure the harassment silently, hoping to focus on her training and competitions, but the situation escalated, prompting her to take legal action [3][4]. - During the WTT Championship in Macau, incidents of personal harassment occurred, further disrupting her ability to compete and threatening her personal safety [3][10]. Group 2: Legal Actions - Zhu Yuling has officially filed a civil lawsuit to address the infringement of her rights, seeking to use legal means to uphold her dignity and justice [3][6]. - A lawyer's statement confirmed that false information regarding Zhu's alleged debts has circulated widely online, leading to negative comments and personal attacks against her [4][7]. - The lawyer's statement also indicated that the claims of Zhu owing money are entirely fabricated, and she has reported these incidents to law enforcement agencies [7][10]. Group 3: Public Support and Reactions - Zhu's statement has garnered significant support from fans and netizens, sparking widespread discussions on social media about the issues of online violence and harassment [3].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling regarding the "Haidilao urination incident" highlights the legal responsibilities of minors and their guardians in cases of public misconduct, emphasizing the importance of accountability and the potential financial repercussions for families involved in such incidents [1][3][5]. Group 1: Incident Overview - In February 2023, two minors, Tang and Wu, filmed themselves urinating in a Haidilao hotpot restaurant, leading to significant public outrage after the video was shared online [1][2]. - The incident resulted in administrative detention for the minors by local police [1]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Ruling - On March 12, 2023, the Shanghai Huangpu District People's Court ruled that the minors and their parents were jointly liable for damages, ordering them to publicly apologize and pay a total of 2.2 million yuan for damages related to property loss, cleaning costs, and business reputation [1][3][4]. - The court found that the actions of the minors constituted joint infringement on both property and reputation, with the parents also held accountable under the Civil Code [3][4]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The court determined that the costs incurred by Haidilao for replacing all restaurant utensils and deep cleaning were reasonable, amounting to 130,000 yuan, while the total compensation for business losses and legal expenses was set at 200,000 yuan [4][5]. - However, the court did not support the claim for tenfold compensation, stating it lacked a legal causal relationship with the infringement [5]. Group 4: Legal and Social Implications - The incident serves as a warning about the responsibilities of guardians in monitoring the behavior of minors, as failure to do so can lead to significant financial and reputational consequences [5]. - The revised Public Security Administration Punishment Law, effective January 1, 2026, will impose stricter penalties on minors for serious violations, indicating a shift towards more stringent legal accountability for such behaviors [2].