罗永浩的一条餐后评论，不仅让预制菜再次引发大众关注，也将西贝和贾国龙推上风口浪尖。9月14日 晚间，罗永浩直播再次谈及西贝事件，称贾国龙说自己是"网络黑社会""网络黑嘴"，将起诉贾国龙。 "如果罗永浩起诉，案件核心争议聚焦于言论自由边界与名誉权侵权认定。"江苏钟山明镜律师事务所律 师吕金艳表示，根据《民法典》第一千零二十四条，任何组织或个人不得以侮辱、诽谤等方式侵害他人 的名誉权。 "网络黑社会"，该词通常暗示是有组织、有预谋，通过非法手段（如诽谤、敲诈、恶意炒作）从事不法 活动的团体。吕金艳说："这（网络黑社会）是个非常严重且带有犯罪性质的指控。""网络黑嘴"通常指 那些不负责任、为了某种目的散布虚假信息的网络评论者。 在吕金艳看来，这些用语并非客观批评，而是带有强烈侮辱性和贬损性的定性指责。如果贾国龙无法证 明罗永浩确实存在"组织黑社会"或"恶意造谣"的行为，这些言论就会被认定为侮辱和诽谤。 吕金艳说，贾国龙作为知名企业家，应当预见到其公开言论的巨大影响力和严重后果。他使用激烈的言 辞，主观上至少存在重大过失，甚至可以被推断为故意，旨在贬低罗永浩的人格尊严和社会评价。该言 论通过媒体和网络广泛传播，可导致 ...

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].

（文/霍东阳 编辑/张广凯） 曾发布视频质疑胖东来，称其涉嫌"低成本玉石高价销售牟取暴利"而被胖东来告上法庭的网红"柴怼怼"，近日再起风波。 9月10日，据大象新闻报道，柴怼怼（本名柴向前）等人于9月8日被温州市平阳县公安局警方带走调查，案由系涉嫌生产、销售伪劣产品罪。 今年4月，"柴怼怼"发布视频称，胖东来所售玉石"成本仅几百元，售价却高达几千甚至数万元"，并称"胖东来三万元的玉石品质不如其他商家三千元的产 品"，公开贬低胖东来的商品质量，同时宣传自家玉石产品更具性价比。 不过，平阳县市监局相关工作人员曾向媒体透露，今年4月，该局接到了大批关于该祛湿茶的投诉，经过走访调查，发现商家在销售时存在夸大宣传等情 况，目前已按照虚假宣传立案查处，"对于已经销售且未使用的祛湿茶，要求商家对消费者作退货处理。" 7月，柴向前妻子肖某为法人的公司平阳县小丫茶饮因虚假宣传、销售无标签产品等被罚款22万元。 4月25日，胖东来以"商业诋毁"和"名誉权侵权"为由，对柴怼怼正式提起诉讼，向其索赔不低于500万元。胖东来还公布了今年一季度的销售数据，回应称和 田玉在1月至3月期间的销售额为2190万元，毛利率为20%，仅占珠宝部销 ...

2024年12月10日下午，小吴、小宏夫妇带因车祸受伤的法斗犬到岳阳市某宠物医院就诊。经检查， 法斗犬右后腿有5至6厘米外伤，伴随皮下出血。宠物医院医生奇某建议手术缝合，并明确告知"麻醉有 风险，可能导致死亡"。夫妇俩签署手术同意书后，医院按流程实施手术，不料麻醉过程中法斗犬突发 呼吸困难，经抢救无效死亡。 悲痛之余，夫妇俩认为医院存在过错，要求赔偿2万元，遭医院拒绝。医院称已尽告知义务，且无 过错，并出于人道主义退还2600元治疗费。协商未果后，夫妇俩开始在网络发声：小吴用某音号发布视 频，配文"黑心店黑心老板""曝光无良商家XX医院"，并附上医生奇某的照片；小宏则在朋友圈呼吁"爱 狗人士转发避雷"，称"七岁半的狗被这家宠物店治死，老板不道歉不赔偿"。相关内容经数十万转发， 引发上千点赞和百余条负面评论，不少网友留言指责医院"没良心"。 原标题：不满爱犬手术死亡在网络上发布贬损言论并曝医生照 一夫妇侵犯名誉权被判删帖并道歉 本报讯 （记者 陶琛 通讯员 王敏 杨子旋）爱犬手术期间死亡，主人小吴、小宏悲愤之下在网络平 台发布"黑心店"等言论并曝光宠物医院医生照片，这究竟是合理维权还是侵权？近日，湖南省岳阳市岳 ...

Core Viewpoint - A short drama titled "After Being Laid Off, the Female CEO Regrets" has drawn attention due to its similarities in character names and plot with Huawei and Xiaomi, raising concerns about potential legal implications related to intellectual property and personality rights [1][8]. Group 1: Plot and Characters - The male protagonist, Yu Chengdong, is focused on the autonomous driving sector and is depicted as being wrongfully dismissed by CEO Song Mingzhu of Tengyuan Group, later being recruited by Su Qi, chairman of Xiaomi Group, with a high salary [1]. - The drama features a plot where Yu Chengdong ultimately defeats Tengyuan Group at an automotive summit and acquires the company, leading to the dismissal of Song Mingzhu [1]. Group 2: Legal Concerns - The drama has been criticized for potentially infringing on the rights of real-life individuals and companies due to the close resemblance of character names and company names to those of Huawei and Xiaomi [1][9]. - Legal experts suggest that even indirect references to real individuals or companies can lead to claims of "implied behavior," which may infringe on trademark rights and could damage the reputation of the referenced entities [9][10]. - It is recommended that creators of such dramas obtain authorization from the real-life figures they are portraying and clarify which elements are fictional to mitigate legal risks [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - Yongtai Technology has initiated legal action against Tianci Materials, claiming defamation and seeking compensation of 57.52 million yuan after Tianci accused Yongtai of infringing on its trade secrets [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Actions - Yongtai Technology and its subsidiary Shaowu Yongtai High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. have filed lawsuits against Tianci Materials, demanding a total compensation of 57.52 million yuan for defamation [1]. - The lawsuits were filed in response to Tianci Materials' claims regarding the illegal acquisition of its liquid lithium hexafluorophosphate technology by former employees [5]. Group 2: Company Responses - Yongtai Technology has stated that it only produces solid lithium hexafluorophosphate and has not engaged in the production or sale of the liquid variant involved in the dispute [5]. - The company asserts that it has not purchased any trade secrets from the former employee of Tianci and that the technology in question was developed independently [5]. Group 3: Allegations and Counterclaims - Tianci Materials has accused Yongtai Technology of using its illegally obtained technology in a project with an annual capacity of 134,000 tons of liquid lithium salt [5]. - Yongtai Technology claims that Tianci has repeatedly used media to defame the company and that these actions are intended to influence ongoing bidding processes, thereby attempting to eliminate competition [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing incidents of online harassment and defamation among fans, particularly in the context of celebrity culture, and emphasizes the legal implications of such actions [1][10]. Group 1: Case Overview - A notable case involves a fan, Ms. Chen, who faced severe online harassment after expressing her views on a performance by a well-known comedian, leading to a public outcry from other fans [3][6]. - The harassment escalated to the point where Ms. Chen received threats and her personal information was shared publicly, resulting in significant emotional distress [5][6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Ms. Chen collected evidence, including screenshots and videos, and filed a lawsuit against the fan account responsible for the harassment, seeking removal of defamatory content and compensation for damages [6][9]. - The court found that the actions of the fan account constituted a clear violation of Ms. Chen's right to reputation, leading to a ruling in her favor [8][9]. Group 3: Legal Implications and Responsibilities - The case serves as a reminder that online anonymity does not exempt individuals from legal accountability for their actions, as laws protect individuals from defamation and harassment [10]. - The article stresses the importance of responsible online behavior and the need for individuals to refrain from spreading false information or engaging in harassment [10]. Group 4: Evidence Collection - The article provides guidance on how individuals can collect and preserve evidence in cases of online harassment, including identifying account details and documenting content through screenshots and recordings [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal consequences of online harassment and the responsibilities of account managers in protecting individuals' rights, emphasizing the need to prevent online violence and defamation [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - The case involves a well-known crosstalk actor's fan account that publicly shamed an individual, Chen, after a disagreement over a performance review, leading to online harassment [1]. - The court ruled that the account managers, Meng and Gao, must delete the harmful information, publicly apologize, and compensate Chen for damages due to the infringement of his reputation [2]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The Supreme Court's ruling serves to enhance public legal awareness regarding the misuse of online platforms for defamation and harassment, stressing that both individuals and organizations must refrain from such actions [2]. - The judgment aims to maintain social order and reduce instances of online violence, indicating a broader societal impact beyond the individual case [2].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has ruled that individuals cannot arbitrarily publish reward advertisements to solicit information about others' alleged illegal activities, as it constitutes defamation [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - A development company sued an individual, Zheng, for defamation after he posted a reward advertisement on social media seeking information about the company's alleged illegal activities [1]. - Zheng's advertisement claimed he would reward individuals who provided verified evidence of the company's wrongdoing, which led to a lawsuit from the company demanding the removal of the advertisement and compensation for damages amounting to over 32,000 yuan [1]. Group 2: Court's Ruling - The court determined that only public authorities, such as the police, should issue reward advertisements for soliciting information about illegal activities, and that Zheng's actions misled the public into believing the company was involved in wrongdoing, thereby harming its reputation [2]. - The final judgment required Zheng to delete the infringing content, publicly apologize to the development company on his social media account, and pay over 7,000 yuan in damages [2].