Core Viewpoint - The joint statement from Li Auto, China Automotive Technology & Research Center, and Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor aims to address the controversy surrounding the crash test of the Li Auto i8, highlighting the need for clarity in legal boundaries regarding advertising and competition [1][6]. Group 1: Joint Statement and Apologies - Li Auto and China Automotive Technology & Research Center issued apologies for the potential brand association risks caused by the dissemination of related content [1]. - Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor called for the resistance of unfair competition and adherence to legal and compliant business practices [1]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The initial video presentation by Li Auto may lead to consumer concerns regarding the safety of Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor's "Chenglong" trucks, potentially harming its reputation [2]. - The current laws on unfair competition and advertising need to be examined, particularly whether the initial video constitutes infringement or violates the Advertising Law [3][4]. Group 3: Advertising Law Violations - If the crash test parameters were not fully disclosed, it could violate the principle of advertising authenticity as per the Advertising Law, potentially leading to claims of false advertising [3][4]. - Selectively showcasing favorable footage without disclosing critical parameters may result in misleading promotion [3]. Group 4: Risk Mitigation Strategies - Li Auto should publicly disclose complete test parameters and clarify that results pertain only to specific scenarios [5]. - China Automotive Technology & Research Center could issue a written statement emphasizing that the tests were conducted per the client's requirements [5]. - Dongfeng Liuzhou Motor may consider third-party testing of its trucks to validate safety claims and guide public perception regarding non-standard tests [5]. Group 5: Industry Lessons - The incident serves as a warning for companies to ensure that promotional content is grounded in factual accuracy and to respect legal boundaries in competitive practices [6]. - Companies should strive for transparency and integrity in advertising to foster a fair competitive environment in the automotive industry [6].

Group 1 - The core issue discussed is the definition of creative freedom versus legal boundaries in the context of contemporary societal standards [3][10][26] - The article highlights a specific incident involving a popular game, "燕云十六声," where female characters' outfits were criticized for being overly revealing, sparking a debate on whether this constitutes a violation of creative freedom or a legal issue [5][6][12] - The author argues that the dissatisfaction expressed by female players regarding character designs reflects a shift in societal standards rather than a failure of existing laws [14][19][25] Group 2 - The discussion emphasizes that if short skirts are deemed to objectify women, then similar criticisms could be applied to other forms of creative expression, such as "海棠小黄文" [17][24][26] - The article suggests that there is a double standard in how creative freedom is defended for certain types of content while being criticized for others, indicating a need for consistency in the application of legal and moral standards [20][25] - The author calls for a more grounded discussion on whether specific representations, like short skirts in games, are acceptable under current societal norms, implying that if they are not, then other forms of creative expression should also be scrutinized [26][10][19]