Female anchor is questioned
Lin Yu is a female anchor of a platform game with nearly 5 million fans. Since the popular game “PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds” went online, she has demonstrated and explained the game in the live broadcast room.
In April 2018, Gu Peiwen, who is engaged in online game commentary and commentary, posted a video on station B (Bilibili website) to comment on Lin Yu’s game live broadcast in January 2018. Gu Peiwen mentioned that there are many types of guns in PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, but the most popular weapon is the M416. This weapon generally has two firing modes, namely single firing and fully automatic firing. Lin Yu shot 14 bullets in less than 1 second, but her finger kept pressing the mouse, turning the single point into full automatic, and used the mouse macro lens to cheat (referring to use the mouse to automatically activate A series of actions).
After Gu Peiwen questioned the authenticity of Lin Yu’s game operations, he was immediately reposted and commented on the Internet by netizens, and some netizens even went to Lin Yu’s live broadcast room to insult.
Lin Yu felt very aggrieved and asked her studio to release a video response, proving her ability to shoot 14 bullets manually in 1.6 seconds. At the same time, Lin Yu’s studio also publicly released the “Statement”, denying that “14 bullets were fired in less than a second”, “single-point beating fully automatic” and “opening”.
After Gu Peiwen watched the video sent by Lin Yu’s studio, he felt that he had misread Lin Yu’s game live broadcast. In order to show his sincerity, he reprinted the “Statement” issued by Lin Yu’s studio on Weibo for two consecutive days starting from April 19, and at the same time claimed that the comment on Lin Yu’s “14 in 1 second” was a typo and deleted his Comment video uploaded by station B. However, Gu Peiwen insisted that from Lin Yu’s video game video, there is a suspicion that the single-point typing becomes fully automatic by pressing the mouse with the finger.
After seeing Gu Peiwen’s Weibo, Lin Yu believed that the other party avoided the important things, not only did not apologize too much, but also made strong words, and continued to insist on her misleading comments, which affected her reputation. She asked Gu Peiwen to clarify the facts again through her personal Weibo and apologize. Gu Peiwen ignored it.
Arguing in court
Lin Yu commissioned a law firm to issue a lawyer’s statement to Sina Weibo and Station B; to notarize his online reputation and the comments triggered by Gu Peiwen’s blog post.
Subsequently, Lin Yu filed a complaint with the People’s Court of Baoshan District, Shanghai, requesting Gu Peiwen to publish an apology statement in a prominent position on the homepage of his Sina Weibo and B station personal homepage for 30 consecutive days to eliminate the adverse effects and compensate her spirit. The loss fee is 5,000 yuan, and the attorney’s fee and notarization fee are paid for its rights protection cost.
Lin Yu alleged that the defendant Gu Peiwen, as the up-host (the person who uploads video and audio files on the website) of online game reviews and narrations, has nearly 50,000 fans, and his video playback volume is as high as 2 million. For the sake of his own traffic, Gu Peiwen did not hesitate to use the network environment to make extremely misleading comments on the live broadcast products he provided in the specific game field that the plaintiff was engaged in, leading others to believe that the plaintiff had cheated in the online game live broadcast. As soon as the video was released, it was reprinted by registered users on the Internet and major portals. The relevant comments on the plaintiff’s articles and videos were unverified, and the information that “the plaintiff was opened by a real hammer” was rendered unchecked, and the number of clicks was read huge. In addition, because of the defendant’s untrue remarks, a large number of Internet users have also insulted the plaintiff. In this regard, Gu Peiwen has an unshirkable responsibility.
? ? Gu Peiwen argued in court that the defendant had no intention of infringing upon the plaintiff’s right of reputation. As a game commentator and commentator, it is his job to interpret game anchors within reasonable limits. He used the live video of the plaintiff Lin Yu as the material and made an objective evaluation based on his knowledge of the game. The plaintiff raised reasonable doubts about the game video recorded in the live broadcast room in January 2018, but the defendant never said that the plaintiff’s game was opened. As for questioning the defendant’s verbal error in the video, that is, the plaintiff fired 14 bullets per second. It was 1.6 seconds. I also clarify and apologize for this.
The court held that in this case, although the defendant questioned the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s “14 per second” in the video, after the plaintiff released the self-certified video, the defendant deleted the disputed video and reposted it on Weibo. The “Statement” of the plaintiff’s studio, and apologized to Yuan Lin Yu for the “1 second 14 shots” mistake. In the commentary video, Gu Peiwen doubted whether the plaintiff’s 14 rounds of bullets took 1 second or 1.6 seconds. He questioned Lin Yu’s operation of “14 rounds in 1 second” and “single point hit full automatic”. Although not rigorous, However, considering the context of the comment, the comment still falls within the scope of the normal comment, and Lin Yu should be understood and tolerant, and it cannot be considered that Gu Peiwen has malicious intent against Lin Yu.
Internet public figures should do their duty of tolerance
The judge pointed out in court that although the defendant was not found to have infringed upon the plaintiff’s right of reputation in this case, relevant issues should also be taken seriously. For the plaintiff, the best way to dispel the doubts of others is to speak with facts. During the live broadcast, the hand operating the mouse is more clearly exposed to the netizens. When 14 bullets are fired in 1.6 seconds or less, the plaintiff’s game operation When there is a habit, the doubts of others will be self-defeating. As far as the defendant is concerned, in future game commentary and commentary, the program should be made in an objective and rigorous manner, and should not be eye-catching to compete for traffic and avoid causing unnecessary trouble to others.
The Baoshan District People’s Court of Shanghai made a first-instance judgment and rejected all the plaintiff’s claims.
Lin Yu appealed against the judgment of the first instance, saying that Lin Yu and Gu Peiwen are both Internet public figures, and Gu Peiwen’s legal evaluation of the reasonableness of the scale of his comments or explanations on the Internet should be different from that of ordinary users; after Gu Peiwen released the video, Quite a lot of reprints and comments from netizens all expressed doubts that Lin Yu might cheat with the mouse macro, which has caused a bad influence on Lin Yu.
The court of second instance held that the “Answers to Several Questions about the Trial of Reputation Rights Cases by the Supreme People’s Court” should be handled by the people’s courts according to different circumstances when writing and publishing critical articles: the issues reflected in the article are basically true and did not insult others Personality content should not be regarded as infringing on the reputation of others. Although the problem reflected in the article is basically true, but content that insults the personality of others, causing others’ reputation to be infringed, it shall be deemed as an infringement of others’ reputation rights. If the basic content of the article is inaccurate and damages the reputation of others, it shall be deemed as an infringement on the reputation of others.
As a popular game anchor with high popularity and popularity on the Internet, Lin Yu is an Internet public figure. Netizens have their own perceptions based on the comments made by their live videos, and the resulting comments are a unique expression of thinking and speech in the Internet age. Lin Yu, as an Internet public figure, should also be accepted. At the same time, Lin Yu believes that the post involved in the case has infringed on his reputation and caused the consequences of lowering his social evaluation. However, he did not provide corresponding evidence to prove that there is an inevitable connection between the change in the number of fans and the post, and his reason for appeal is also difficult to adopt.
On November 13, 2019, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court gave its final judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[According to the case]
The court held that the personal dignity of citizens is protected by law, and whether speech constitutes an infringement on the reputation of others should be comprehensively considered the identity of the speaker, the object of the speech, the specific topic and content, the context, and the consequences of the speech Wait to be judged. In this case, the plaintiff Lin Yu, as the game anchor, belongs to the Internet public figure. As a public figure, the plaintiff has a certain obligation to tolerate non-malicious criticism and questioning by netizens. It cannot be simply considered that general questioning and criticism constitute an infringement of reputation. If the relevant speech exceeds the necessary limit and damages the personal dignity of the public figure, the speech person shall bear the tort liability. (The characters in the text are all pseudonyms)