What are the boundaries of rights protection and exposure?, Exposed in the "subway sneak shooting" incident | Online | Rights protection
A short video, a short essay, fermenting into discussions across the internet, and a lot of noise... The escalation of online events mostly follows a similar pattern. In recent days, the "subway sneak shooting incident" has become increasingly intense.
On June 7th, a woman suspected that she had been secretly photographed by an old man in the Guangzhou subway, so she stepped forward to warn the other party and secretly filmed the process. The uncle displayed a mobile photo album to prove her innocence, but the woman still exposed a video online and wrote a "short essay" saying that the uncle is a "lewd man", "skilled in technique", and "shameless in speaking". On June 10th, the uncle's son reported the incident and the woman posted an apology statement on Weibo on June 11th. On June 12th, Sichuan University told the media that it attaches great importance to this matter and has closely contacted the local police and the girl to verify the situation. It will handle it in accordance with procedures, regulations, and discipline.
From safeguarding rights to cyberbullying, and then to being subjected to cyberbullying, things have gone through twists and turns. From a legal perspective, what is a reasonable way to protect rights? How can we avoid harming innocent people, or even harming ourselves?
The girl is suspected of cyberbullying and herself is also a victim of cyberbullying
Is the girl's behavior suspected of cyberbullying? The answer is yes.
"This girl and others who have encountered suspected infringement incidents can actually take measures to protect their rights, such as reporting to the police or filing complaints, which is understandable and should be supported. However, if they know that their judgment is incorrect or that law enforcement agencies have made judgments on relevant matters, but attempt to defame the other party or coerce public opinion through 'short essays', this is the scope of cyberbullying," said Chen Min, senior partner of Shanghai Haoxin Law Firm.
In addition, according to Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Using Information Networks for Defamation, if the same defamatory information is actually clicked or browsed more than 5000 times, or forwarded more than 500 times, it constitutes the crime of insult or defamation. Chen Min said, "If the exposed blog post posted by the girl receives widespread social attention and meets the above forwarding and browsing standards, Uncle can also file a criminal report." In addition, most of the information about Uncle in the videos circulating online has been coded. However, if the original text of the girl's exposed blog post does not code Uncle's portrait, it is also suspected of infringing on his portrait rights.
The woman once said on social media, "Even if I exaggerate, what does he lose?" and even selected a comment, "The parties have forgiven, why are netizens jumping?" This attitude has sparked a new round of questioning towards her. Because she was very angry about this behavior of "knowingly framing insults with rhythm even though others did not secretly take photos", many netizens commented with extreme language, and even exposed personal information such as her school, major, name, age, etc., commenting on her personal photos. Legal professionals remind that intentionally fabricating facts or spreading personal information on the internet, or engaging in behaviors such as "human flesh searches", personal attacks, and personal insults, may constitute illegal crimes.
"In the era of the Internet, it is indeed necessary to deal with new situations and problems. Online disclosure is a more extensive and long-term form of disclosure than street disclosure. Should regulations raise requirements and enhance protection levels?" Fang Shilong, Director of the Tort Liability Committee of the Shanghai Lawyers Association and Partner of Guohao Law Firm, mentioned that recently, the "Two Highs and One Department" has launched the "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyber Violence and Illegal Crimes in accordance with the Law", soliciting opinions from the public, and "what measures the public power organs will take in the future can also be waited and seen.".
Clear sneak shots can be decisively rejected
According to Mr. Deng, the son of the uncle, "My father was working at a construction site in Baiyun District, Guangzhou. On June 7th, he happened to be resting and squatting on the subway playing with his phone, listening to music with headphones on. He did not secretly take photos of the woman, but also checked her phone." From this action onwards, the woman had already "exceeded her authority". In order to prove his innocence, the uncle showed that the phone content was originally understandable, but she had no right to view other people's private content. And while blaming others, the way she "defends her rights" is also "secretly filming".
This incident originated from suspicion of being secretly filmed, and it also sparked popularity due to that segment of the video being secretly filmed. What is "secret filming"? The most commonly used definition refers to the act of secretly filming others without their consent. Taking unauthorized photos of others in a private space may infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests such as portrait rights, privacy rights, and reputation rights. However, if taking photos or videos of others in public, will it infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests?
In public places, there are several situations - one is when taking photos of others or oneself, inadvertently taking photos of others without using them without authorization, that is, not posting them on social media or spreading them elsewhere, which is not considered infringement or illegal; Another way is to shoot and spread without the consent of the parties involved, which involves infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others. The parties involved can demand cessation of infringement, elimination of influence, and compensation for losses; A more serious situation is that the content being filmed involves the privacy of the person being photographed, such as secretly taking photos of women's skirts in public places, which may be illegal or even criminal. According to Article 42, Article 6 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments, those who peep, take photos, eavesdrop, or spread the privacy of others shall be detained for no more than 5 days or fined no more than 500 yuan; Those with serious circumstances shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan.
"If you clearly see someone shooting you, you can decisively refuse to shoot and ask the other party to delete the content that has already been shot." Zhu Wei, Deputy Director of the Communication Law Research Center at China University of Political Science and Law, said that even if the other party does not post it online, it is not very impolite to shoot strangers in public places. In fact, it has constituted harassment of others and even violated the relevant provisions of the Public Security Punishment Law. If the harassment is excessive, you can directly report it to the police.
Article 1020 of the Civil Code has added a standard for the reasonable use of the right to portrait, which stipulates that the reasonable use is limited to five situations: personal learning and appreciation, teaching and research, news reporting, performance of state organs, public environment display, and other actions to protect public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of the portrait owner. But it should be noted that the first two situations should also be carried out within the necessary range.
Lawyer's reminder: When shooting in public places, it is necessary to confirm whether there are any requirements prohibiting shooting in the environment being photographed; Secondly, the purpose and motivation of filming must comply with legal regulations and not violate public order and good customs; If the shooting content involves portraits of others, authorization from the other party should be obtained during the use process, and the legitimate rights and interests of others should not be infringed upon.
We cannot expose for the sake of exposure, the key is still to protect our rights
But secretly taking photos and exposing them are two different things. In recent years, exposure has become a spontaneous, emerging, and informal way of safeguarding rights. In the era where everyone had a microphone, it was very easy to judge others with just a tap on the keyboard and a mouth wide open; But once you realize you've made a mistake and apologize, with tears streaming down your face, you just want to erase everything, as if it's too casual?
"Online onlooking may have a certain degree of justice, but now there is a problem that when encountering something, it is easy to spread it online and use the power of the group to besiege a person and conduct public opinion trials, which goes against the rule of law society," said Zhu Wei. Several legal professionals have mentioned that online exposure may indeed have a role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of oneself and the public. For example, exposing issues such as "low-quality milk powder" and "ice cream assassins" can carry out public opinion supervision, safeguard public interests, and have a certain positive effect. But we cannot "expose" for the sake of "exposure", the key is still to protect our rights.
Zhu Wei said, "To protect one's rights, it is important to distinguish between different situations, such as unfounded, out of context, transplanting, or stigmatizing someone. These are all typical illegal behaviors that cause online violence. This girl launched an attempt to target others through online violence, and ultimately suffered the damage of herself. This indirectly reflects that online violence is likely to be backfired, especially if it is something that is made out of nothing and splashes dirty water on others."
So, how should we grasp the scale of online rights protection and online exposure? What are the reasonable ways to protect rights? Legal professionals suggest that if one believes that their legitimate rights and interests may be infringed upon in public places, they should seek feedback from relevant staff and have a third party intervene to investigate whether there is any infringement. If there is indeed infringement, evidence can be preserved by taking photos, videos, accessing surveillance footage, inviting witnesses to testify, and other means. If the infringement behavior may be suspected of illegal activities, it can be reported to the public security organs as soon as possible. After collecting evidence, one can also file a lawsuit with the court and demand that the other party bear corresponding responsibilities.