"Essays" cannot be "irresponsible to speak", "infringement style rights protection" overturns Huo Zun | Suspected subway shooting incident | Sichuan University
The incident of "Uncle suspected of secretly taking selfies to prove his innocence but still being exposed" on Guangzhou Metro Line 8 continues to ferment, and now it has reached a critical juncture: on June 11th, the girl involved publicly apologized and gained forgiveness from the exposed uncle and his family. On the 12th, Sichuan University, where the female student is studying, announced that it will handle it in accordance with procedures, regulations, and discipline.
The beginning of this incident is not unfamiliar - the girl involved posted a "short essay" on her social media account, claiming to have encountered a "sleazy old man" on the subway and "presumed guilty" that the other party intended to secretly shoot. After checking the other party's phone and confirming that there was no act of secretly taking photos, she still exposed the on-site footage and publicly humiliated the other party. However, the development of the incident somewhat exceeded her expectations - despite repeatedly labeling the other party as a "sleazy old man", assuming guilt of "not feeling like it was the first time the crime was committed", and even giving herself a subsidy of "actively defending her rights even if her rights were not violated", the majority of netizens were still not "led by her" pace ". This girl quickly became the target of public criticism, and was criticized by the public for this "infringement based rights protection" which is unreasonable and infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the other party, and is suspected of violating the law.
Compared to this girl who did not succeed in her graduation, there are also some who once held a public opinion advantage through their "short essays" and even achieved their personal goals at one point. A typical example is in August 2021, a woman surnamed Chen posted a "short essay" on social media platforms, telling her love story with singer Huo Zun with vivid pictures and text, exposing various scandals of the other party and causing a public outcry. Faced with public opinion pressure, Huo Zun ultimately announced his withdrawal from the entertainment industry. In the following nearly two years, various rumors surrounding this event emerged and spread endlessly. Various signs indicate that Chen's unilateral statement in his "essay" is far from the facts. On June 9th of this year, media reported that authoritative authorities disclosed that Chen's alleged extortion case has entered the stage of investigation and prosecution. Many "melon eating masses" who were filled with righteous indignation two years ago were once again shocked and shouted that they had been deceived.
In fact, when conflicts and friction arise with others, being the first to publish "short essays" on online platforms to guide and manipulate public opinion, forming favorable public opinion pressure for oneself, and even leading netizens to abuse the other party, leaving them in a "social death" situation and losing their ability to fight back has become a common practice among some netizens, and has also become an increasingly common online disorder.
Under the empowerment of the internet, everyone holds a microphone and has the right to speak. When in a dispute, it is common and understandable to compete for "narrative power" through online voices to clarify the truth, assert one's own position, and protect one's own rights. Objectively speaking, the advantage of the internet also effectively protects the right of all parties to speak up, expands the space for social discourse, and plays a positive role in promoting social fairness and justice. On the other hand, this low threshold, light responsibility, and lack of factual verification speech mechanism also carries enormous risks.
As the saying goes, "preemptive and preemptive", numerous similar public opinion events have repeatedly proven that the narratives, positions, and propositions of those who speak first are more easily accepted by netizens, and thus gain public support. If intentional individuals deliberately distort facts, exaggerate the plot, and stir up online emotions, it will be extremely difficult to clarify facts and correct public opinion after forming a one-sided public opinion situation. This kind of chaos repeatedly occurs, not only consuming a large amount of public opinion resources, but also seriously disrupting the healthy order of online space and damaging the credibility of online speech. In addition, one-sided public opinion pressure and even online violence seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of the accused. In some online incidents, although the truth is ultimately clarified, public opinion tends to calm down, and related accusations have been proven to be false, the reputation losses suffered by the parties are still irreparable, and the physical and mental harm is also difficult to reverse.
Public opinion should not become a tool for individuals to achieve personal interests. All kinds of online chaos that use "short essays" to publish false information and hijack traffic should be effectively addressed. Freedom of speech cannot break through the boundaries of the rule of law and ethics, nor can it "speak without responsibility" in the cyberspace. Respect facts, respect logic, seek truth from facts, and prioritize evidence are not only the basic principles that online speech should adhere to, but also the speech responsibilities that speakers should bear. Correspondingly, online platforms should also establish a sound mechanism for verifying facts, especially for public opinion events that have a huge impact, they should have the ability to quickly verify the authenticity of information and clarify facts in a timely manner to verify their authenticity. For those who use "short essays" to publish false information and infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, causing personal, mental, property, and reputation damage to others, their corresponding legal and moral responsibilities should also be seriously investigated.
