Cause"Liberal arts are all service industries".and other remarks, Zhang Xuefeng, a famous graduate school teacher, was sued by an online social platform blogger "Gu Yanyou". According to Poster News, on January 8, the case was accepted by the Huqiu District People's Court of Suzhou City, and the case status is in the stage of online case filing and review.
On the same day, Zhang Xuefeng posted on Weibo"When I was walking, a dog barked at me... It's miserable to think about it, and it has to bark to get my attention... There is no need"., suspected to be a response to being prosecuted for "liberal arts speech".
"The turmoil began in December last year. At that time, Zhang Xuefeng said in a live broadcast: "Liberal arts are all service industries, what is the service industry?"In summary, one word is 'licking', which is 'I'll give you a smile'. He also gave an example of "lawyer is sales", and even "self-blackened": "You see that I am using my professionalism to 'lick' every parent in our live broadcast room." ”
Because of the above-mentioned "liberal arts remarks", Zhang Xuefeng posted: "Did I say the wrong thing again. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'll give everyone a laugh!Whichever smile you think is good-looking, I will laugh as much as I want in the future. You see, what am I doing, I'm licking too. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that!!
Zhang Xuefeng also said: "There is nothing bad about doing the service industry, but some people can't get over this hurdle in their hearts, I can pass, I will do the service industry,,, if you can't get through, you are not suitable for the service industry." I am reminding people who think that some professions are high, and their essence, especially in the early stage of their career, should be understood before choosing... It has to be interpreted maliciously. I apologize to you for being saddened by my remarks. ”
In order to apologize, he also posted on Weibo that he wore clothes that said "I was wrong, I apologize".
Since then, the blogger "Gu Yanyou", who has more than 600,000 followers on a social platform, announced that he would sue Zhang Xuefeng. "Gu Yanyou" believes that Zhang Xuefeng's tone, expression, and behavior when he said the word "licking" have clearly expressed a kind of "low-mindedness, willing to use bottomless pandering and flattery to achieve a goal or result in the workplace", which is an insult and belittlement of liberal arts students.
Refusing to be defined and promoting society to maintain a minimum of respect for the service industry and the liberal arts student group in the future is the meaning of my insistence on suing Zhang Xuefeng. "Gu Yanyou" said.
Regarding the lawsuit, the blogger said that he asked the defendant to publish an apology statement in domestic provincial newspapers, compensate the plaintiff for one yuan of mental damages, and bear all litigation costs.
In addition, the blogger claimed in the indictment that the liberal arts have a wide range, including journalism, literature, management, finance, economics and **, etc., and have made great contributions to social prosperity and stability, while Zhang Xuefeng used his identity and traffic to openly criticize "liberal arts students" in public is "licking", which is obviously a deliberate dwarfing behavior. Among them, the word "licking" expresses a kind of "flattery", "flattery", "groveling" image, even if there is such a person in the society, it should not belong to the entire group, its words and deeds obviously involve the crime of insult, according to relevant laws and regulations, the blogger believes that Zhang Xuefeng needs to be responsible for his words and deeds, and bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
In this regard, some lawyers believe that the plaintiff does not have the right to sue, and it is completely hype.
Xu Hao, a lawyer at Beijing Jingshi Law FirmXiang Beiqingwang said that first of all, the plaintiff has the right to file a defamation infringement lawsuit, but it needs evidence to prove that the other party constitutes infringement.
Secondly, the constitution of a defamation infringement should also be determined from four aspects: the fact that the victim's reputation has been infringed, the perpetrator's conduct is unlawful, there is a causal relationship between the illegal act and the harmful consequences, and the perpetrator is subjectively at fault. This means that there must be a clear victim of defamation infringement and cannot be a certain group. In this case, Zhang Xuefeng's remarks were directed at the group of liberal arts students, rather than a specific person, so in judicial practice, it is difficult to determine that this case constitutes a defamation infringement.
The law protects the right to reputation, not the sense of honor. Lawyer Xu Hao said that the sense of reputation usually refers to the subjective evaluation and feeling of an individual's own intrinsic worth. It deals with how individuals perceive and evaluate their emotional state in terms of morality, prestige, talent, credit, etc. However, according to Article 1024 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the law protects the objective reputation of citizens rather than their subjective reputation. Objective reputation refers to the social evaluation of others' morality, prestige, talent, and credibility independent of the individual, and this evaluation does not depend on the individual's feelings. Therefore, although individuals may feel that their reputation has been damaged, this does not necessarily mean that their right to reputation has been violated.
Lawyer Lv Boxiong of Beijing Guanheng Law FirmAccording to the analysis of the rule of law of Beiqing.com, the conduct involved in the case obviously did not reach the level of "serious circumstances", and it is not appropriate to regulate it on the criminal charge of insult.
Lawyer Lu Boxiong believes that there are still many controversies as to whether the case constitutes a civil infringement. The object of defamation infringement should be specific, and it is debatable whether the "liberal arts student" in this case meets this subject requirementIt is also difficult to prove the damage caused by the infringement in accordance with the principle of "whoever asserts the claim shall provide evidence", that is, whether the plaintiff's own social evaluation has been reduced as a result.
In addition, the evaluation objects mentioned in Zhang Xuefeng's remarks should be liberal arts occupations and people engaged in liberal arts careers, and although Zhang Xuefeng himself graduated from the engineering major of water supply and drainage engineering, his long-term voluntary tutoring should belong to the liberal arts profession, although his evaluation of this kind of industry is biased, but it boils down to his personal understanding of his own industry or self-deprecation is not unreasonable.
In the view of lawyer Lu Boxiong, the legal boundary between freedom of speech and insulting others is not clear, and in view of the current social situation, it is recommended to give more room for speech, and to change criticism if there is one, and encourage it if it is not.
In addition, there were a number of errors in the text of the plaintiff's complaint, which was available online, and the "indictment" should be a "complaint", and the defendant was determined to be the company of which Zhang Xuefeng was the legal representative, and the original intention should be to list Zhang Xuefeng, a natural person, as the defendant. In the subject matter part, it is mentioned that "his words and deeds clearly involve the crime of insult", which is the scope of criminal private prosecution, but his claim is also a civil claim, and the information on the filing procedure of the case disclosed on the Internet shows that the case was filed as a civil case.
end-