Recently, a high-profile case of "man framed in the subway" was pronounced in the First Court of Chengdu Railway Transport. In this case, Mr. Ho was unfairly treated on the subway because he was misunderstood** by two women. Although the court did not uphold Mr. He's claim and found that the two women did not disseminate information at the public level, Mr. He's ** lawyer said that the client was not satisfied with the result and would appeal.
After the incident, the two women who misunderstood Mr. He**, Luo Moumou and Zeng Moumou, as well as the passengers on the train and pedestrians at the station, did not disseminate information on the Internet, ** and other social levels. However, the incident was known to the public and ** because Mr. Ho posted information on the Internet. Therefore, the court found that the impact of the incident at the public level should not be attributed to Luo and Zeng.
In terms of the details of the case, Mr. Ho mentioned in an article published on various platforms that the older of the two girls had apologized after being reminded by the police. However, in the notice released by the court, it was shown that Luo Moumou said "handsome guy, I'm sorry" when he bowed to He Moumou, not a police reminder. In addition, Mr. He mentioned in the article that another woman, Zeng Moumou, did not choose to apologize, but in the notice released by the court, Zeng Moumou nodded and apologized after Luo Moumou bowed and apologized: "I'm sorry, we misunderstood." ”
In an article posted by Mr. Ho, he mentioned that when questioned by two women about his "** behavior, he was asked to stand against a wall, take off a shoe and a sock, and put his hands behind his back." And when he adjusted his stance, the two girls sneered at him. However, in the notice released by the court, it was shown that He Moumou took off his shoes and socks by himself, and the stationmaster on duty informed He Moumou that the Chengdu Metro Operating Company had no right to inspect it, and called the police at the request of He Moumou. At about 23:05, the police arrived at the platform of Jincheng Square Station. During this time, there was no physical contact between the parties. After the police asked the reason for the dispute, he Moumou put on his shoes and guided the three to take the subway to the police office.
Although the court made such a judgment on the case, Mr. He's ** lawyer told reporters that they had previously made "worst-case plans" with Mr. He about the verdict, and Mr. He also expressed his willingness many times that he would choose to appeal if the initial appeal was not met. Therefore, the subsequent development of this case is still worth watching.
The case has attracted a lot of public attention because it touches on a number of sensitive topics such as the right to reputation, the right to privacy and online violence. From my point of view, the outcome of this case was not exactly what I expected, but I was able to understand the court's considerations and trade-offs.
First of all, I think the court did not adequately consider the impact of online violence in its decision. Although the court found that the two women did not disseminate information on the Internet, ** and other social levels, the insulting apologies and rhetorical apologies they adopted to Mr. He at the scene, as well as the fact that they still did not fully recognize their mistakes after ** intervened, have actually constituted an infringement on Mr. He's right to reputation and privacy.
This kind of abuse is not only reflected in Mr. Ho's personal feelings, but also in the public's reaction to such behavior. If this behavior is not effectively curbed, it is likely to lead to more online violence and abuses.
Secondly, I believe that the Court did not fully take into account Mr Ho's claim in its judgment.
Although the court found that the two women did not infringe on Mr. Ho's right to reputation and privacy, Mr. Ho's claim was for a public apology and financial compensation. In this regard, it is clear that the court's judgment did not satisfy Mr. Ho's claim. If the court can pay more attention to Mr. He's claim and give a reasonable judgment, it will not only be able to protect Mr. He's legitimate rights and interests, but also better guide the public to correctly deal with online violence and infringement.
Finally, I think this case also reminds each of us to be more rational about what we say and what we say online. In the Internet age, each of us has the right to express our opinions, but we should also be responsible for our own words and not spread false information and irresponsible remarks.
At the same time, we should also respect the rights and dignity of others more and refrain from groundless accusations and attacks. Only in this way can we jointly create a civilized, harmonious and healthy online environment.