The sexual harassment incident in the library of Wuhan University, which once attracted attention, made waves again, and the mother of the boy involved claimed that it did not exist and said that it had filed a lawsuit, and some netizens began to think that the matter had been reversed, so what do you think about this matter from a legal perspective?
Hello everyone, I'm Lao Liang, who pays attention to news and law.
This matter is briefly reviewed first, in October last year, *** published an article accusing the Wuhan University library of sexual harassment, and the description of the boy's behavior at that time was that he was facing the girl***
Subsequently, Wuhan University gave Xiao Moumou, a 2022 undergraduate, a demerit, but the report did not mention whether it was sexual harassment, which is also one of the places that many people question. This time, a punishment document was exposed, which was written as "** behavior", which was not particularly clear.
In addition, there was news at that time that ** intervened in the investigation, but there was no follow-up conclusion.
Now, according to the report of *** in the south, the boy's mother said that there was no *** at that time, but the boy had dermatitis and was scratching itching through his clothes.
At present, the man is applying to the school to withdraw the punishment, and he will file a civil lawsuit against the platform involved and the cyberbully.
Regarding this matter, the Nandu reporter interviewed the girl involved, and the other party said that she borrowed a friend *** to post an article, and she did not know that Xiao Moumou was suffering from stress dermatitis. She believes that this matter constitutes sexual harassment at least in the sense of civil law, and hopes that the university can build a system for the prevention and control of sexual harassment in colleges and universities, and Xiao Moumou also has the right to file a lawsuit on this matter. Because of the pressure of graduation, it is inconvenient for her to speak out on this matter. To put it simply, if you want to sue, you can sue.
However, there seems to be a bug in the writing here in Nandu, saying that the girl then refused to be interviewed. She didn't give an interview, what is this? You can't make this up, can you? I understand that she refused to be interviewed in person.
For this reason, many people think that this matter is reversed again, but in my personal opinion, there is a possibility that the boy will succeed in pursuing the cyberbully, but he is not very optimistic about the reversal of the sexual harassment part, mainly because of the lack of evidence currently shown.
Here is the first to explain the boundaries of sexual harassment, the problem of blurred boundaries does not exist in this case, it should be said that the number of interviews reported by the Southern Capital this time is enough, and it is already a good job, but it is obvious that professionalism is still a bit of a problem, as far as this case is concerned, if there is ***, it must be sexual harassment, this is not ambiguous, and now there may be controversy about whether there is sexual harassment, not how to define this behavior.
As I said before, ** is a big concept, and the criminal part involves **, coercion**, children, insulting women, etc., which is to be convicted and sentenced; In the Public Security Punishment Law, it is generally **, disturbing order, etc., which can be determined by the public security organs when they make administrative law enforcement; The concept of sexual harassment is only in the Civil Code, so it is generally considered that sexual harassment is a civil tort, and if a settlement agreement cannot be reached, a court judgment is required to determine whether there is sexual harassment.
But note that this is not absolutely mutually exclusive, maybe this person has criminal ** at the same time, but there may also be ** before and after, sexual harassment, criminal can be attached to civil litigation, and civil claims can also be continued after administrative punishment, no problem.
However, the standard of evidence in these three cases is different, and it should be said that the criminal law is the strictest, requiring that there is no doubt about the guilt, and the civil procedure is the most lenient, and it is enough to achieve a high degree of probability.
Specific to the act of *** in public, if it is confirmed that it can be detained by public security, of course, civil claims can also be made, and there were relevant cases in Hainan before.
Nandu's report mentioned the statement of the man's ** lawyer, saying that the itching behavior subjectively did not "go against the will of others", and objectively did not interfere with the normal study and life of others, let alone cause adverse effects on others, which completely did not meet the constitutive elements of "sexual harassment".
I don't think this statement is quite correct, we generally say that subjective refers to whether the person has intentional negligence or other faults, whether it is against the will of others, is an objective aspect and not a subjective aspect.
Moreover, from a civil point of view, some people may not subjectively feel that they are sexual harassment, but objectively carry out relevant acts, such as telling pornographic jokes to women, this may still be constituted, and it is not required to seriously interfere with normal life and cause adverse effects.
For example, there are just two of us in this room, and I'll tell you a pornographic joke, and you can also say it's sexual harassment, and it doesn't matter if no one else hears it, as long as you can prove it afterwards.
I don't quite understand what the constitutive elements are that he, as a lawyer, said, or if there is something wrong with the reporter's paraphrase.
The reason why simple tickling is usually not considered sexual harassment is mainly due to the fact that the woman's feeling of being harassed is based on her own misunderstanding, that is, she mistakes the normal life behavior of others for harassment, although she may feel that she has been harassed, but if there is no infringement, it cannot be determined.
But the biggest controversy in this case is whether there is *** this behavior, we will find that at least so far the woman has a slight advantage, and the man's mother is not actually at the scene, so what she said should be based on the man's paraphrase, and the man's statement and the woman's statement are equal to the effect, so it needs to be judged by objective evidence combined with common sense.
And the man's handwritten letter of apology became the key evidence, written in black and white, at first he said that he had slapped the other party, and then revised it to "did something indecent", which made the other party feel disgusting. Although there is no mention of *** here, it is enough to prove that the high degree of probability.
Of course, the man proposed that the content of this apology letter was written to calm the situation, which of course does not mean that it is completely impossible, but to be honest, it is a bit unreasonable.
When ordinary people encounter this kind of accusation, their first reaction is to deny it, let alone write an apology letter, then it is even more unclear, if I encounter it, I will call the police directly, can the public be violently intimidated or what can be done, and let me write a letter? At best, I wrote, "I'm really unlucky to meet Puxin's female neuropathy today......
In short, this statement is a bit choking to tell the judge.
As for saying that this boy has dermatitis, I personally feel that this is actually the least important, or that the proof is very weak, and I don't understand why this report spends so much pen and ink to prove the existence of dermatitis, dermatitis and *** are not mutually exclusive, your son may indeed be a dermatitis patient, but it may also be a *** dermatitis patient, on the other hand, who can prove that dermatitis patients can't fly?
To be honest, this explanation is not much different from directly saying that he is not ***, on the contrary, it is equivalent to admitting that his hand has rubbed in the ** range, and the other party may not recognize the relevance of this evidence, so it is still necessary to look at it in combination with other evidence, and I am not very optimistic about the effectiveness of this evidence for the time being.
Of course, there is some evidence here that has not appeared, so there is a certain amount of suspense in theory.
For example, if there is a monitoring of the library scene**, see if you can see what the boy's actions were like at that time, if the time is very short, you may be able to exclude*** In addition, see if there are other witnesses, can prove the situation when the two parties communicated at that time, whether it is as described by the man's mother.
However, there is also some evidence on the woman's side that has not been revealed. According to the *** article at the beginning, she filmed a total of 5 **, and it is said that in each **, the boy can be seen rubbing *** through his pants, which is continuous and very obvious. In addition, the article claimed that the boy admitted what happened in person and that there was a recording of the whole process. If these audio-visual materials are presented, they can assist in arguing whether what the woman said is true.
In addition, the report also mentioned that the relevant staff of the school repeatedly said that "the school judged according to the actual situation, it was not sexual harassment, and sexual harassment was ruled out", and also said that "the school made emergency response under such circumstances at that time".
It is said that this is confirmed by audio-visual materials, the problem is that the so-called school staff does not know who they are, and it is not very clear whether this so-called staff statement represents the opinion of the school or his personal opinion, and I don't know what the basis is, for example, whether he listened to the man's statement or watched the woman's ** or watched the surveillance?
Moreover, the school does not have the authority to determine whether it is legal sexual harassment. As I said before, the punishment of the school is not a law enforcement act, and the probative power of this information will not be higher than the evidence materials just mentioned.
Everyone has to figure out one thing, not to mention the school, even if the ** goes, it is also a post-event investigation, and you have to look at the evidence information, so what is the basis for excluding sexual harassment now? It's not just because someone at the school says so.
Here is also my previous point of view, that is, the school should not be in a hurry to make a judgment for the judicial organs or law enforcement departments, sometimes you can wait for the judgment of the relevant departments, I have criticized this practice before, you were very happy to deal with it before, but now you have not done it, this pressure is on your side.
Of course, this brings us to the issue of ** intervening in the investigation, and it is not clear why ** has not reached a conclusion for the time being, but I have noticed that their claim is the main civil part.
According to the report, their request was "to investigate and determine the 'sexual harassment' behavior mentioned in the report post;."If it does not exist, it is hoped that the whistleblower can be held accountable for the privacy and defamation of others in accordance with the law."
In this case, sexual harassment as a civil dispute is not within the scope of the investigation, and it should be an investigation into whether her son has a public order disturbance; Invasion of privacy is still a civil dispute, **Generally, if it is not a private part, this is also a civil level; Insulting *** may be criminalized, but this is usually a private prosecution.
But if it is considered a civil dispute, it should be given a clear statement for such a long time, and guide the reporter to take the litigation route according to *** I don't know what ** attitude is. In future litigation, you can consider asking the court to obtain relevant files to see if useful evidence information has been extracted here.
In short, now the man is suing the platform for infringing on the right to reputation, and wants to ask the platform to delete the post and apologize first, and then provide the registration information of the posting account before adding the infringer.
I think he said that this order is reversed, and it should be that the platform should first provide information to add co-defendants, and then determine whether the content is infringing, so as to determine whether the platform deletes and apologizes.
Then in the future, it is inevitable to have a lawsuit with the poster of this account and the woman, just looking at the current evidence is not very optimistic, and the apology letter is a relatively difficult hurdle to cross.
Of course, if this lawsuit can be won, he can ask the school to revoke the punishment, if the school does not agree, on the one hand, he can apply to the education department, and the other can also consider suing the school.
But what is more certain is that they can indeed sue those who spread rumors and cyberviolence, I remember that there was a rumor that the boy's father was the district head, but it was later officially refuted, and the child of the district chief is still in elementary school.
In addition, they also mentioned the rumors of "escorting shady" and "* plagiarism and fraud", if they can argue that this information is false, then the publisher and important communication nodes may have tort liability, of course, there are people who spread the boy's **, which violates the right of portraiture, according to the law, you can ask the other party to apologize and compensate, and even if you consider taking a criminal private prosecution, you can also be held accountable for insulting***
I've said this question a long time ago, some people don't code for the sake of spreading rumors for Bo traffic, which has legal risks, people don't look for you, they don't look for you, you just wait to lose money and apologize for looking for you, and the number is gone. At present, there is not much problem with rights protection in this area, but it has little to do with whether it is sexual harassment.
What does the future hold? This is still to be confirmed, but I am very much looking forward to this case going to the litigation stage, preferably in a public trial, and let's see what the situation is.
The above is my sharing of the alleged reversal of the sexual harassment case of Wuhan University, personal opinions are inevitably overlooked, and young people with different opinions are welcome to leave me a message in the comment area and barrage.
You can follow my account "Lao Liang is not depressed", I will continue to share more news and legal views, thank you. **10,000 Fans Incentive Plan