Those up-hosts who changed their methods to complain about celebrities on various online platforms were finally "counted back" by the complaints.

On January 6, the topic of "Chen Kaige Reporting Tucao's Up Master" caused widespread heated discussion.

In response to this matter, Beijing Xingquan Law Firm issued a statement stating that the complaint and reporting involved in the topic was carried out by the law firm on behalf of Director Chen Kaige. The complaint was not directed at the content of the relevant Internet users’ evaluation of director Chen Kaige’s work, but directed at related Publicly released remarks by Internet users suspected of personally attacking Director Chen Kaige.

(January 6th China News Service)

　　Roughly speaking, the statement of the relevant law firm is legally correct.

The laws of our country strictly protect the personality rights of citizens, and any personal attacks on citizens are torts.

Although Chen Kaige is a well-known director, he is also a citizen protected by law.

Therefore, if there are infringement facts, Chen Kaige can indeed entrust a law firm in accordance with the law to protect his legitimate rights and interests through complaints and reports.

　　However, in accordance with our country’s constitution, the law must also protect citizens’ freedom of speech.

Expressing thoughts and opinions on various issues in society, including commenting on literary and artistic expressions such as directors' works, is undoubtedly part of ordinary people's freedom of speech.

Accepting the audience's critical remarks on his work is not only the "elegance" that a creator should possess, but also a social obligation that a public figure should undertake.

　　At present, in the statements of relevant law firms, we have not seen Chen Kaige's attitude towards these evaluations.

Of course, criticism of public figures cannot be transformed into a personal attack.

To be honest, some speeches on the Internet now rely on "the enemy is in the light and I am in the dark", and they estimate that "the law does not blame the public." They often rush to public figures to curse and wantonly violate the personality rights of others.

This kind of behavior has touched the red line of the law, and it is not injustice to be prosecuted by the law.

　　How to clarify the boundary between reasonable criticism and personal attacks on public figures?

The case of Kong Qingdong v. Guan Kaiyuan that year is a case that can be used for reference.

On May 11, 2013, the host of Channel 18 of Nanjing TV, Wu Xiaoping, made a comment on Peking University professor Kong Qingdong. Kong believed that Wu’s statement "The reason why he has some fame in the country today is entirely due to curse." So what does Lao Wu want to hang on his first ear today? Professor or beast, professor or beast?" Such remarks violated his right of reputation, demanding Wu and Nanjing TV station to pay 200,000 yuan in compensation.

　　If you just look at terms such as "wild beast", it is indeed suspected of a personal attack.

However, the People’s Court of Beijing’s Haidian District believes that the report on which the comment is based and the circumstances involved in the case are true, and there is no relevant evidence to prove that Wu Xiaoping took the opportunity to damage Kong Qingdong’s reputation and conduct personal insults. Should be understood and tolerated.

In particular, Kong Qingdong, a professor at Peking University, should be a member of the public figure. Based on public interest considerations, the relevant public should be allowed to raise reasonable questions, accusations and even harsh criticisms, unless the spokesperson expresses the relevant remarks with obvious malice.

　　It is not difficult to see from this that to prove that an evaluation of a public figure is a reasonable criticism, not a personal attack, first of all, the argument is required to be true and not distorted, and secondly, the other party must have "obvious malice."

At the same time, compared with ordinary people, public figures should also have a greater tolerance, and it is not advisable to "go online" at every turn for general ridicule and criticism.

　　At the same time, those lawbreakers who take the opportunity to insult celebrities under the guise of criticism should also remember the truth of "Don't stretch out your hands, you will be caught".

No, on January 6, the actor Tan Songyun won the case against the right of reputation, and the defendant who published the false information publicly apologized.

　　Liu Tingting