Qin Pengbo

  The internet celebrity "Luo Mao Maozi" with more than 500,000 fans claimed in a live broadcast that he was suffering from depression and had lost hope in life and was preparing to commit suicide by drinking pesticides.

Unexpectedly, some netizens in the live broadcast room made a message to coax "you drink it," and the anchor finally drank the pesticide, but died after being rescued.

Will the gibberers who encourage the anchor to commit suicide bear the legal responsibility?

The host conducts "extreme live broadcast", what responsibilities should the live broadcast platform bear?

What measures should the platform take to reduce the occurrence of "extreme live broadcasts"?

Speech stimulation or constitute the crime of negligence causing death

  Fang and Zhang are in a romantic relationship. In the early morning of one day, Fang and Zhang, who came back from a drinking trip, had an argument over trivial matters.

Zhang angered and climbed to the top of the community in the rain. Fang followed after seeing this, and the two continued to quarrel.

During the period, Fang irritated Zhang with "jump, you are ready to jump" many times, but he did not expect that Zhang really jumped from the top of the building and died after being rescued by the hospital.

After the incident, Fang called the police and sent Zhang to the hospital together with the police, who was later summoned by the police.

  After hearing the trial, the court of first instance held that Fang knew that the victim Zhang was in a high-risk state, but still verbally stimulated the other party and allowed her to jump off the building to death. Her behavior constituted the crime of intentional homicide.

After the incident, Fang took the initiative to call the police and truthfully confessed his criminal facts after returning to the case. This is a surrender and can be mitigated in accordance with the law. Fang has a fixed-term imprisonment of six years.

Fang filed an appeal. After hearing the trial, the court of second instance held that Zhang was in a high-risk state when he climbed up to the top of the building with anger. Fang should foresee the possible harm and still use verbal stimulation to cause Zhang to commit suicide by jumping off the building. His behavior constituted negligence. For the crime of causing death, Fang's sentence was commuted to one year's imprisonment.

  The above case is a typical case of the crime of negligent death caused by verbal stimulation of the victim to commit suicide. There is a causal relationship between Fang’s verbal stimulation and Zhang’s death by jumping from a building, which is a suicide-related behavior.

The so-called causal relationship in the criminal law refers to the relationship between the harmful behavior and the result of the harm caused and caused, and the causal relationship determines whether a crime is established and completed.

If the intentional behavior does not lead to the occurrence of the result, it cannot be judged that there is a causal relationship between the two.

Therefore, negligent crime must have actual harmful results, and must be the occurrence of harmful results caused by negligent behavior, that is to say, negligent crime can be established only if there is cause and effect.

Taking the above case as an example, Fang's need to bear criminal responsibility is not too controversial.

  However, ordinary passers-by see someone preparing to commit suicide by jumping off the building, or netizens in the live broadcast room see that the anchor is going to conduct an "extreme live broadcast", and then cause trouble, encourage jumping or continue live broadcast. On the one hand, whether the harassment constitutes an act of instigation or assistance, whether there is a causal relationship in the criminal law between the harassment and the result of suicide; Affect whether to bear criminal liability.

Facing a suicide, you will be punished

  In 2018, Li, a girl from Gansu, committed suicide by jumping from a high-rise building in the local area, and died unfortunately.

Many online videos showed that some of the onlookers shouted "Why don't you jump yet", and others applauded and clamored.

After the incident, the police imposed administrative detention on the people who were making noises downstairs.

In 2020, a woman in Henan wanted to commit suicide on the cross-river bridge. In order to blog people’s attention, Yang mooed "Don't pull me, then you jump" and posted a video on the Internet, which was strongly condemned by a large number of netizens. .

The local Public Security Bureau imposed a 9-day administrative detention for public security punishment in accordance with Article 26 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law.

  There are three harms caused by the troublemakers in such incidents: one is to help the suicide of the suicidal person, thereby causing their personal psychological or life harm; the other is to act on the suicide scene and disturb the public order of society, which This kind of hazard not only affects the real situation, but also affects the network; the third is to hinder rescue and rescue, causing a large number of people to gather at the scene, and hinder the implementation of rescue activities by public security and firefighters, and hinder the execution of normal official activities.

Therefore, making a noise in a suicide incident is not only an act of disturbing public order, but also an act of obstructing social management, and it is necessary to bear the corresponding administrative responsibility.

  Article 26 of China’s Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that anyone who commits acts of provocation and provocation shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and a fine of not more than 500 yuan may be concurrently imposed; if the circumstances are more serious, detention for not less than 10 days but not more than 15 days shall be imposed. A fine of less than 1,000 yuan may be imposed.

The act of provoking troubles includes making disturbances in public places and causing serious chaos in public places.

Article 42 stipulates that anyone who blatantly insults others or fabricates facts to slander others shall be detained for less than 5 days or fined not more than 500 yuan; if the circumstances are more serious, detained for not more than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan.

Article 50 also stipulates that for acts of obstructing the execution of duties by state organs’ staff, and for obstructing the passage of fire trucks, ambulances, engineering rescue vehicles, police cars and other vehicles that perform emergency tasks, a warning or a fine of less than 200 yuan shall be imposed; the circumstances In serious cases, they shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and may also be fined not more than 500 yuan. Those who obstruct the people’s police from performing their duties in accordance with the law shall be severely punished.

  In previous suicide incidents, the author found that the criminal and civil liabilities were rarely borne by the rioters, and the author found that few rioters bear criminal and civil liabilities, and more often they were regulated in the form of administrative penalties.

The reason is that, theoretically, the existing criminal law lacks provisions on suicide-related behaviors, and academics have insufficiently discussed suicide-assist behavior; in practice, it is difficult to determine the causal relationship between rioting and suicide results, and it is difficult to provide evidence.

Under this circumstance, the flexibility of administrative regulations, that is, from the perspective of public order and the protection of the legal interests of social management, the advantage of imposing administrative penalties on coaxers is revealed.

Therefore, some scholars call for the legal responsibility of the booby to adhere to the principle of administrative violation responsibility first, civil responsibility second, and criminal responsibility under special circumstances.

"Extreme Live Broadcasting" platform must be held accountable

  "The first person in extreme sports" Wu has long released a large number of videos of climbing tall buildings without his hands on the live broadcast platform, and won many fans and rewards.

In 2017, he missed and fell while climbing a 263-meter tall building live broadcast.

Because it believed that the live broadcast platform did not fulfill reasonable censorship and supervision obligations for the highly dangerous videos posted by users, Wu climbed a high building and fell to death. Wu's mother sued the live video platform to the court on the grounds of online infringement liability, requesting He apologized and compensated a total of 60,000 yuan for various losses.

  After the trial, the court held that most of the high-altitude building climbing activities taken by Wu are not extreme sports in the strict sense. Wu is not a professional athlete and has not received professional training. It is not only dangerous to himself, but also There is a risk that the fall will hurt the innocent and cause crowds to watch and disrupt the social order.

This kind of behavior has huge potential dangers to oneself and others, and it is not encouraged and not allowed by social morality.

The live broadcast platform, as a network service provider, should regulate whether the video uploaded by Wu violates social ethics.

But the live broadcast platform did not deal with it, so it was at fault for Wu's death.

Although the behavior of the platform did not directly lead to the damage of Wu's death, the platform not only failed to process Wu's video, but also used Wu's popularity to promote and promote the platform more than two months before his death. Pay remuneration, so the live broadcast platform played a certain role in inducing Wu to continue to carry out this dangerous activity.

At the same time, considering that Wu voluntarily carried out such high-risk activities, he was well aware of the risks of the activities, so Wu himself was obviously at fault for the damage results, and the court finally ruled that the live broadcast platform company should be liable for compensation of 30,000 yuan.

  It can be seen from the above cases that the short video platform belongs to the network service provider and is responsible for reviewing the information released by users.

"Extreme live broadcast" is illegal information. The platform should not allow such information to be broadcast or released publicly. When discovered, it should block and eliminate relevant prohibited content in a timely manner, stop the further dissemination of harmful behaviors in a timely manner, and report to the competent authority.

If the live broadcast platform fails to perform its audit and management obligations, it must bear civil liability or accept administrative penalties.

  Similarly, the attribution logic for the determination of civil liability on the live broadcast platform also applies to the boobyers at the suicide scene or "extreme live broadcast".

Article 8 of our Civil Code stipulates that civil entities engaged in civil activities must not violate the law or violate public order and good customs.

Article 102 stipulates that natural persons have the right to life.

The life safety and dignity of natural persons are protected by law.

The dignity of life is also a part of civil rights. When the troublemaker yells "jump and jump", he has violated the good customs and disregards the dignity of the lives of others. If this disregard strengthens the suicidal determination of the hesitant suicide , That is a violation of the right to life.

The harmful consequences in the criminal law must reach a certain level before it can be established, and many harmful consequences in the civil law are not up to the level stipulated by the criminal law, but this does not prevent the establishment of tort liability.

Therefore, the families of the victims can request the live broadcast platform or the troublemaker to bear the corresponding civil compensation liability, that is, an apology and compensation for losses.

Multi-pronged approach to eliminate "extreme live broadcast"

  Reduce the number of rioters, and those who commit suicide will have more hope of being rescued; reduce one "extreme live broadcast", and the anchors will have more security.

Therefore, relevant parties should establish legal norms for the coaxers, and at the same time consolidate platform responsibilities, strengthen supervision, and achieve dual governance effects.

  First, clarify the legal responsibilities of the rioters in extreme events from legal theories and legal formulation, highlight individual responsibilities, and use the law to force the onlookers to silence the rioters.

Make full use of the coercive and educational effects of the law to punish suicides or "extreme live broadcasts" for harassment behavior, and play a demonstrative role for the behavior of ordinary people.

  Second, on-site rescue of suicide incidents and live broadcast platforms for "extreme live broadcasts" should establish awareness of evidence, promptly fix the instigation and encouragement of suicide, and language, to avoid difficulties in dividing responsibilities and accountability caused by the loss of evidence.

  Again, severely ban "extreme live streaming."

Article 9 of China’s "Regulations on the Administration of Internet Live Broadcasting Services" clarifies that Internet live broadcast service providers and users of Internet live broadcast services shall not use Internet live broadcast services to endanger national security, disrupt social stability, disrupt social order, infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others, or spread pornography For activities prohibited by laws and regulations, Internet live broadcast services may not be used to produce, copy, publish, or disseminate information prohibited by laws and regulations.

Therefore, for accounts that have long-term “extreme live broadcasts” to attract traffic, live broadcast platforms should be banned to establish a green and healthy network environment.

  Finally, strengthen live broadcast supervision and consolidate platform responsibilities.

The online live broadcast platform should adopt multiple measures such as chase, on-site ban, and on-site supervision to conduct live broadcast supervision, and explore ways to establish a combination of artificial intelligence audit and unblocked reporting channels, including the platform’s review and capture of sensitive words to monitor the quantity Numerous live broadcast rooms.

While stopping netizens from coaxing and instigating behavior, they should promptly detect the abnormal behavior of the anchors and call the police or rescue them.

  (Author's unit: People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing)

Judge clarifies doubts

Can minors play live webcasts

  Jing Wenjie

  Watching live broadcasts, making rewards, checking rankings, and even setting up a live broadcast room to be a host has become a common entertainment method. So, can minors also open live broadcasts?

  The healthy growth of minors is a matter of common concern to the whole society. The newly revised "Law on the Protection of Minors of the People’s Republic of China" was officially implemented in June this year. Minors over the age of 16 provide webcast publisher account registration services; when minors over the age of 16 provide webcast publisher account registration services, their identity information should be verified and their parents should be obtained Or other guardians agree.

  In recent years, minors’ addiction to the Internet has occurred from time to time. The Law on the Protection of Minors has also set strict regulations on the establishment of online platform products and services. People provide products and services that induce their addiction.

Online game, online live broadcast, online audio and video, online social networking and other network service providers shall set up corresponding time management, authority management, consumption management and other functions for minors to use their services.

Online education network products and services that serve minors must not insert links to online games, or push advertisements and other information irrelevant to teaching.

  A green and healthy online environment for minors needs to be jointly created by the society.

The platform should strengthen the identity authentication and authority management of minors, and continuously optimize the "youth mode".

Parents and schools should also take active actions and actively guide minors to allocate online time reasonably.

In particular, parents should properly keep Internet passwords and payment passwords, cultivate children's wide-ranging interests and hobbies, and establish correct Internet concepts.

(Author's unit: Beijing Internet Court)

Keywords: