I'm looking, too. Help you ~ ~
The most creative judgment in the first case
-Cases of violation of the right to education
Case: 1990, Qi, a middle school student in a city of Shandong Province, took the secondary school exam and was admitted as a 90-level accountant by a school. Qi Baishi's middle school didn't inform him of the exam results, and didn't send the admission notice to Qi Baishi himself. Instead, it gave the notice to another student in the same session with Qi Baishi. He completed his middle school studies in the name of Qi and was assigned to work in a financial unit. He always uses Qi's name in the personnel file. It was many years before it came to light. 199965438+1October 29th, Qimou sued the court on the grounds that Chen Mou, his father, his former school and other units infringed on his right to name and education, requesting the defendant to stop the infringement, apologize and compensate for economic losses of 160000 yuan and mental losses of 40000 yuan. On this basis, according to the request of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, the Supreme People's Court made a reply on August 13, 2006 on whether to bear civil liability for infringing on the basic rights of citizens protected by the Constitution, pointing out: "Chen XX infringed on the basic rights of citizens to receive education by means of infringing on the right to name, and caused specific problems.
This civil case poses a difficult problem to the judiciary, that is, the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates the civil protection of the right to name, but the right to education does not. The right to education is a constitutional right of citizens, but whether it is a civil right is worth studying. The people's court of our country can't directly quote the constitution to make a judgment when trying a specific case. The Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation points out that when constitutional rights are infringed, if there is no explicit provision in the civil law, the court can directly refer to the Constitution to make a civil judgment.
Comments: This is a civil case that has aroused widespread concern. The focus of attention is whether ordinary courts in China have the right to apply the provisions of the Constitution and make civil judgments directly.
In my opinion, this is a typical case with very good judgment and extremely important significance, which has important reference significance for protecting the legitimate rights of natural persons. That is, the rights granted to citizens by the national constitution should be protected by the basic law of the department. The right to education is a civil right, and the damage to the right to education is a civil right and should be protected by tort law. If there is no such protection method, the civil rights stipulated in the Constitution cannot be implemented. On this issue, it is precisely the improper connection between the constitution and the civil law.
In fact, this situation exists in many countries. There is a precedent for this situation abroad. After the war, Germany amended the Basic Law (that is, the Constitution), stipulating that the personal dignity of citizens is inviolable, and personal dignity is the basic right of citizens. However, there is no provision in the German Civil Code. In a case named "Reporter's Writing Case", the German Supreme Court invoked this provision of the Constitution and made a judgment to protect citizens' personal dignity by means of civil law, and took this case as a precedent to guide the trial practice of German courts at all levels. This judicial interpretation in the Supreme People's Court has the same effect, that is, by means of judicial interpretation, it is stipulated that ordinary courts can invoke the provisions of the Constitution to make civil judgments and protect the civil rights stipulated in the Constitution. Of course, some specific problems need further study. But this cannot deny the significance of this extremely important precedent. So I listed it as the first civil case of 200/kloc-0.
The reason behind the applause in the second case
-"cohabitant" requests to realize bequest case
Case: Jiang married her husband Huang Yu 1963, and their feelings remained the same after marriage. 1996, Huang met Zhang and lived with Zhang. On April 22nd, 20001year, Huang died of liver cancer. At the funeral, Zhang publicly took out Huang's living will and said that she and Huang were friends. Huang made a clear deal with his property, part of which was designated to be inherited by Jiang and the other part was bequeathed to her, with a total value of about 60 thousand yuan. This will was notarized by the notary office on April 20th. After the will came into effect, Jiang took control of all the inheritance. Zhang believes that Jiang's behavior violated her legitimate rights and interests, and according to the Inheritance Law and other relevant laws and regulations, she has the right to inherit Huang's inheritance. Zhang asked the court to order Jiang to pay his property 60 thousand yuan.
The court that accepted the case held that the legator Huang Qian made a written will on April/August, 20065438, giving part of his property to the plaintiff, which was notarized by the notary office. Although the will is the true intention of the legator Huang, it is legal in form, but it is illegal in substance to give property: according to the relevant policies and regulations, the will disposes of the property of the deceased spouse and the joint property of husband and wife, which infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of Jiang, and the part that it has no right to dispose of should be invalid. At the same time, the notary office carried out notarization without finding out the facts, which violated the relevant laws and regulations, and then changed the true meaning of the legator. Therefore, the notarization of the illegal part should be revoked according to the relevant regulations. Moreover, after knowing the plaintiff, Huang lived with him illegally for a long time, and his behavior violated the relevant provisions of the Marriage Law. In this case, Huang left a will, which violated public order, good customs and laws. Jiang has always been loyal to the feelings of husband and wife, and he still takes good care of Huang until he is critically ill. Huang's behavior violated Jiang's legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the court made a decision to reject the plaintiff's claim of bequeathing property of 60 thousand yuan according to law.
According to reports, after the verdict of the case, more than 1500 people applauded for a long time in the public gallery.
Comments: Is the judgment with warm applause a legal judgment? It is this case that won warm applause and was criticized so much afterwards, which makes people think deeply. This is the revelation of this case.
There seems to be some truth in the judgment that Huang's testamentary behavior violates public order and good customs, but these truths cannot stand scrutiny. Bequeath a part of your inheritance to the people you live with (even if some property is the same property as husband and wife, analyze the property! ), what is a violation of public order and good customs? What laws have been violated? This is a complete treatment of one's private rights, all one's property, a civil act carried out according to law, and there is no act that damages public order and good customs or violates the law-this is the nature of Huang bequest. As for the cause of this behavior, is it immoral? This is really true. However, within the scope of legal adjustment, the law has absolute authority and cannot be invalid because an act does not conform to moral norms. The court should uphold the law, not morality. The judgment of the court seems fair, but it is illegal, which undermines the order of civil law, damages the prestige of property ownership and ignores the provisions of the inheritance law. This judgment upholds morality, but damages the dignity of the country's rule of law.
Can applause explain the problem? Otherwise! This is the reason behind the applause.
The third situation is equal reproductive rights.
-Cases of "condemned prisoners" and their wives requesting artificial insemination.
Case: Luo, the newly married husband of Zhejiang young woman Zheng, works in a company. On may 29th, 20001year, there was a dispute with Wang, the deputy manager of the company, because of trivial matters. Wang first slapped Luo in the face and then hit him with a hammer. Later, Luo fought with the king and killed him. After the procuratorate sued Luo, on August 7, the court of first instance sentenced Luo to death for intentional homicide. The day after the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Luo appealed to the High Court, but Luo's wife Zheng made an unexpected request to the court: "Let me conceive my lover's child with the help of artificial insemination!" The court of first instance immediately rejected Luo's wife's request on the grounds that there was no precedent for this practice. Luo's murder case has entered the final procedure. The High Court has not yet responded to Zheng's request for reproductive rights.
Comments: It should be noted that this case is not a civil lawsuit, because Zheng's request was not made through formal litigation. But the significance of this case is more valuable than a real civil litigation case.
After the case was published in the newspaper, the media generally believed that Luo's wife Zheng's request had entered a blind spot in the current domestic legal system and judicial practice, and it was not clear in legislation and actual operation. That is, when one spouse loses his personal freedom, should the reproductive rights of the other spouse, that is, citizens, be guaranteed? By what means?
Although there are different opinions on this issue, there are two basic viewpoints. First of all, people think that "condemned prisoners" and the general public have the right to have children and reproduce. The realization of the rights of criminal suspects who are about to be executed should also be guaranteed. Secondly, it is believed that although prisoners on death row have the right to have children, they have lost the conditions for exercising this right, that is, their personal freedom. Although modern technology can solve the problem of artificial insemination, the current law has no specific provisions and no precedent, so the request cannot be supported.
I support the former view. It is human instinct and social responsibility to have children. Childbearing is indeed a right, regardless of the existing laws of the country. Within the scope of family planning, everyone's reproductive right is guaranteed. If a person's reproductive rights are illegally restricted or even deprived, it will not only deprive people of their rights, but also deprive human beings of opportunities for reproduction and social development. "Death row inmates" and their spouses also have reproductive rights. That is, they are human beings and one of our higher animals. They all enjoy the rights that all of us enjoy. What's more, her spouse, she (or he) has not committed a crime, and she (or he) naturally enjoys all civil rights. It is the "condemned prisoner" himself. Before his or her conviction takes effect, he or she is still the defendant, not the criminal. At this point, his (or her) rights are complete. Even if the guilty verdict determines that their rights still exist before they are deprived of the right to life, that is, when the death penalty is not actually executed, they are deprived of only political rights for life, not civil rights. Those who have the conditions to exercise their rights should still be guaranteed to exercise their rights.
As a criminal suspect in custody, there are some obstacles in the exercise of the right to bear children, that is, personal freedom is restricted, so it is impossible to exercise this right with one's own actions and to bear children through normal husband and wife life. Modern science and technology provide technical help for people to exercise this right. Modern artificial reproduction technology can completely fertilize the wife of a condemned prisoner without violating prison regulations, realize his desire to be a mother, realize his reproductive rights and satisfy his desire to reproduce.
Rights that need to be protected in the fourth case
-Claims for compensation for mental damage due to rape.
Case:1August 199815th, 26-year-old Wang attended an oral dialogue held by an English club in Shenzhen, and met Chinese American Li. In the afternoon, Li took Wang to his residence and raped Wang. Wang arrested Li after reporting the case to the public security organ. Li Houlai was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment by the court for rape 12 years. Subsequently, Wang filed a criminal incidental civil lawsuit with the intermediate court hearing criminal cases, requesting compensation for mental damages of 6,543,800 yuan, which was rejected by the court on the grounds that the reasons for prosecution did not conform to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, and that Wang's request for compensation for mental damages was not a material loss and did not fall within the scope of criminal incidental civil litigation. After Wang appealed, the High Court pointed out that Wang's claim "should be prosecuted separately in accordance with the general civil procedure". On June 5438+065438+1October 10, 2000, Wang filed a civil lawsuit with a district court on the grounds that the defendant Li had violated his right to chastity, requesting the court to award the plaintiff 450,000 yuan for mental damages in accordance with international practice and the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The court of first instance found that the defendant's criminal behavior was a serious infringement in essence, and the direct objects of the infringement were the plaintiff's right to life, health and chastity. The direct result is to bring lifelong mental pain to the plaintiff and the loss of some available spiritual interests, which leads to the decline of the plaintiff's social evaluation. The defendant shall be liable for the plaintiff's losses in the above aspects. Because the defendant's criminal circumstances were extremely bad, the crime took a long time, and the plaintiff was a virgin, and the damage was serious, the defendant was sentenced to compensate Wang for mental damages of RMB 80,000.
Comments: The right of chastity has been violated. Can I claim compensation for mental damage? This is a problem that has been debated in theory and has not been solved in practice. The verdict of this case tells us that the answer to this question should be yes.
Chastity right is a personality right. The main objection to this right is its name, that is, whether it should be called the right of chastity. Many people think that it is discrimination against women to stipulate the right of chastity. This is actually a complete misunderstanding. The right of chastity is the right of human sexual dignity, sexual behavior and sexual interests. How can it be discrimination against women to stipulate such rights? This is the right to protect human dignity. Both men and women are equally protected, especially women's rights.
For many years, the protection of the right to chastity in China's laws has been carried out by means of criminal law and administrative law, not civil law. This is a big deficiency. Imagine that if a victim infringes on a person's right to reputation and name, he can claim compensation for mental damage, but if he seriously infringes on his right to chastity and causes great pain to the victim, the victim cannot claim compensation for mental damage. This is unreasonable in reason. After the Supreme People's Court made the Interpretation of Several Issues on Determining the Liability for Compensation for Moral Damage in Civil Tort, the court can conclude that the act of violating the right of chastity infringes on other personality interests and can request compensation for moral damage, thus solving this problem. This judgment is made with reference to this judicial interpretation, which has important reference significance.
Now there is probably an opinion of "Ye Gong Long Hao", that is, he always talks about protecting people's rights, always saying that people's rights are not protected enough, but when people's rights are really protected, he has to make irresponsible remarks. Faced with such an opinion, I really don't know what to say.
In the fifth case, judging ugliness is an infringement of reputation.
-Online assessment of ugly cases
Case: On June 65438+1October 65438+July 2000, Netfrog Company held the "Top Ten Ugly Stars in Chinese Music" in its "Sanjiu Netfrog Music Network", and listed Zang as one of the candidates, together with 30 other singers. At the same time, the selection activities are linked interactively on the music channel of Netease website. 165438+1October13rd, the selection results were announced on the above two websites, and Zang was selected as the "Top Ten Ugly Stars" with 169 1 vote, ranking third. Zang believes that the two companies used their own photos without their consent, and added a text introduction to list themselves as candidates. In the article, "If you want to marry, marry Zang, but you can't see any major measures taken by the majority of unmarried young women of school age" and other ridicule contents were randomly attacked by netizens during the selection period. The actions of the two defendants seriously violated their right to portrait and reputation, causing huge economic losses and spiritual losses to themselves. It affected one's reputation and constituted infringement, so the lawsuit demanded economic loss of 650,000 yuan, lawyer's fee of 6,543,800 yuan, mental loss of 200,000 yuan and apology. Both Netfrog and Netease believe that the photos are published in the public media, and the text in the article is also true. The comments of netizens have nothing to do with Netfrog Company and Netease Company. This activity has not devalued Zang's reputation and image. "Ugly star" is a broad term, not a derogatory term, so it does not constitute an infringement of Zang. The court's first-instance judgment held that Netfrog Company and Netease Company listed Zang as a candidate for "Top Ten Ugly Stars in Domestic Music" without informing Zang and obtaining his own consent, and on the premise of "appreciating ugliness", they added ridiculous words involving characters without authorization, and finally listed Zang as the third of the top ten ugly stars in domestic music, infringing Zang's personal dignity; At the same time, the use of Zang's photos, to a certain extent, is a commercial act for profit, which constitutes an infringement of Zang's portrait right. The court ruled that the two companies apologized; * * * One-time compensation for economic loss of 65,438 yuan +0.5 million yuan, and spiritual comfort of 20,000 yuan.
Comment: What does "ugly" mean? According to the interpretation of Modern Chinese Dictionary, the earthly branch is the second; The second is ugly, ugly, disgusting or contemptuous, bad, bad; The third is the role of drama, playing funny people. Among these three meanings, except for the first meaning, the rest are derogatory terms, or have derogatory elements, and they are not praise and praise for people. Although "ugly star" is a "star", it is still an "ugly" star, which is still derogatory.
Here it is. Although it is "star", its qualifier is "ugly". Saying that a person is an "ugly star" is derogatory to his personality. Coupled with high-profile selection, coupled with all kinds of "teasing" and comments in the selection, this constitutes infringement and infringement of the right of reputation. Of course, this case also constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's portrait right and should also bear civil liability.
The plaintiff in this case thinks that the amount of compensation for mental damage is too low. I don't think this is a big problem. The key is to make sure that this behavior is an infringement and should bear civil liability. That's all that matters.
The sixth situation is also responsible for online behavior.
-posting insulting remarks on the Internet.
Case: Plaintiff Zhang, whose net name is "Red Eyes", is a beautiful girl who hosts and manages a literature column in the community site of eLong website. Defendant Yu used the "Great Leap Forward" as the screen name to surf the Internet on the website of Shenlong Company. On the day of June165438+1October last year, Zhang, Yu and other netizens got together in Nanjing and played cards for entertainment until late at night. After returning home, Zhang turned on the computer and found that Yu, who had just played together, posted an insulting post on the WeChat official account board under the name of "Great Leap Forward", saying that "Hongyan Jing" was an online "social butterfly", and there were some unsightly words with extremely vulgar content. Zhang immediately replied, asking the other party not to scribble and insult others. In the next few months, the Great Leap Forward was unrestrained, and a large number of posts were published in the "cross-line" and other public sections of Xici website, insulting "Hong Yanjing" and claiming that "I had an affair with" Hong Yanjing ". At the same time, the "Great Leap Forward" also posted in the name of another screen name "Huarong Road", insulting and slandering the Hongyan Classic. The court verified the identity and behavior of the defendant. After deliberation by the collegial panel, it was found that the defendant posted in the public section of the website, insulting and slandering the plaintiff while knowing the other party's online name and true identity, so the infringement fact was established. The defendant was sentenced to apologize to the plaintiff on the website of Xici, and to compensate for mental damages 1000 yuan.
Comments: As a network legal person, I support this judgment of the court. It is true that the network is a virtual world, and people can enjoy more freedom in this virtual space and communicate more widely with netizens. However, the network society is an extension of the real society, and netizens who are active in the network society are real people in the real society, and there is no absolute virtual network subject. It is under this premise that netizens must abide by the laws of the real society when they carry out activities in the online world. Acts that violate the law in the real society and are implemented in the network society also constitute infringement. If the circumstances are serious, it may also constitute a criminal act and bear legal responsibility. In this case, the defendant knew the plaintiff's online name and identity in real life, insulted and slandered him on the Internet, infringed the plaintiff's reputation right and should bear civil liability for infringement.
Seventh, the government should be more trustworthy.
-An advertising case in which a public security organ offered a reward.
Case: One day, a murder case occurred in a town of a county in Jiangsu, and the suspect escaped after the case. Tang, deputy head of the Interpol Brigade of the county, led a team to a village in Anhui Province to monitor the case and informed the village chief Li of the case, saying, "If the suspect appears in your village, the reward for reporting the case is 5,000 yuan, and the reward for arresting people is 10000 yuan." Li Houlai arrested the suspect, but the county public security bureau only gave a bonus of 10000 yuan, but failed to honor the promised 10000 yuan. Li sued on February 9, 20001year, taking the public security bureau to court and demanding that the public security bureau fulfill its reward promise according to law. The public security bureau denied the reward, and Tang thought his reward was just a joke. According to him, the public security bureau refused to pay the reward. Therefore, the Public Security Bureau refused to honor the promise of offering a reward.
Comments: For the behavior of the captain of the Interpol Brigade in this case, some think it is an administrative behavior, and some think it is a civil behavior; Some people think that promises should be kept, while others think that promises should not be kept. However, most people are in favor of offering a reward to deal with advertisements, and the Public Security Bureau should honor its promise.
My opinion is that, first, this behavior of the battalion chief is a duty behavior. Second, the captain's behavior is a kind of civil behavior, and it is a civil legal act that produces civil rights and obligations. The nature of the civil acts carried out by the three captains conforms to the basic characteristics of reward advertisements, and its nature should be reward advertisements. Then, this case should be handled according to the relationship between rights and obligations of reward advertisements. The plaintiff has offered a reward, and he has the right to ask for the agreed remuneration. The public security bureau has got the reward, why not honor its promise?
Speaking of this, I have to say a more important issue, that is, the government's trustworthiness. If the government doesn't keep its word, laws and regulations can't flow smoothly. Today, the Public Security Bureau failed to honor the promised reward of 9,000 yuan, so it violated its promise to the people. What do you say next time, do people still believe you? If you don't believe me, you won't listen to your advice and support you. In this way, what is the loss of 9000 yuan? Or the people no longer support you?
Case 8 Absurd "Thief Election" Activities
-Course thief case
Case: A class in a school lost 10 yuan, and some people suspected that it was the class. At the suggestion of the monitor, the head teacher organized an absurd election in the class to decide who was the "thief" who stole money. After the "election", the "thief" was selected. These are two students suspected of stealing money. Two students argued that they didn't steal money. The vice principal said, What evidence do you have to prove that you didn't take the money from your classmates?
For this case of serious infringement of students' reputation, the county education bureau handled it, and the class teacher who was directly responsible for the incident was given an administrative demerit, the vice principal in charge of management was given a serious warning, and the principal with leadership responsibility was also given a warning. At the same time, the results of this matter were reported to the county education system.
Comments: This case cannot be said to be a civil case without legal procedures, but legally speaking, the act of electing someone as a "thief" is an infringement.
This kind of infringement violated the reputation rights of two students. The legal protection of the right of reputation is to protect everyone in society and maintain their own objective social evaluation, so that their objective social evaluation will not be reduced by the behavior of others. These two students are not thieves who steal money, but law-abiding students. They have the right to protect the "value" of their social evaluation at a level. Because of the behavior of "choosing thieves", their social objective evaluation is mistaken for "thieves", which greatly reduces the "value" of stability and damages their reputation. This kind of infringement on the right of reputation is a serious infringement. Because it happened in school and it was organized, the nature was even worse and the damage result was more serious. The actor shall bear civil liability for infringement.
Of course, civil rights and civil litigation rights are the rights of the obligee himself, and it is up to the obligee to decide whether to exercise them or not, and no one else can interfere. Whether to pursue the civil liability of the infringer and which infringer to pursue are entirely up to the two students. The law gives them the right to protect their rights, and they can protect their reputation, personality and dignity by exercising their rights. Therefore, two students can decide what to do by themselves.
The website in the ninth case has the right to reduce the capacity of the free mailbox.
-Sina mailbox shrinkage case
Case: After the plaintiff voluntarily and explicitly accepted the terms of website service in the free mailbox of Sina website, he signed an e-mail service contract with the defendant Stone Li Fang Company to use the mailbox service of Sina website for free. Later, after a public statement on its website, Sina changed the terms of service and adjusted the mailbox capacity from 50M to 5M. Lai believes that Sina's behavior violates the promise of the terms of service of the website, which is a breach of contract, and the lawsuit requires Sitong Cube to bear the liability for breach of contract.
The court held that the Sina.com Terms of Service, as an integral part of the e-mail service contract concluded by both parties, was legally binding on both parties. Stone Li Fang Company, as the operation manager of Sina.com Beijing Railway Station, has clearly informed the plaintiff in advance that it has obtained free e-mail service through the terms of service of Sina.com Beijing Railway Station, made a statement before changing the terms of service, and fulfilled the obligation to explain and prompt the contents of the changed terms in the terms of service. Changing the contents of the contract according to the contract is its legitimate and reasonable exercise of rights, and reducing the mailbox capacity is not a breach of contract. The court ruled that the plaintiff's claim that Stone Cube Company arbitrarily changed the contract content was a breach of contract without factual basis and legal support, so it rejected the plaintiff's claim.
Comments: The use of website mail should be regarded as a contractual relationship, which is regulated by the contract law. Sina website made a promise to the plaintiff's offer to apply for registration of new members, and a contractual relationship was established between the two parties. As for whether the free mailbox is "free", although the plaintiff thinks that the free mailbox of the website is essentially a paid contract, it is a fundamental fact that the plaintiff does not pay the fee when using the website mailbox, so the free mailbox service contract should be considered as a free contract. In a contract, it is valuable to judge the rights and obligations of the parties, free of charge and paid. In a paid contract, the party who receives remuneration should bear a higher duty of care, while in a free contract, the party who provides services for free should bear a relatively light duty of care. According to the terms of the service agreement, Sina website has the right to change the contents of the contract. According to this agreement, Sina website has reduced the mailbox capacity, which does not violate the contract. It is a legal contract behavior to exercise the right to change the contract. Therefore, the judgment of the court should be supported.
What "power" can the tenth case create?
-the case of "kissing right" violated by mouth injury.
Case: At about 6: 438 pm on June 6, 2006, Ms. Tao was injured by an Alto car driven by the defendant. After the incident, Wu Mou neither protected the scene nor rescued her. After being reported by the masses, Tao was sent to the Municipal People's Hospital for rescue. The doctor diagnosed it as: "The car accident caused laceration of the upper lip, soft tissue contusion, broken front teeth and concussion." In the month 14, the traffic police department identified the accident as: Wu Mou was drunk driving and took full responsibility for the accident. Tao was later assessed as a 10-level disability by the provincial forensic appraisal center. After the car accident, Tao often suffers from short-term amnesia and mistakes in thinking and judgment; The breaking of two front teeth not only affects the integrity of the body, but also damages the function of chewing food. Because of her lips, when she kisses her husband again, she often feels afraid and rejected, which seriously hinders the emotional communication with her husband. She believes that as a wife, she can't feel the intoxicating sweetness of kissing her husband, and as a mother, she can't satisfy her daughter's "kissing" as always. With the help of lawyers, Tao sued the court and demanded compensation for the loss of his body rights, kissing rights, health rights and property rights of RMB39,000.
Comments: The concept of "kissing right" surprised the legal circle, and all scholars criticized them for being "ignorant" because no one knew that such right existed!
According to common sense, any right, especially the personality right as an absolute right, must always be stipulated by law. It is a right to prepare for new creation and may become a new personality right. It must also have certain "qualifications" and meet certain conditions before it can become a property right. That is, we should also pay attention to "norms" when determining personality rights. Any personality interest that does not conform to the norms cannot become a specific personality right.
To confirm a specific personality right, it is necessary to solve the scope of "supervisor" of a right, that is, the scope of personality interests adjusted by this right. The victim's mouth is injured, and the infringement infringes on the right to health, that is, the coordination function of various parts of the human body is damaged. If a person violates the right to health, everything will be fine. Why do you want to add "things" like "kissing rights"?
The problem of "the right to kiss" lies in "the right to set things up". What function does the mouth have? Do people have any rights? The mouth also has the function of eating. Do you want to add a "right to eat" In the final analysis, this is a kind of "pan-right theory" at work. At present, there is a prejudice that everything is called "right". Those who advocate or create "pan-rights theory" only care about the parties; If there are other intentions, that's not good. The victim is not a legal expert and doesn't know what is right and what should be right; But legal practitioners should know basic knowledge.