The reason is that Hong Daode made a "non-unjust case" speech on the Nie Shubin case in CCTV's Focus Interview. Chen Guangwu sent a message "Professor Hong Daode has no way and no virtue" to fight back.
Do Chen Guangwu's blog and Weibo's remarks constitute a crime of libel against Hong Daode?
Let's first look at the provisions of the criminal law on libel. Article 246 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of insult and slander publicly insults others by violence or other means or fabricates facts to slander others. If the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights.
The crimes mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be dealt with only if they are told, except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests.
Defamation refers to deliberate fabrication and dissemination of fictional facts, which is enough to degrade others' personality and damage their reputation, and the circumstances are serious.
Hong Daode's libel actions against Chen Guangwu can be divided into two categories:
1. Remarks not directly related to the Nie Shubin case.
For example, Hong Daode has no morality, the whole world is scolding you, many people say you are bad, and Hong Daode eats steamed bread with human blood.
The author believes that this kind of speech is evaluative and narrative, which has nothing to do with fabricating facts and does not conform to the legal characteristics of fabricating facts and slandering.
Second, remarks about the Nie Shubin case.
For example, Chen Guangwu said, "It is impossible to be familiar with the case without witnessing the crime. Is this common sense? Is it common sense that it is impossible to accurately identify the location of the crime without having been to the scene? /kloc-Is it common sense to never see weeds beyond 0/00 meters? On the issue of common sense, Professor Hong ignored the facts and turned black and white. What is your morality in Hong Daode? "
The main meaning of Chen Guangwu's remarks is that Hong Daode does not respect the facts and distorts them.
Hong Daode asked, "Without witnessing the crime, it is impossible to be familiar with the case. What common sense is this? What common sense is that it is impossible to accurately identify the location of the crime without having been to the scene? Please ask the defendant to cite the evidence that the private prosecutor ignored the facts and reversed black and white on common sense issues. "
This kind of problem, because it belongs to the argument about the facts of the Nie Shubin case, has nothing to do with deliberately fabricating facts to slander, whether true or false. Therefore, such remarks do not constitute libel.
In addition, Hong Daode also cited the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases such as Defamation by Information Network" and Weibo's click volume, forwarding volume and page view volume as the basis for serious circumstances. With regard to this judicial interpretation, the author wrote three commentary articles on 20 13, respectively, which are that forwarding Weibo can be incriminated-the loss of the rule of law and the unquantifiable crime of libel-commenting on the conviction standard of forwarding libel information 500 times after being viewed 5000 times, and the unquantifiable crime of libel cannot be investigated. The author believes that this judicial interpretation should not be cited in judicial practice.
To sum up, the author boldly predicts that Hong Daode's lawsuit against Chen Guangwu for libel is not established.
Therefore, it is the best policy for Hong Daode to abandon the lawsuit, otherwise it can only be bring disgrace to oneself.