news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

recently, a case of internet infringement dispute between an internet celebrity and netizens has aroused much discussion on social platforms.

the dispute originated from a netizen named "specializing in treating various dissatisfactions and difficult and complicated diseases", who posted on xiaohongshu in may 2023, saying "don't be too outrageous at the guangzhou tea party, putting welfare girls ahead of serious grass-planting girls", and directly published the avatar and id of the "welfare girl" he thought of - the internet celebrity "qianchuan yixiao" in the post.

"welfare ji" is an internet term, mainly referring to people who shoot pornographic content and sell it for profit. subsequently, "qianchuan yixiao" sued the netizen in the guangzhou internet court, believing that his post was insulting and negative, seriously inaccurate, and had obvious derogatory meanings. he requested that the other party make a public apology and pay for related mental damages.

▲part of the evidence submitted by hu to the court about the large-scale photo shoot of "qianchuan yixiao"

on september 12, the defendant hu made public the first-instance judgment of the case. in the first instance, the court rejected all the claims of "qianchuan yixiao".

on the 15th, hu said in an interview with red star news: "through this case, i hope everyone will understand that some internet celebrities have some bad behaviors. when we make objective evaluations of them, we should not be afraid of being sued, as long as the objective evaluations are true."

hu told red star news that she is a college student. during a tea party event in guangzhou in 2023, the organizer placed the promotional materials of "qianchuan yixiao", an internet celebrity whom she believed to be a "welfare princess", before the "grass-planting princess" (referring to an internet celebrity blogger in a niche clothing circle who wears her favorite clothes and is suitable for taking photos and showing off clothes to attract others to buy the same ones).

"before i posted that post on xiaohongshu, i had seen comments from netizens in the comment section of other accounts saying that she had spread and sold large-scale photos." hu went to the weibo account of "qianchuan yixiao" and found many large-scale photos. she then decided to expose them on the internet and eventually posted the post that led to her prosecution.

hu sorted out the timeline of the entire incident to reporters: after hu posted the relevant post on may 28, 2023, the xiaohongshu platform banned her post on august 22, and she immediately cancelled her account; on may 11, 2024, hu received litigation information from the court, the pre-trial mediation failed on may 15, the court formally accepted the case on may 29, and on august 28, the court's first-instance judgment announced the dismissal of all the plaintiff's claims.

hu said: "during the pre-trial mediation, i posted a text on the mediation platform to state my position. i don't think there is anything wrong with my behavior, and i am confident that i can win the case with the evidence i have collected. i hope the other party can stop the loss in time and withdraw the lawsuit against me. but if the other party insists on suing, i am not afraid." hu said that the pre-trial mediation ultimately failed.

the relevant evidence submitted by hu to the court included many records of "qianchuan yixiao" spreading and selling her own photos on the weibo platform, and many of these photos were quite explicit. regarding the photos and videos, "qianchuan yixiao" once stated on the homepage of his douyin account: i have never denied the photos (the underwear is exposed) and they are all publicly posted on the weibo account of the same name.

in the judgment of the case, the guangzhou internet court held that the case was a dispute over network infringement liability, specifically a general personality rights dispute. the focus of the dispute in the case was whether the xiaohongshu notes published by the defendant violated the plaintiff's personal dignity.

the court found that before the defendant published the notes and comments involved in the case, the plaintiff had taken multiple sets of various large-scale photos and videos, and disseminated and sold the photos and videos on multiple platforms. the above actions violated public order and good morals as well as the requirements of socialist core values.

▲first-instance judgment

the court held at first instance that it was indeed inappropriate for the defendant to use the derogatory term "welfare princess" to refer to the plaintiff in the notes and comments involved in the case, but the defendant's publication of the notes and comments involved was an act of exercising his right to public opinion supervision as a citizen, and his purpose was to maintain the cleanliness and purity of the "two-dimensional" environment in which he lived, rather than to denigrate the plaintiff's personal dignity. therefore, the defendant did not have the subjective intent to infringe upon the plaintiff's personal dignity by publishing the notes and comments involved in the case.

the court also pointed out that the plaintiff had not provided evidence to prove that he had suffered serious mental damage due to the defendant's posting of the notes and comments involved in the case. therefore, the defendant's posting of the notes and comments involved in the case did not meet the constituent elements of general personal rights infringement. the plaintiff's claim that the defendant's behavior violated his personal dignity lacked grounds and the court did not support it. the court also did not support the plaintiff's other requests, which also lacked grounds.

in the end, the court dismissed all claims of the plaintiff "qianchuan yixiao".

regarding the verdict, "qianchuan yixiao" publicly released a video on september 12th to respond: "the court did not identify me as a 'welfare princess', and clearly stated that the 'welfare princess' calling my behavior was inappropriate. however, the court also believed that the degree of injury was not serious, so it did not support my first-instance appeal, which does not mean that she was right. in response to this situation, we have actually submitted a second-instance appeal and will do our best to improve the relevant evidence."

one netizen left a comment in the comment section: "what does it mean that the court determined that those large-scale photos violated public order and good morals?" "qianchuan yixiao" replied: "at least the court did not determine that it was illegal."

red star news reporters contacted "qianchuan yixiao" through multiple channels through private messages, but the other party did not respond.