The Improvement Of Standards For Judicial Determination Of Online Defamation

The rapid development of the Internet has narrowed the social distance between people,and the rise of various network social platforms has gradually completed the construction of a virtual network social world,in which any subject can enter and participate.With the rise of citizens’ awareness of sovereignty,the exercise of the right to freedom of expression not only promotes the prosperity and development of the network social world,but also leads to various speech crimes,especially the frequent occurrence of online defamation.In order to control the network social environment and crack down on online speech crimes,in 2013 the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued "the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Defamation through Information Networks"(hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of Online Defamation").The Interpretation of Online Defamation stipulates the criteria for determining the "serious circumstances" of online defamation,providing operable legal norms for judicial practice.The article takes the form of forensic data analysis and collected the cases related to online defamation and caused by defamation from 2013 to 2021 on the platform of "Peking University magic weapon".Through the analysis and summary of cases,it can be found that: in judicial practice,the number of transmissions of defamatory information is often taken as an important factor to determine whether a crime is committed or not,but the identification standard of the number of transmission is different.Network defamation cases are mostly due to defamation cases,that is,defamation cases with reasons.However,it is not clear whether the libel content is false or not,and what the requirement of false degree is.And defamation also happens in semi-closed network space,but the judicial practice does not recognize this place of communication.In terms of transmission times,the number of clicks and reposts of defamatory information is attributed to the doer himself.This provision does not violate the constitutional provisions,nor does it violate the principle of legal punishment.The doer should realize that the information released in the network world may be clicked and reposted by others,and the doer has the intention to generalize about it.The determination of the number of times shall be calculated cumulatively based on the number of times defamatory information is disseminated against the same defamatory,dehydration data shall be used and data that others should be excluded from malicious clicks.In terms of defamatory content,on the basis of affirming that the form of defamatory information is false,the focus is on how to judge the true and false adulterated false information,and the role played by the real part and the false part in damaging the reputation of the defamed person should be analyzed separately,and only when the false part plays a greater role can it be recognized as false information.In terms of content,the defamatory information is required to be targeted at a specific target of slander,with credibility and negative impact.In terms of dissemination,the prevailing view is that the dissemination of defamatory information in a semi-enclosed space should not be regarded as defamation.However,the "blatant dissemination" of defamation refers to the blatantness of the disseminating results,and the dissemination of defamatory information within a semi-closed cyberspace can also achieve the blatantness of the disseminating results.Moreover,from the perspective of the seriousness of "infringement of law and interests",semi-closed cyberspace mostly belongs to the circle of acquaintances,and the damage caused to the reputation of the defamed person by spreading defamatory information in the circle of acquaintances is much greater than the damage caused by the dissemination of defamatory information in the circle of non-acquaintances.Recognizing that semi-closed cyberspace is also communicable is more conducive to combating defamation and protecting the reputation rights of those who are slandered.