The circle of friends to send comments the court only a particular friend – Sohu news infringement

The circle of friends to send comments the court: only a particular friend not tort – Sohu news Court: only to the specific WeChat friends, does not constitute a violation of the right of reputation Express News (reporter Zhang Yujie) Mr. Zhang (of surname) in the WeChat circle of friends to share a house property company news links, and their views, think the property company accounting fraud, charges, collusion with the underworld. Property company believes that his statement is not true, resulting in bad influence, to infringe on the right of reputation, he sued the court. Court of first instance and second instance were sentenced to property company lost, but also found that Zhang’s practice subjective fault. At the beginning of last year, the first session of the trial, Zhang did not appear in court. The court held that the violation of the right of reputation should satisfy the following requirements: 1. the existence of subjective intentional spread false information; 2. objective implementation of spread is not specific to the 3. result to reduce the victim behavior; social assessment. Mr. Zhang’s comments have no factual basis, and are untrue information, so he is subjectively wrong. But the comment was given by Mr. Zhang to a particular WeChat friend, which was not distributed to third non specific people. Property companies have no evidence that this comment leads to lower corporate social evaluations. Therefore, the court dismissed the lawsuit request of the property company. Property company refuses to accept an appeal. Nanjing intermediate people’s court hearing. Property companies believe that WeChat is a non closed social group, Mr. Zhang’s WeChat friends can see his dynamic. His improper comments were seen and spread by others, so that he did carry out an inappropriate comment on the third party. Mr. Zhang in the absence of any evidence, the property company accounts spread false facts, resulting in residential property owners There were many discussions. Comments also spread to the outside of the District, affecting the order of property management, many owners do not pay property costs. The Nanjing intermediate people’s court held that Mr. Zhang’s comments had no factual basis, and there was a subjective mistake. However, the comments did not spread to third specific people in public places, only for specific people, did not cause the overall social evaluation of property companies to reduce. Not long ago, the Nanjing intermediate people’s Court upheld the verdict.

朋友圈发评论成被告 法院:只发特定好友不侵权-搜狐新闻  法院:只发给特定微信好友,不构成侵犯名誉权   快报讯(记者 张玉洁)张先生(化姓)在微信朋友圈分享了一个关于一家物业公司的新闻链接,并发表看法,认为物业公司做假账、乱收费,与黑社会有勾结。物业公司认为他的说法并不属实,造成不好的影响,以侵犯名誉权为由,将他告上法院。法院一审、二审均判决物业公司败诉,但也认定张先生的做法主观上存在过错。   去年初,该案一审开庭,张先生没有出庭。法院认为,侵犯名誉权需同时满足以下要件:1.主观上存在散布不实信息的故意;2.客观上实施了向不特定第三人散布的行为;3.结果造成被害人社会评价降低。张先生的评论没有事实依据,是不实信息,因此他在主观上确实存在过错。但评论是张先生发给特定微信好友看的,并非向不特定第三人散布。物业公司没有证据证明这条评论导致公司的社会评价降低。因此,法院一审驳回了物业公司的诉讼请求。   物业公司不服,提起上诉。南京中院开庭审理。物业公司认为,微信是非封闭的社交群,张先生的微信好友可以看到他的动态。他的不当评论被别人看到,并扩散传播,据此可以认为,他确实实施了向第三人散布不当评论的行为。张先生在没有任何证据的情况下,散布物业公司做假账等虚假事实,导致小区业主议论纷纷。评论还扩散到小区外部,影响物业管理的有序性,不少业主都不缴纳物业费了。   南京中院审理认为,张先生的评论并无事实依据,主观上存在过错。但评论没有在公共场合向不特定的第三人散布,仅针对特定人,没有造成物业公司整体社会评价降低。前不久,南京中院二审维持原判。相关的主题文章: