Such a high standard of proof is not demanded of us.
Second, we provided a lot of evidence in the trial to prove the false statement made by the plaintiff in the pre-court meeting (he Qian did not know, did not add qq friends, he Qian did not have any impression) (page 12 of the first-instance judgment). In the case of infringement of reputation right, the plaintiff is not completely without the burden of proof, he has the preliminary burden of proof, he said that we are “fabricating facts, making something out of nothing”, so what is his statement and proof? As you can see from the verdict, through our evidence, almost all of his statements were inconsistent with the objective facts, and he did not even fulfill the initial burden of proof. However, there was not a single word of response in the first-instance judgment.
Third, He Qian as the victim of the year, she personally wrote these words, the trial of the two sides to provide evidence, her statement can fully match the evidence in the case, and the other side’s statement is the opposite. Indeed, we have no further direct objective evidence, such as surveillance videos, of what happened ten years ago. Neither side has any direct objective evidence. In this case, is the right of freedom of speech and the right of reputation of legal interest measurement, the court only considered the right of reputation, and did not fully consider in this case He Qian’s exercise of the right to freedom of speech. He Qian did not timely audio and video recording, no alarm, she can not be declared in the mouth today?
Fourth, the plaintiff is a public figure, and both parties agree. As for the lawsuit of the right of reputation filed by the public figure as the plaintiff, it should bear a higher burden of proof to a certain extent. Although there is no clear stipation in our national law, similar cases are not rare in judicial practice. In this case, the first-instance decision did not take that into account at all.
Now that we’ve made our point, I’d like to talk a little bit more about myself, which I’ve tried not to talk about before, but here it is:
In a lawsuit that lasted more than two years (and will continue to be appealed), I stopped working as a journalist and editor, switched careers, and took time off from my master’s degree. This experience, inevitably, became a very important and profound thing in my life. It’s one thing to think about the vast range of issues that it encompasses (feminism, political philosophy, social movements, law, etc.), to examine and validate your own ideas; But the physical experience of it is a completely different matter.
The process, gather evidence, waiting for the long trival, lawyers in the trial court, the arguments take pains of witnessing He Qian I recall experience pain in court, I have long time in the court debate, with interpersonal and accusations and pressure from predecessors, there are media reports or delete the indignation of draft, for yourself as men to have my past experience and education, there are m rabbit enlightenment, which caused by the reflection and controversy, more to social movement, posters, the debate of justice and the rule of law…
The information I’ve been experiencing for more than two years as an observer and writer is explosive, as opposed to physically participating in a legal proceeding. Citizens all these events and issues, is inevitable, especially intellectuals, knowledge is not according to taste and powerful stunt, but a “privilege” with profound responsibility: debate, including m rabbit, a social issue is one thing, hope a issues disappear, back to the old world is ignorance and road. The choice made under the Extreme Test is the real choice, the reason why “I” is “me.” I will release He Qian articles for their behavior, responsible for the end.
The judgment of the first instance is very long, but it is very meaningful. I hope you can take time to read it. The first instance judgment of the court begins on page 14 for the claim and evidence of the original defendant. The following is the full content of the first-instance judgment (to remove the privacy information of relevant persons) :
Recent Comments