Food safety can spit but never disinformation.

Original title: Food safety can spit but can never disinformation
Some time ago, a report on the Internet caused a heated discussion among netizens - "three men complain about drinks "eat dead people" video was posted online was arrested by the police. Is this video that looks like a spitting slot still in violation of criminal law? As an insider in the legal circle, the author after watching the video, it is time to remind some netizens - food safety can spit grooves but never disinformation.
Internet rumors a little more annoying
in recent years, the Internet often burst out some "truth", but the author thought, first, to speak with real evidence, the law only heavy evidence; Some people face-to-face communication will also have some scruples, on the network will often be unbridled. People's Daily short comment has mentioned: the network is a virtual society, but the virtual society and the real society are inextricable, directly related to the harmony and stability of the real society. Internet rumors wrap lies as "facts", flip guesses into "existence", and make waves on the Internet, disturbing people. If left to go on the road, it will seriously disturb the social order, affect social stability, endanger social integrity.
other than that, in terms of food safety, which is of the greatest concern to the people, the "contribution" of Internet rumors to the destruction of people's confidence is the greatest. With the increasing attention to health, all kinds of information about health, especially food safety, especially negative news, such as "six-wing KFC chicken", "Wahaha Botox" and other names, or "ignorance kills people", "true love of life!" Later don't drink (eat) such as "typical rumors" can quickly become a hot post brush screen.
, however, the proliferation of rumors about food on the Internet, in addition to blocking the common people, will also trigger unprovoked speculation and more rumors, and related aspects of the inexplicable harm.
the "joke" is big, the consequences are very serious
the author has a real case. In October 2016, Liu Chunlin, a driving instructor in Huai'an, Jiangsu Province, and two students were eating a "Sidodo Coconut Fruit King Fruit Drink" when they pulled out the coconut fruit and tore it with their hands and said, "It's going to eat dead people" and "it's made of plastic." They made a video of the pass and uploaded it to a website, but they didn't expect it to be streamed. Subsequently, Theodor called the police. In December of the same year, Liu Chunlin was arrested by law enforcement agencies on suspicion of "damage to the reputation of commodities", while two others voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily.
three "actors" claimed that shooting the video was a joke. But whether it's really a joke, we can't help but speculate, but it's safe to say that such a joke can't be made, and it can't be made.
problem is really so serious. Article 221 of the Provisions of China's Criminal Law stipulates that anyone who fabricates and disseminates false facts, damages the commercial reputation or commodity reputation of others, causes serious losses to others or has other serious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention, and shall be punished with a single penalty. Of course, the case is still in the course of investigation, the specific evidence involved in the case is not yet fully understood, from the limited information to judge that the case is likely to constitute the above-mentioned crimes.
first of all, the suspect without any factual basis and professional support on the premise that coconut fruit is "made of plastic", not a simple evaluation of the quality of goods, but is a fabrication of facts to disinformation.
, the parties should not spread "false video" on the network. The dissemination of information in the internet age has a amplification effect, which may increase the distrust of society, bring insecurity to consumers, cause real harm to enterprises, and simply explain it with "jokes".
On September 9, 2013, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued the "Explanation on Certain Questions of the Law Applying to criminal cases, such as the use of information networks for defamation", which clearly stipulates that "knowingly spreading false facts to slander others" and "being retweeted more than 500 times" shall be investigated for criminal responsibility. Thus, "make your own" rumors and spread them, more than "knowingly" spreading false facts to slander others.
it is understood that the number of clicks and retweets of the video has been far more than 5000 and 500 orders of magnitude, respectively. It shall be deemed to be "serious" as stipulated in article 246, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law.
again, is there a subjective intent on the part of the suspect in this case? The subjective aspect of judging crime in criminal justice has always been a difficult point in practice, which often needs to be judged in the light of the objective behavior of the perpetrator. The suspect in this case may not have intended to damage the business reputation of others, commodity reputation, but his fabrication of facts and the use of the Internet for dissemination and other acts to some extent reflect its knowledge of fabricating facts and spreading false facts will damage the reputation of others' goods, and hope that this result will occur. As for whether the suspect's motive is revenge or repression of enterprises, unfair competition, etc., it is not actually the key factor to judge subjective intent.
legal rights the same as individual enterprises
when legitimate rights and interests are damaged, the law is the most powerful means of relief. Modern people's awareness of rights protection is getting stronger and stronger, and it is not uncommon for people to move against the public. So, when enterprises encounter infringement of legitimate rights and interests, how to do?
In 2015Chinese, professor Liu Mingxiang, Executive Director of the Criminal Law Science Research Center of Chinese Min University, said that in the information age, it is not uncommon for the Internet to damage business reputation and commodity reputation at the symposium on "Using the Internet to damage business reputation and commodity reputation." A large number of Internet rumors spread in social media platforms, confusing and misleading the public, but also seriously interfere with the normal operation of enterprises, harm the legitimate interests of enterprises, disrupt the market economic order, and ultimately harm the interests of consumers.
face of this situation, many companies have taken up legal arms. According to relevant media statistics, Farmer Shanquan, Wahaha, Wang Laoji and so on have filed claims with the operating company behind WeChat Public Number, of which Wahaha claims amounted to 1 million yuan, KFC claims amounted to 4.5 million yuan, Farmer Shanquan claims amounted to 200,000 yuan, Wang Laoji claimed 6 million yuan, the overall amount of more than 11 million yuan.
, Singapore was sued for defamation in 2003 under revised Internet-related regulations. In order to effectively manage the Internet in the United States, the United States Congress and various government departments have passed the Federal Law on the Prohibition of the Use of Computer Crime, the Computer Crime Act, the Communications Act and other relevant laws and regulations, including rumors, the dissemination of content on the Internet to regulate. Other countries, such as South Korea and Mexico, have also enacted laws and regulations to prevent and control internet rumors, from fixed-term imprisonment to fines.
(the author is an associate professor at Beijing Jiao Chinese, Andi Min University, Ph.D. in Litigation Law, Tao Yang)