Looking at the cyber traders of the public *** incident from the "Luo Caixia Incident"
2009-05-19 13:54:00 China Youth Network
The fact that Luo Caixia, a girl from Hunan Province, was impersonated by her classmate Wang Jiajun to attend college has attracted much public attention. However, the tone of discussions in some forums recently has slowly evolved from sympathy for Luo Caixia to sympathy for Wang Jiajun and condemnation of Luo Caixia. In this regard, some netizens speculated that these voices "supporting the king and defeating Luo" may come from the Internet Gunner Company.
Network operators of Internet Gunners are also paid according to their work. Even if they swipe votes for celebrities or speak for interest groups, the profession itself does not require us to criticize. The reason is simple: first, they There is no violation of public order and good customs, no breakthrough of the bottom line of society, even if it occasionally touches the edge, it can only prove that some rules need to be patched; between the two, the right to speak between us and them is equal and fair, even if they are systematic and professional Therefore, the social discourse platform will not be tilted. In other words, as long as the shooter does not have the authority to judge public opinion incidents, pretending or changing public opinion will not harm the interests of the public; in a sense, it will help the public to identify the true public opinion in the game and gain benefits. The wisdom of public participation.
As for the Luo Caixia incident specifically, the facts have been clarified, and there are laws and regulations to pursue the punishment. There are a large number of posts by suspected gunmen on the Internet, such as "After reading Luo Caixia's blog, I feel more sympathy for little sister Wang Jiajun." ""I sympathized with Luo Caixia in the early stage, but now I feel that she is too high-profile and even a bit hypocritical", etc., will not affect "justice", at most they will mislead "people's hearts" - as long as the moral judgment standards of this society will not be degraded, as long as the Internet The platform will not lose its basically neutral stance. The more these posts there are, the more "fighting spirit" will be stimulated from a just stance.
From the standpoint of rights and freedoms, even if these online traders are indeed instructed by the impostors, we should understand and accept this behavior. Metaphysically speaking, freedom of speech should cover two levels: one is criticism from the high ground of justice, and the other is defense to avoid mistakes or cover up sins. Because today we are not impostors, but tomorrow we may make mistakes of varying sizes. Defending their freedom to speak is actually protecting our right not to be silenced.
As long as there is no involvement of public rights, Internet traders in public *** incidents are like the "paid helpers" in street quarrels, and they are a part of the diverse social life. Of course, this does not mean that we do not need to be vigilant about this - what we should be vigilant about is precisely the traders who fabricated netizens and public sentiments for government functional departments in the public *** incident: on the one hand, this kind of behavior What is wasted is taxpayers’ financial supply and provides false information for public decision-making; on the other hand, this kind of network often blows the trumpet for some bad policies, lays the foundation for some unfair decisions, and even Testing the bottom line of public opinion backlash, with evil intentions.
No matter how complex and complicated the public *** incident is, as long as public power is impartial, we will always continue to approach the truth and move towards fairness and justice. If the government wants to maintain an objective and fair stance, not only can it not invite Internet traders to speak selectively, but it must also pay attention to the voice of real public opinion. When it tolerates private Internet traders who appear shyly, it must also prevent them from using material energy to shield ordinary citizens. the right to speak. (The author of Sandianshui is a media commentator)
======================
Luo Caixia’s reception Can the right to education stick to the ground?
2009-05-19 13:52:00 China Youth Network
Although the Luo Caixia case is now in danger of falling into the trap of online public opinion, Now that Luo Caixia has once again formally sued Wang Jiajun, Wang Zhengrong and others in the "impersonation" case on the grounds that their rights to name and education have been infringed, then we might as well leave the Internet fakery of "supporting the king and rejecting Luo" for the time being. Public opinion, back to the actual legal issues.
The court has filed the case, but Luo Caixia’s lawsuit does not look like it will go smoothly.
In this case, two of Luo Caixia's rights were violated. One is the right to name, which is stipulated in the General Principles of the Civil Law, so it is not a big problem; the other is the right to education, which needs to be safeguarded, but there is a big problem. legal obstacles.
It should be said that the right to education is clearly stipulated in our country's constitution and other laws, and is undoubtedly a basic right of citizens. There are also many domestic precedents for litigation against the right to education. For example, Dong Fei filed a right-to-education lawsuit against Zhengzhou University, and the court dismissed Zhengzhou University’s improper punishment.
But the problem is that the right to education stipulated in the "Education Law" is only a right under public law. That is to say, people can file a lawsuit against state agencies, schools and other units that infringe citizens' right to education. Administrative litigation; however, whether the right to education is a right in private law has no corresponding provisions in the General Principles of Civil Law and many civil laws. In other words, if a citizen’s right to education is infringed upon by other citizens or legal persons, he or she must There is no clear legal basis for filing a civil lawsuit.
Of course, every citizen can claim that the Constitution provides for the right to education, and the courts should uphold this right. The problem is that our Constitution does not have "justiciability", which means that the Constitution cannot be used as a direct basis for courts to decide cases.
In 2001, we saw a little glimmer of light in the Shandong Qi Yuling case, which was basically the same as the case of Luo Caixia being faked into college. This year, the Supreme Court issued an "Approval" to the Shandong Higher People's Court stating: "After research, we believe that Chen Xiaoqi and others violated Qi Yuling's right to education in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution by infringing on her right to name, and caused specific consequences. The corresponding civil liability should be borne for the consequences of damage."
This "Reply" gave the lonely and helpless Qi Yuling rights relief, and at the same time opened a small opening for the judicialization of the constitution. But the good times did not last long. On December 18, 2008, the Supreme Court issued an announcement stating that the "Approval" was annulled because it had "ceased its application."
With neither the ability to seek civil law nor the Constitution, I am really worried about Luo Caixia’s lawsuit. Although the Constitution clearly stipulates citizens’ “right to education,” it has not taken root. The court We dare not make a judgment at all. How can the right to education of Luo Caixia and even millions of citizens be protected?
A feasible way is for the court accepting the case to creatively use the principle of "general personality rights" in civil law during the trial to safeguard Luo Caixia's right to education.
In civil law theory, personality rights consist of specific personality rights and general personality rights. Specific personality rights are personality rights clearly stipulated in civil laws, such as name rights, portrait rights, and reputation rights. General personality rights are personality rights that are not stipulated by law but should be enjoyed by citizens, including the right to personal freedom and the right to personal dignity, etc.
For example, the "right to chastity" that we are all familiar with is not clearly stipulated in the law, but the Dongguan Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong held in a judgment that the right to chastity is an independent personality right shared by men and women. , the man violates the woman's right to virginity by cheating, which is a personal violation.
Moreover, the "General Principles of Civil Law" clearly stipulates: "Civil activities must abide by the law. If there are no provisions of the law, they shall abide by national policies" and "Civil activities shall comply with voluntary, fair, equal compensation, good faith principles" and other basic principles. Although citizens' right to education in the field of private law is not expressly stipulated in the law, judges can regard the right to education as a general personality right and make a fair judgment to help Luo Caixia get justice.
Of course, the final solution to the problem of citizens’ blank right to education in private law still depends on further refinement of the law, at least to make the constitutional right to education judicial.
After all, no matter what, the citizens’ right to education should be kept close to the ground and be used by citizens, rather than hanging in the air. (Yang Tao)