Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2013/10/27 10:43:25 New letters on the front page again called for release after the experts say can’t catch
Express News reporter is criminal detention by TRANS-provincial China Journalist Association has investigated
According to Xinhua News 23rd, "the Express News reporter Chen Yongzhou was criminal detention" cause for concern. The official conduct of journalists is applicable "damage the reputation of its crimes," whether I could go beyond its units directly to be hotly debated issues such as arrest triggered. In this regard, the staff at the China Journalists Association to accept "Site in China," Xinhua said in an interview, the Express News 22nd will inform China Journalist Association, China Journalists Association from the Hunan, Guangdong's propaganda about the situation, and has been involved in the investigation.
Cause of Changsha police told –
Concludes that the punishment of journalists were caught allegedly involved Chen Yongzhou three "fabrication"
23rd morning, Changsha PSB to Xinhua News Agency "China network thing" reporter said, is criminal netted new express under reporter Chen Yongzhou, is because, by investigation, from September 26, 2012 to August 8, 2013, the reported and reporter Chen Yongzhou, people in is not to in the Alliance heavy section for field investigation and verified of situation Xia, fabricated false facts, through its media platform published on in the Alliance heavy section of negative articles total 18 article, which Chen Yongzhou signature of articles 14 article. In June 2013, zoomlion has held special staff to communicate with the new Express newspaper, asking it to zoomlion investigation and understanding of the real situation on the ground, stop fudging, libel and slander actions. But the new letters and Chen Yongzhou regardless of zoomlion's request, continues to publish negative articles on zoomlion.
Changsha City Public Security Bureau found that Chen Yongzhou fabrication involves zoomlion's three main facts: first, the fudging in the heavy section indemnification of the management buyout of its good assets, resulting in loss of State assets privatization. Two are fabricated zoomlion advertising 513 million a year spent, "monstrous marketing". Third, fabrications and slander zoomlion sales and financial fraud. In the course of reporting, Chen Yongzhou no concrete basis, nor to the relevant regulation, audit and accounting firms to consult on their own judgment.
Changsha City Public Security Bureau reported that on September 17, 2013, Changsha, Hunan Public Security Bureau employed flute young forensic zoomlion published in Guangdong and its new journalist Chen Yongzhou, who identified the 18 articles of the damage caused. Reviewed by the municipal Bureau of supervision of law enforcement detachment, finds suspect Chen Yongzhou fabricating and spreading falsehoods to harm the business reputation of zoomlion, zoomlion caused heavy losses, its conduct in breach of the People's Republic of China No. 221 of the Penal Code stipulates that crimes of suspected damage to business reputation, approved on October 19 by the suspect, Chen Yongzhou imposition of criminal compulsory measures.
Zoomlion senior referred to –
New express company dispute arose out of the so-called "false reports"
23rd at noon, Xinhua "Chinese Site" reporter got in touch with zoomlion Assistant Du Feng. He said, zoomlion in the new letters and disputes, stems from "each other on our permanent and serious untrue reports". He said that during the past year, the Express News reporter Chen Yongzhou was published on zoomlion heavy, involving more than 10 articles in the section, which contains a lot of false information.
"Before these reports are done, the journalists and the media, we were not direct interview, did not come to our unit, no interview request over any phone, SMS or email. "Du Feng said, after seeing these" false reports ", the attitude against each other not around, no way to prove, zoomlion in June 2013, the head of a top newspaper led to new communication exclusively, wishes to clarify the facts, stop false reports, but without success. Zoomlion also made announcements to clarify, but successive "false reports".
Du Feng lifted has several each other "not real reported" of example, such as in the joint heavy branch annual report Shang wrote of 513 million Yuan advertising fee and business fee was each other written has "advertising fee 513 million Yuan"; in the joint heavy branch of restructuring was each other no base called "State-owned assets loss"; each other reported pointed out that in the joint heavy branch executives in stock high sets are 1.2 billion yuan, completely no according to.
Du Feng told Xinhua that "China" journalists Chen Yongzhou zoomlion does not exist, I am personal conflicts or disputes. Events unfolded, zoomlion justice departments have reported case details will be announced by public security organs.
The new express statement stressed that –
Journalists are duty, they should be, and the negotiations
The new express official told Xinhua News Agency at noon on 23rd "China" reporter an exclusive interview. This head emphasized, the newspaper reported Chen Yongzhou belongs to their normal duties, "if Chen Yongzhou reported problems, we very much welcome the zoomlion through normal channels and procedures to deal with us. Can sue us, if a case is lost, are we going to pay for compensation, the close we came close. ”
The official said, "we've checked Chen Yongzhou zoomlion issued by all reports, are generally more objective, we seem to be no particular problems, did not find Chen Yongzhou contrary to professional ethics and legal thing. He only reports on zoomlion's factual errors is to ' advertising costs and operating expenses of 513 million dollars ' written by mistake ' ad 513 million dollars. ”
The official disclosed that the new letters for publication after a critical report on zoomlion, zoomlion Vice President was communicating through the newspaper, later Assistant zoomlion Ko Fai real name publicly on Twitter named Chen Yongzhou and denunciations of the new express "discrediting zoomlion". The new Express newspaper asked Ko Fai and withdraw, but Ko Fai made no response. The new letters subsequent to the Tianhe district court proceedings, sued Ko Fai against the express news and reputation of Chen Yongzhou, Tianhe District Court has accepted the case.
The responsible person said, the new express see Chen Yongzhou is reported to be normal office behaviour, he's all about zoomlion's comments are published on the new Express, rather than on their personal micro-blog, micro-appeared on the letter. "Is said to be September Chen Yongzhou have been registered by the police in Changsha, a pursuit-evasion online order in October, but we don't know a bit of news. Chen Yongzhou during normal work, escape is not an issue on the objective. ”
The official final statement said: "the principle of the matter the new express maximum is, hopefully resolved under the framework of the law. ”
Expert
Reporters cannot catch then
Reaction to the incident, Jinan University School of journalism and communication Director, former President of the Journalists Association of Guangdong Province Fan Yijin said judge news reports inaccurately or not, must go through research, not all inaccuracy is equivalent to "harm the business reputation". Suspected Chen Yongzhou "also have their own problems", which belongs to the plunge came, if Chen Yongzhou police suspected evidence of extortion or bribery, criminal detention, he should use both offences, and not "caught".
South China University of technology school of law Professor Xu song-Lin told reporters that the damage business reputation generally takes place between the rivals, generally negative reports of journalists count does not necessarily constitute the second crime of damaging business reputation is an intentional crime, which he knows to be false and intentionally spread or make up a story, if not deliberately fabricating false news reporter news report, it cannot be said journalists were arrested for offences in this regard.
Chen Yongzhou and new express anger about Ko Fai and zoomlion reputation tort
Defendants Ko Fai and transferring Changsha, Hunan zoomlion application trial
In Guangzhou's Tianhe District Court rejected the defendant asked
According to Xinhua, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City people's Court informed the 23rd foreign, the August 6, 2013, respectively accepted the plaintiff's new newspapers complain Ko Fai Chen Yongzhou, Guangdong and zoomlion Corporation reputation infringement disputes in both cases. After objection to jurisdiction raised by the defendant, request moving the case to the yuelu district people's Court in Hunan province, has been dismissed by the Court. At present, the case is still at the trial stage.
According to informed the Tianhe District Court, zoomlion, Chairman of the two plaintiffs to defendants Ko Fai Assistant in July 2013, several times in fact, certification of continuous release on plaintiff's personal attack on SINA weibo microblog, caused great harm to their physical, mental and social reputation, Tianhe district people's Court fame dispute proceedings.
Defendants Ko Fai, zoomlion Corporation submitted pleadings presented during the objection to jurisdiction. The two defendants said as honorary dispute in the present case, plaintiff Chen Yongzhou, domicile are outside the new newspaper in Guangdong Tianhe district, Ko Fai's habitual residence and zoomlion corporation domiciled in yuelu district, offices under the law can be regarded as infringement, non-road, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City. Therefore, yuelu district, Changsha city, Hunan province, requesting the case to be transferred to the people's Court for trial.
Each defendant asserts that: first, the principle of territoriality, Ko Fai's domicile, Tianhe district, Guangzhou, Tianhe District Court having jurisdiction. Second, in accordance with the principles of tort litigation jurisdiction, Guangzhou Tianhe district results for violations, to have jurisdiction in the case. Third, from the nature of the infringement by the defendant, any computer terminal or other electronic equipment terminal can be a result of violations took place, plaintiff domiciled in Tianhe district, governed by the district as a case not only in conformity with the law, is one of the easiest cases.
Tianhe District Court after trial says: infringement proceedings brought by, or domicile of the defendant in a people's Court according to law violations jurisdiction. Violations to include violations committed and infringement results. When the peoples Court accepts the case concerning the right of reputation, infringement of the domicile of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, results can be identified as the infringement took place. Civil domicile refers to citizens ' domicile. Legal person's domicile is the seat of the legal person's principal place of business or principal office.
In the present case, the plaintiff as infringement of citizens, their place of residence or domicile "yuancun erheng, Tianhe, Guangzhou" can be identified as the result of infringement occurred. The plaintiffs presented its new express business in Guangdong Province, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City, and the offices are located. Provide signed a labor contract with employees and published in some newspapers, the rental contract and the new express street view photos and other evidence to confirm that the address as No. 533 Tianhe Road, Guangzhou City. Therefore, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City for violations.
Tianhe District Court on October 22 Ko Fai shall be rejected in accordance with the defendant, zoomlion company limited in the case of disputed jurisdiction.
新快报记者被跨省刑拘 中国记协已经介入调查
据新华社电 23日，“《新快报》记者陈永洲被刑拘”一事备受关注。记者的职务行为是否适用“损害商业信誉罪”、是否可以越过其单位直接对本人进行拘捕等问题引发热议。对此，中国记协相关工作人员在接受“中国网事”记者采访时表示，《新快报》22日已将此事告知中国记协，中国记协随后从湖南、广东两地宣传部门了解了相关情况，并已介入调查。
长沙警方述说因由——
据称认定被刑拘记者陈永洲涉三项“捏造”
23日上午，长沙市公安局向新华社“中国网事”记者表示，之所以刑拘《新快报》记者陈永洲，是因为，经调查，从2012年9月26日至2013年8月8日，该报及其记者陈永洲等人在未到中联重科进行实地调查和核实的情况下，捏造虚假事实，通过其媒体平台发表关于中联重科的负面文章共18篇，其中陈永洲署名的文章14篇。2013年6月，中联重科曾就此事专门派员前往新快报社进行沟通，要求其到中联重科进行实地调查和了解真实情况，停止捏造、污蔑和诋毁行为。但新快报社及陈永洲不顾中联重科的要求，仍然继续发表关于中联重科的负面文章。
长沙市公安局认定，陈永洲捏造的涉及中联重科的主要事实有三项：一是捏造中联重科的管理层收购旗下优质资产进行利益输送，造成国资流失，私有化。二是捏造中联重科一年花掉广告费5.13亿，搞“畸形营销”。三是捏造和污蔑中联重科销售和财务造假。在报道过程中，陈永洲没有具体依据，也未向相关监管、审计部门和会计师事务所进行咨询，只是凭自己的主观臆断。
长沙市公安局称，2013年9月17日，长沙市公安局聘请湖南笛扬司法鉴定所对中联重科因广东新快报社及其记者陈永洲等人发表的18篇文章所造成的损失情况进行鉴定。经市公安局执法监督支队审核，认定嫌疑人陈永洲捏造并散布虚伪事实，损害中联重科的商业信誉，给中联重科造成重大损失，其行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百二十一条之规定，涉嫌损害商业信誉罪，于10月19日批准对犯罪嫌疑人陈永洲采取刑事拘留的强制措施。
中联重科高层提及——
新快报与其公司纠纷源于所谓“失实报道”
23日中午，新华社“中国网事”记者联系上了中联重科董事长助理杜峰。他表示，《新快报》与中联重科的纠纷，源于“对方对我们长期的严重失实报道”。他介绍说，在过去近一年里，《新快报》刊发了记者陈永洲关于中联重科的大量报道，涉及10多篇稿件，其中存在大量不实信息。
“在做这些报道之前，这个记者和媒体，没有对我们进行过直接采访，没有来过我们单位，没有来过任何电话、短信或邮件提出采访请求。”杜峰说，在看到这些“不实报道”后，针对对方不实地采访、不求证的态度，中联重科一位高层负责人曾在2013年6月专门带队前往新快报社沟通，希望澄清事实、停止不实报道，但未果。中联重科也发过公告作出澄清，但对方依然连续进行“不实报道”。
杜峰举了几个对方“不实报道”的例子，比如中联重科年报上写的5.13亿元广告费和业务费被对方写成了“广告费5.13亿元”；中联重科的改制被对方没有根据地称为“国有资产流失”；对方报道指出中联重科高管在股票高位套现12亿元，完全没有根据。
杜峰告诉新华社“中国网事”记者，陈永洲本人和中联重科不存在个人矛盾或纠纷。关于事件的进展，中联重科法务部门已经报案，案情的具体情况将由公安机关对外公布。
《新快报》表态强调——
记者报道是职务行为，对方应与报社交涉
《新快报》相关负责人也于23日中午接受新华社“中国网事”记者独家专访。这名负责人强调，该报记者陈永洲的报道属于正常职务行为，“如果陈永洲报道有问题，我们非常欢迎中联重科通过正常渠道和程序跟我们交涉。可以和我们打官司，如果官司输了，我们该怎么赔就怎么赔，该关门我们就关门。”
这位负责人表示，“我们核查过陈永洲对中联重科所发的所有报道，总体上是比较客观的，在我们看来没有什么特别的问题，没有发现陈永洲有违背职业道德和法律的事情。他关于中联重科的报道中唯一的事实性差错就是将‘广告费及业务费5.13亿元’错写成了‘广告费5.13亿元’。”
这位负责人透露，在《新快报》刊发关于中联重科的批评性报道之后，中联重科有一位副总裁曾来过报社进行沟通，后来中联重科董事长助理高辉在个人实名微博上公开指名道姓指斥《新快报》及陈永洲“诋毁中联重科”。《新快报》登报要求高辉撤销不当言论，但高辉没有反应。《新快报》随后向广州市天河区法院提起诉讼，起诉高辉侵害了《新快报》和陈永洲的名誉权，天河区法院已经受理此案。
这位负责人说，《新快报》认为陈永洲的报道属于正常的职务行为，他所有关于中联重科的言论都刊登在《新快报》上，而没有在其个人微博、微信上出现。“据说长沙警方9月份就已对陈永洲立案，10月发出网上追逃令，但我们一点消息都不知道。陈永洲在此期间正常上下班，客观上不存在逃的问题。”
这位负责人最后表态说：“《新快报》处理此事最大的原则是，希望在法律的框架下解决。”
■专家
对记者不能先抓后审
针对这一事件，暨南大学新闻与传播学院院长、曾任广东省新闻工作者协会主席的范以锦表示，判断新闻报道失实与否，必须经过调查研究，并非所有的报道失实都等同于“损害商业信誉”。至于怀疑陈永洲“本身也有问题”，这属于偷换概念，如果警方掌握了陈永洲涉嫌敲诈勒索或受贿的证据，应使用这两个罪名刑拘他，而不能“先抓后审”。
华南理工大学法学院教授徐松林告诉记者，损害商业信誉行为一般发生在竞争对手之间，一般来说记者的负面报道并不至于构成这个罪名；其次损害商业信誉罪属于故意犯罪，即明知是虚假事实而故意散布或捏造事实，如果不能证明记者的新闻报道故意捏造虚假消息，就不能说记者涉嫌这方面的罪名。
陈永洲和新快报诉高辉及中联重科名誉侵权
被告高辉及中联重科申请移送湖南长沙审理
广州天河区法院驳回被告要求
据新华社电 广州市天河区人民法院23日对外通报，该院分别于2013年8月6日、8月7日受理原告陈永洲、广东新快报社诉高辉及中联重科股份有限公司名誉侵权纠纷两案。后被告提出管辖权异议，请求将案件移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理，现已被法院驳回。目前，案件仍在审理阶段。
据天河区法院通报，两原告以被告中联重科股份有限公司董事长助理高辉于2013年7月多次在其实名认证的新浪微博上连续发布对原告人身攻击内容的微博，对其身心及社会名誉造成极大伤害为由，向天河区人民法院提起名誉权纠纷诉讼。
被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司在提交答辩状期间提出管辖权异议。两被告称：本案为名誉权纠纷，原告陈永洲、广东新快报社的住所地均不在天河区，高辉的经常居住地和中联重科股份有限公司的住所地在长沙市岳麓区，以上地点根据法律规定可认定为侵权行为地，均非广州市天河区。因此请求将本案移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理。
两原告答辩称：一、根据属地管辖原则，高辉住所地为广州市天河区，天河区法院有管辖权。二、按照侵权行为诉讼管辖地原则，广州市天河区为侵权行为结果发生地，对本案有管辖权。三、从被告侵权行为的性质来看，任何计算机终端或其他电子设备终端均可成为侵权行为的结果发生地，原告的住所地在广州市天河区，由该区作为案件管辖地不仅符合法律规定，也最方便案件审理。
天河区法院经审理认为：因侵权行为提起的诉讼，依法由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。侵权行为地包括侵权行为实施地和侵权结果发生地。人民法院受理名誉权案件时，受侵权的公民、法人和其他组织的住所地，可以认定为侵权结果发生地。公民的住所地是指公民的户籍所在地。法人的住所地是指法人的主要营业地或者主要办事机构所在地。
本案中，原告作为受侵权的公民，其住所地即户籍所在地“广州市天河区员村二横路”可认定为侵权结果发生地。原告广东新快报社提出其营业地和办事机构所在地是广州市天河区。其提供与员工签订的劳动合同及其出版的部分报纸、租赁合同以及新快报的街景照等证据以证实其地址为广州市天河路533号。因此，广州市天河区为侵权行为地。
天河区法院已于10月22日依法裁定驳回被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。
赞