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) 2014/1/23 8:59:28 The rule of law， former Executive Editor of the weekend against Fang defamation case
Yesterday, Guangzhou Tianhe District Court trial, the rule of law, former Executive Editor of the weekend original sued Fang Guo Guosong defamation cases. Guo Guosong sued the rear boat also filed a counterclaim. Yesterday, the case could not be successfully mediated.
Lin Xiahong correspondents/reporters Huang siming
The whole story:
On March 31, 2011, the rule of law, published over the weekend by a reporter interviews the Fang of the general suspicion of plagiarism investigation.
April 1, 2011 Fang on Twitter in February 2009 in the 21st century business Herald said the plaintiff published false news, and refers to the plaintiff because of the previously reported false news was their criticism and hard feelings, and Fang was arrested for copies of the General Survey of the reports.
The accuser brought:
Plaintiff Guo Guosong, former Executive Editor of the weekend of rule of law, Guo Guosong claims, March 21, 2011, Executive Editor of the rule of law weekend plans to report news about the defendant, Fang was arrested for copying. Subsequently, defendant in Sina weibo to slander the many people, including the plaintiff. March 31, 2011, the rule of law, published at the weekend by a press article that the Fang after suspected plagiarism of the General Survey, Fang on April 1, 2011 and on Twitter in February 2009 in the 21st century business Herald said the plaintiff published false news, and the plaintiff was a personal vendetta. These microblogging led to a large number of reviewers to the plaintiff, accusations and personal attacks. Since then, Fang and the plaintiffs to join its founding control "threads" website "China's list of bad press."
Hearing both sides around the two micro-blog debate whether a violation of each other for the honor of
Plaintiff:
Fang Twitter articles
Obvious tort of malicious
Scandalous micro-blog article has an obvious infringement offense, has seriously affected the public evaluation of the plaintiff's character, causing tremendous negative effects so that plaintiff endured great mental suffering.
Request: delete Twitter
Apologies to pay 300,000
Fang deleted Tweets of your insults, verbal abuse and fabricated facts and SINA Micro-Blog Home, new threads website and published an apology, at least on a national mainstream media requesting compensation for moral damages to be touched, 300,000 Yuan Fang zhouzi and bear cases notary fees and court costs.
Guo Guosong argues, when friends in "threads" provides clues to the incident on the Web site, the lead does not have legal significance of intellectual property rights, as a reporter following a line of conduct independent surveys and extensive interviews made after reports did not violate the law and journalistic norms, with its reports are accounted for in the source of clues. The report could not be considered to be "false news". In addition, Guo Guosong believes that the rule of law on Fang released the weekend reports of suspected plagiarism in accordance with strict choice program, Fang to his "personal vendetta", "public and private" has no basis in reality. At the same time, Guo Guosong evidence filed a counterclaim is Fang zhouzi website screenshots, subsequent additional notary, and are not directly derived from Guo Guosong own microblogging content, legality does not fulfil the evidentiary elements, its counterclaim request are not substantiated.
Defendant:
Other honorary rights violations
Significant subjective intent
Cataloguing of the Fang Guo Guosong organization total when investigating reports of suspected plagiarism, although the official conduct, but has a significant subjective intent, reputation poses a significant prejudice to counterclaims. Surrounding the controversy, Guo Guosong further on his personal Twitter published defamatory, insulting a counterclaim of rhetoric to counterclaims person reputation damage, constitutes copyright infringement.
Apologies to pay 400,000
Guo Guosong delete torts Twitter and SINA Micro-Blog Home and the Xinhua Daily Telegraph published a letter of apology, and compensation for the moral damage to soothe gold 400,000 yuan.
Ark child Party think its in micro-Bo Shang on "Guo Guosong reported fake news", speech are is based on facts, because Guo Guosong in 21st century economic reported under Shang made of on Zhejiang University TCM College Dean, and China engineering homes academician outstanding pharmacologist topics group academic misconduct cases, first is by netizens in "new threads" website Shang revealed of, so Guo Guosong made of reported essentially is "news" and not "news", is "fake news". Fang also believes that users in their micro-blog comments published by accusations against Guo Guosong, has nothing to do with it.
Following the debate, the Tribunal organized both mediation. The parties agree to mediation, but Fang Guo Guosong requirements must admit infringement, it can discard financial compensation requirements; and Fang party may waive the counterclaim requested is considered, but Guo Guosong complains of infringement is not true. As the two sides more contentious, could not be successfully mediated in court, the Court would review the timing for a sentencing date.
(Original title: fang complained against defamation court case)
昨日，广州市天河区法院公开开庭审理了《法治周末》前执行总编辑郭国松原起诉方舟子名誉侵权的案件。郭国松起诉后方舟子也提起反诉。昨日，该案未能调解成功。
文/记者林霞虹 通讯员黄思铭
事件始末：
2011年3月31日，《法治周末》发表了由记者采写的《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》。
2011年4月1日方舟子在其微博上称原告在2009年2月在《21世纪经济报道》发表过假新闻，并指原告由于此前报道假新闻被其批评而怀恨在心，遂进行《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》报道。
原告起诉：
原告郭国松系《法治周末》前执行总编辑，郭国松诉称，2011年3月21日，其担任执行总编辑的《法治周末》计划报道有关被告方舟子涉嫌抄袭的新闻。其后，被告在新浪微博上对包括原告在内的多名人士进行污蔑。2011年3月31日，《法治周末》发表了由记者采写的《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》后，方舟子于2011年4月1日又在其微博上称原告在2009年2月在《21世纪经济报道》发表过假新闻，并指原告是公报私仇。上述微博引发了大批评论者对原告的指责和人身攻击。其后，方舟子又将原告加入其创办控制的“新语丝”网站中的“中国不良记者名单”。
庭审双方围绕两人的相关微博是否侵犯了对方的名誉权展开辩论
原告：
方舟子微博文章
有明显侵权恶意
诽谤性微博文章具有明显的侵权恶意，严重影响了社会公众对原告的人格评价，造成了极大的负面效果，使原告承受了巨大的精神痛苦。
要求：删微博
道歉 赔30万
方舟子删除微博中对自己的侮辱、谩骂及捏造事实的内容，并在新浪网微博首页、新语丝网站及至少在一家全国性主流媒体上刊登道歉书，要求方舟子赔偿精神损害抚慰金30万元并承担案件的公证费和诉讼费。
郭国松则认为，当年网友在“新语丝”网站上只是提供了该起事件的线索，该线索不具有法律上的知识产权意义，其作为记者根据线索开展独立调查和大量的采访后作出报道，并不违反法律和新闻职业规范，而且其也在报道中交代了线索来源。因此该篇报道不能被认为是“假新闻”。另外，郭国松认为《法治周末》发表有关方舟子涉嫌抄袭的报道是按照严格的选题程序决定的，方舟子对其“公报私仇”、“公器私用”的没有事实依据。同时，郭国松指方舟子一方提起反诉的证据均是网站截屏，其后再补充公证，而且均不是直接来源于郭国松本人的微博内容，不符合证据的合法性要件，其反诉请求不成立。
被告：
对方侵犯名誉权
有重大主观故意
郭国松在组织采编《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》报道时，虽为职务行为，但有重大主观故意，对反诉人的名誉权构成了重大损害。其后围绕该争议，郭国松进一步在其个人微博上发表诽谤、侮辱反诉人的言论，使反诉人名誉受损，已构成侵权。
道歉 赔40万
郭国松删除侵权微博，并在新浪微博首页及《新华每日电讯》刊登道歉信，并赔偿精神损害抚慰金40万元。
方舟子一方认为其在微博上关于“郭国松报道假新闻”等言论均是基于事实，因为郭国松在《21世纪经济报道》上所作的关于浙江大学中医学院院长、中国工程院院士李连达课题组学术不端案件，最早是由网友在“新语丝”网站上揭露的，因此郭国松所作的报道本质上是“旧闻”而不是“新闻”，也就是“假新闻”。方舟子还认为，网友在其微博评论中所发表的针对郭国松的指责，与其无关。
辩论结束后，法庭组织双方调解。双方均同意调解，但郭国松要求方舟子必须承认侵权事实，其可放弃经济赔偿要求；而方舟子一方则认为可放弃反诉请求，但前提是郭国松诉称的侵权事实不成立。由于双方争议较大，未能当庭调解成功，法庭将择日宣判。
（原标题：方舟子被诉名誉侵权案开庭）
赞