How is liability determined when fans defame and insult others during celebrity worship?

Today, the Supreme People’s Court released the second topic in the “Fifth Anniversary of the Civil Code’s Implementation” series of classic cases, titled “Upholding Justice for the People to Better Protect Their Aspirations for a Better Life.” This includes cases and discussions addressing hot topics such as the management of “fandom” culture, further bringing the Civil Code closer to the people and into their hearts.

Defaming and insulting others in celebrity worship should incur corresponding infringement liability—Wei v. He et al. in an online infringement case

1. Case Overview

Wei is a fan of celebrity A, while He and two others are fans of celebrity B. All four are users of a certain Weibo platform. He and the others previously posted negative content about celebrity A on Weibo, which Wei successfully reported. After being reported, He and the others became extremely dissatisfied and began repeatedly posting content such as “suspected criminal activity by Wei” on Weibo, along with publicly sharing Wei’s personal photos and Weibo profile link on their main pages and in comment sections. The posts garnered hundreds to tens of thousands of views, with numerous shares, likes, and comments. Wei argued that He and the others had infringed upon his reputation rights and sued them, demanding a public apology and compensation for emotional distress.

2. Court Ruling

The legally binding judgment determined that although He and the others did not explicitly name Wei in their Weibo posts, they included screenshots of platform notifications where Wei had filed complaints, as well as disclosed Wei’s Weibo profile link and personal photos. Since Wei’s Weibo account was verified under his real name, other users could easily identify that the posts targeted him. The defamatory content posted by He and the others led to a decline in public perception of Wei, constituting an infringement of his reputation rights. Therefore, they were held liable for infringement. Considering factors such as the reach of the posts and the degree of fault, the court ordered He and the others to each post a public apology on their Weibo accounts for one week, along with paying compensation for emotional distress.

3. Significance of the Case

Within fan communities, behaviors such as mutual insults, defamation, vote manipulation, and false accusations not only violate others’ legal rights but also pollute the online environment, drawing strong public criticism. In this case, the court applied relevant provisions of the Civil Code on personality rights, affirming that fans defaming and insulting others in their pursuit of celebrities constitutes an infringement of personality rights. This ruling provides clear judicial guidance on issues such as identifying online users and determining infringing actions, encouraging rational online discourse, promoting lawful governance of “fandom” chaos, and fostering a healthy online environment.

4. Civil Code Provisions

Article 1024 Civil subjects enjoy the right to reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon another’s reputation rights through insults or defamation.

Reputation refers to the social evaluation of a civil subject’s moral character, social standing, talent, and credibility.

Article 1183 If the infringement of a natural person’s rights causes severe emotional distress, the victim has the right to claim compensation for emotional damages.

Intentional or grossly negligent infringement involving matters of personal significance to a natural person, resulting in severe emotional distress, entitles the victim to claim compensation for emotional damages.

Supreme People’s Court

The **Supreme People’s Court (SPC)** is the highest judicial organ in China, responsible for interpreting laws, supervising lower courts, and adjudicating major cases. Established in 1949 after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, it operates under the leadership of the Communist Party and the National People’s Congress. The SPC plays a key role in China’s legal system, though its rulings often reflect government policies.

Civil Code

The **Civil Code** refers to a systematic collection of laws governing private legal matters such as contracts, property, family, and inheritance. One of the most influential civil codes is the **Napoleonic Code (1804)**, established under Napoleon Bonaparte, which modernized French law and inspired legal systems worldwide. Many countries have since developed their own civil codes, shaping legal frameworks based on principles of equality, individual rights, and legal clarity.

Weibo

Weibo is a popular Chinese microblogging platform, often compared to Twitter, launched in 2009 by Sina Corporation. It became a major social media hub in China, enabling users to share short messages, multimedia, and engage in discussions, though it operates under government censorship. Over time, Weibo has evolved into a key platform for news, entertainment, and public discourse in China.

Wei v. He et al.

“Wei v. He et al.” is not a specific place or cultural site but rather a legal case, likely referring to a dispute between parties with the surnames Wei and He. Without additional context, it is difficult to summarize its history or significance. If you are referring to a particular landmark, event, or cultural reference, please provide more details for an accurate summary.

Article 1024

There is no widely recognized place or cultural site known as “Article 1024.” It may refer to a legal statute, a fictional reference, or an obscure local designation. Without additional context, it is not possible to provide a meaningful summary of its history or significance. If you have more details, please share them for a more accurate response.

Article 1183

“Article 1183” does not refer to a specific place or cultural site but is likely a reference to a legal or regulatory article, such as from a civil code or international treaty. For example, in the context of French law, Article 1183 of the Civil Code pertains to conditional obligations in contracts. If you meant a different “Article 1183,” please provide additional context for a more accurate summary.