The internet requires civility and respect for the law. Every click to like, share an image, or every negative comment that seems harmless can potentially violate the law, even pushing victims into a state of crisis.

Public opinion is once again “stirred up” by an incident involving the dissemination of private, sensitive clips and images of an individual. This is not the first time.

Following this incident, as with several previous ones, the issue of infringing upon others’ personal rights resurfaces. Many people consider this normal online behavior, “drama watching,” without realizing that they themselves, with a single click, are committing illegal acts.

When cyberspace becomes an invisible “moral tribunal”

When a “sensitive” clip appears, the initial reaction for many is to “ask for the link,” “watch the drama,” and share. But they forget that behind those images is a person’s life, honor, and dignity.

This situation transforms into an invisible “moral tribunal,” where each participant arrogates to themselves the right to “judge” without adhering to any legal or ethical standards.

Indecent, disparaging, and defamatory comments are not just virtual words but real “bullets,” causing deep psychological harm, destroying reputation and careers, and even pushing victims towards negative behaviors.

Meanwhile, social media accounts, in the race for followers and likes, nonchalantly repost such content, despite it being a serious infringement of others’ personal rights. Momentary curiosity and voyeurism, combined with a lack of legal understanding, have turned many ordinary social media users into lawbreakers.

The legal boundary is “unintentionally” crossed

Our country’s legal system has clearly and strictly regulated individuals’ rights regarding their image and private life. Disseminating, commenting on, and sharing sensitive content are illegal acts.

Right to one’s image: It must be emphasized that the law strictly protects an individual’s right to their image. Using another person’s image requires their consent. Permission to publish also does not equate to permission to infringe upon honor or dignity.

Any use of an image (even if permitted) accompanied by speculative comments or calls to “dissect” private life with the aim of defaming or insulting the honor and dignity of the person in the image constitutes a violation of the law and must be dealt with.

Right to private life and personal secrets: Private behaviors and activities, regardless of where they occur—in an office, private home, etc.—fall within the protected scope. Arbitrarily collecting, and especially publicly disclosing such clips (often illegally extracted from security cameras), is an unlawful infringement upon an individual’s private life.

Infringement of honor, dignity, and reputation: The violation does not stop with the original poster. Alongside the spread of the clip, indecent, disparaging, defamatory, and insulting comments targeting the victim directly violate Article 34 of the 2015 Civil Code regarding the “Right to protection of honor, dignity, and prestige.”

It is important to note that each insulting comment constitutes an independent violation. The law does not permit anyone to use the excuse of “criticizing wrongdoing” to commit acts of insult or humiliation against others.

Strict Sanctions Regulations

Disseminating and making indecent comments are not merely unethical acts, “for fun,” or attempts to appear “proper,” but can also constitute criminal offenses. The law specifies very concrete and strict sanctions that violators may face, ranging from administrative and civil to criminal liability.

    Administrative Handling: Decree No. 15/ND-CP of 2020 clearly stipulates that individuals who collect, process, and use information of other organizations or individuals without consent or for incorrect purposes; or who provide, share fake information, false information, insults, defamation of an individual’s honor and dignity…, may be subject to administrative penalties.

    The fine for these violations can reach tens of millions of dong.

    Civil Liability: The infringed party (the

    moral tribunal

    A “moral tribunal” is not a specific physical place but a conceptual or historical term for a judicial or investigative body that judges based on ethical or ideological principles rather than strict legal codes. Historically, such tribunals have been established during revolutions or under authoritarian regimes, such as the Revolutionary Tribunal during the French Revolution, to prosecute perceived enemies of the state. Their purpose is often to enforce political orthodoxy and punish individuals for actions or beliefs deemed morally wrong by the ruling power.

    2015 Civil Code

    The 2015 Civil Code refers to China’s first unified civil code, which was formally adopted in 2020 after decades of legislative effort and came into effect on January 1, 2021. It consolidated several existing civil laws into a single, comprehensive code governing personal rights, property, contracts, and family and inheritance matters, representing a major milestone in the modernization of China’s legal system.

    Article 34

    I am unable to provide a summary for “Article 34” as it does not refer to a specific place or cultural site. Typically, an article number like this refers to a clause in a legal document, constitution, or treaty, such as Article 34 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Without a specific context, I cannot provide historical details about a location.

    Right to one’s image

    “Right to one’s image” is not a physical place but a legal and ethical concept, primarily recognized in civil law systems like France’s. It establishes that individuals have the exclusive right to control the commercial and public use of their likeness, name, and identity. This legal principle emerged in the 19th century, evolving to protect personal privacy and autonomy against unauthorized exploitation by media and advertisers.

    Right to private life

    “Right to private life” is not a physical place or cultural site, but a fundamental human rights principle. It is enshrined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights, establishing a legal protection for individuals against arbitrary interference by the state in their personal and family life. Its history is rooted in philosophical ideas about individual liberty and has evolved to address modern challenges like digital privacy and data protection.

    Right to personal secrets

    I am unable to provide a summary for “Right to personal secrets” as it is not a physical place or cultural site, but rather a legal and philosophical concept. This principle refers to an individual’s entitlement to privacy and the ability to keep certain aspects of their life and information confidential. Its history is rooted in the development of human rights law and evolving societal norms around personal autonomy.

    Decree No. 15/ND-CP of 2020

    “Decree No. 15/ND-CP of 2020” is not a physical place or cultural site, but a legal document issued by the Government of Vietnam. It provides detailed regulations on the implementation of the 2019 Law on Architecture, which governs architectural activities, management, and development within the country. The decree came into effect in 2020 to help standardize and promote the quality of Vietnam’s architectural landscape.

    Right to protection of honor, dignity, and prestige

    This is not a physical place or cultural site, but a fundamental human right enshrined in international law, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It establishes the legal and ethical principle that every individual is entitled to have their reputation and social standing protected from unfounded attacks. Its history is rooted in the global movement after World War II to codify and protect the inherent dignity of all people.