Introduction: On August 8th, the studio of the celebrity known as Big S (Xu Xiuan) released a lawyer's statement, announcing a lawsuit against ex-husband Wang Xiaofei and former mother-in-law Zhang Lan. The statement claimed that Zhang Lan and Wang Xiaofei had continuously insulted and defamed Ms. Xu Xiuan on online platforms since November 21, 2022. Ms. Xu Xiuan has already filed a lawsuit, and the case has been registered at the Beijing Internet Court.

The behaviors of Wang Xiaofei and Zhang Lan, whether they constitute infringement, and what legal responsibilities they might bear, await further examination by the court. As bystanders, in addition to observing the situation with reason, it's important to learn about the law.

Emotional family disputes are most prone to generating hatred from love. Under uncontrolled emotions, individuals can easily engage in irrational behaviors. When amplified by self-media platforms, actions that infringe on an individual's reputation frequently occur. These behaviors manifest in complex and varied forms, making it difficult to define them.

In the context of unrequited or current love, what extreme behaviors constitute an infringement on the right to reputation?

For instance, in a past divorce case, the woman, dissatisfied with her marriage, sought a divorce. During the divorce process, she exaggerated and fabricated facts to anyone who would listen, claiming mistreatment by her in-laws. She alleged that they did not feed her, provide money, treated her like an outsider, isolated and marginalized her.

Upon learning of this, the husband was infuriated. He believed that his ex-wife was defaming him and sought legal advice to determine if he could sue her for spreading false rumors and defamation, thereby infringing on his right to reputation.

Can the wife's exaggeration and fabrication of facts be considered defamation? Is it an insult for a wife to slap her husband in front of friends and for the husband to openly accuse the wife of being unintelligent and emotionally deficient? Is it an infringement of the husband's right to reputation for the wife to expose his infidelity and misconduct on an online platform? Is it an insult when the original spouse publicly parades the mistress and coerces her to admit to immoral behavior on her social media?

Post-breakup, if an ex resorts to online abuse, publicly discloses the other party's personal information and privacy, is this considered defamation, slander, or an infringement of the right to reputation?

...

Generally, to determine whether an action constitutes an infringement on the right to reputation, one should consider five legal characteristics:

The injured party is a specific individual, but it may not necessarily be named. If the designated subject is a specific person under specific circumstances, even without naming them, it may still constitute an infringement on their reputation. For example, in the Big S infringement incident, although the broadcaster used nicknames like "bald," "braised egg," "green tea," "big one," "small one," and "old one" to insult and defame, the audience could easily identify the targeted individual. Therefore, the use of code names or pseudonyms does not negate the infringement.

The primary means of infringement involve insults, defamation, or privacy disclosure to damage an individual's reputation. Insult refers to publicly damaging someone's character and tarnishing their reputation through language or actions. Insults can be public or private. For example, after a breakup, an ex may send abusive or humiliating messages privately or even throw feces at someone in their home. This kind of insult may not necessarily have a public impact, but it still damages the dignity of the individual and thus constitutes an infringement on their reputation. Defamation involves fabricating and spreading false facts to tarnish someone's reputation. The scope of the defamation does not necessarily have to be broad. Even insulting and defaming another citizen in the presence of a single person falls under the public infringement of their reputation. Disclosure of privacy refers to the unauthorized disclosure of someone's personal information to damage their reputation.

The truthfulness of the statements is not a prerequisite for infringement on the right to reputation. Some believe that as long as what they say is objectively true and a factual statement, it does not constitute an infringement on reputation. This is a dangerous perception because the infringement on the right to reputation does not hinge on whether the statements are true. The key lies in whether the statements are prohibited by law and whether they damage the person's character and reputation. If a statement is false but does not violate the law and does not harm someone's character and reputation, it does not constitute an infringement on their reputation. Conversely, if it violates legal provisions and includes statements that harm someone's character and reputation, even if the facts mentioned are largely true, it may still constitute an infringement on the right to reputation. For example, if a wife posts on social media about her husband's involvement with a third party and discloses their name, address, and other private information, leading to a decrease in the husband's social standing, or even if the issues mentioned are largely true but include content that insults the husband's character, causing harm to his reputation, then the wife may also be held accountable for the corresponding legal consequences.

The infringer may act with intent or negligence. In general, acts that insult and defame others, causing an infringement on their right to reputation, are intentional and not accidental. In certain exceptional cases, it may be due to inaccurate reporting or negligence, causing harm to another person's right to reputation. For instance, when the public, without understanding the true facts or being incited by someone with ill intentions, publishes, releases, or reproduces articles that harm another person's reputation on various self-media platforms without verification, this may result in an infringement on the right to reputation due to negligence, even if it does not meet the criteria for defamation in a criminal context.

The actions cause significant harm to the reputation of the individual being infringed upon. The occurrence of actions that infringe on the right to reputation makes the infringed citizen feel an unjust societal pressure or psychological burden and subjects them to mental distress. The degree of consequences resulting from actions that infringe on the right to reputation is a crucial objective criterion for distinguishing general unethical behavior, civil infringement, and criminal offenses. In judicial practice, in cases where minor verbal disputes occur between spouses or partners and mutual insults take place, but these insults are not severe enough to affect the other party's reputation significantly, they generally do not constitute an infringement on the right to reputation. However, if insulting or defaming someone in a public place causes some significant harm, it is possible to report it to the police for administrative penalties under the "Regulations on Public Security Administration" and the injured party can file a civil lawsuit to demand that the infringer be held accountable for the infringement on the right to reputation. In cases of blatant insults or fabricated facts aimed at humiliating or defaming someone through violence or other means, resulting in severe consequences, this may constitute a criminal offense involving public insult or defamation. For example, in a recent video circulating online where the original spouse publicly parades the mistress by grabbing her hair, such behavior falls under a severe category, and the original spouse could potentially be suspected of committing the crime of insult.

Conclusion: Marital and emotional disputes are a combination of human nature and interests. Resolving disputes requires not only the application of the law but also the use of wisdom. The prerequisite for rational thinking, operated by the wisdom of the mind, is clear recognition of the nature of behavior. This is the fundamental basis for maintaining rationality. Otherwise, we might resort to incorrect methods to resolve the problems encountered in marital emotions. For instance, broadcasting private matters to the public for moral judgment, allowing emotions to spiral out of control and resorting to illegal criminal activities for private justice, or escalating minor conflicts into major confrontations, eventually leading to irreparable situations. Hence, understanding what we are doing, whether others' actions are legal, and proceeding with caution are the first steps toward rational problem-solving and rational observation of the situation.