9Circle of friends made comments into the defendant’s Court only issued a special friend does not inf|Circle of friends made comments into the defendant’s Court only issued a special friend does not inf

Circle of friends comment into the defendant Court: only a particular friend not tort – Sohu News Court: issued only to specific micro letter friends, does not infringe the right of reputation Express News (reporter Zhang Yujie) Mr. Zhang (Surname) to share a link to a news about a property company in the micro channel circle of friends, and to express their views, that the property company accounting fraud, charges and collusion with the Mafia. Property company believes that his statement is not true, resulting in bad influence, in order to infringe the right of reputation, the court. Court of first instance, the court of second instance verdict property companies, but also found that Mr. Zhang’s approach is subjective fault. Early last year, the case of first instance, Mr. Zhang did not appear in court. The court held that infringing the right of reputation should also meet the following requirements: 1. Subjective existence of spreading false information deliberately; 2. Objective implemented to not specific to the third people spread behavior; 3. The results cause the victim lower social evaluation. Zhang’s comments have no factual basis, is not real information, so he really does exist in the subjective fault. But the comments are given to a particular WeChat friends to see, not to be not specific to the third people. Property companies have no evidence to prove that this review led to a reduction in the company’s social evaluation. Therefore, the court of first instance dismissed the claims of the property company. Property company refused to accept the appeal. Nanjing intermediate people’s court. Property companies believe that WeChat is a non closed social group, Mr. Zhang’s WeChat friends can see his dynamic. His inappropriate comments were seen by others, and the spread of the spread, which can be considered, he did implement the third people to spread improper comments. Mr Cheung in without any evidence, spreading property companies do false false facts, resulting in residential property owners in succession. Comments also spread to the outside of the community, the impact of the property management of the orderly, many owners do not pay property charges. Nanjing intermediate people’s court heard that Mr. Zhang’s comments have no factual basis, the existence of subjective fault. But the comments did not spread to the third people in public places, only for a particular person, not the overall social evaluation of the property company to reduce. Not long ago, the Nanjing intermediate people’s Court of second instance upheld.