WeChat is known as KFC uses 6 chicken wings court Panpei 600 thousand 许昌学院是几本

WeChat is known as KFC uses 6 chicken wings court Panpei 600 thousand fans Bo eye, ten WeChat public numbers belonging to three companies issued false content infringement using the "chicken"? KFC to micro signal awarded 600 thousand morning news reporter Li Donghua Kentucky with 6 wings and 8 legs "chicken"? "Cooked chicken has live maggots"? Some time ago in the WeChat circle of friends to spread the statement so that KFC is not disturbed, the final choice of ten WeChat public number to court. The day before, the Xuhui court of the reputation infringement case verdict, the three companies of the ten WeChat public number attached to the face not only the compensation of 600 thousand yuan, is also required in Tencent, Sina, Sohu and other news portal section of apology. "My friend’s father was a senior leader of a bank, and he was lucky enough to visit KFC’s chicken farm, and found that every chicken had 6 wings and 8 legs, and they were all filled with tubes……" In this article, using the combination of the first and third person narrative, with the rhetorical question, repetition, contrast, and with the Internet map, through "other real visits to KFC factory, objectively disclosed insider KFC factory", and the author’s own "thinking" and "evaluation" finally, with the title: "exaggerated just happened last night, now things are serious to broadcast, notify the family!! ", pointed out that the supply of KFC chicken food not only for hormone and chicken, no hair and a plurality of wings, a chicken leg. A plaintiff lawyer told reporters, "at the end of April, we found that there are more than 4000 related content WeChat public number, of which more than 130 post reading account number more than 100 thousand. The content mentioned in the article was first rated as one of the "eight outrageous events" in 2008." As a result of the network rumors plagued, KFC paper petition will be three companies suspected of disinformation WeChat account to court, and requires a total of 3 million 500 thousand yuan compensation 10. In the trial, the plaintiff cited several pieces of evidence to prove their product safety, the use of all raw materials are from domestic chicken Chinese with large scale and good reputation of the supplier of chicken, KFC chicken suppliers shall comply with the relevant national standards for food safety, may never appear "crash chicken" and "hormone chicken" etc.. Focus 1: can critical essays mitigate responsibility? The plaintiff believes that the content of the article is completely inconsistent with the facts. Moreover, the article caused a sharp decline in sales of KFC restaurants in all parts of the country, which seriously damaged consumers’ trust in KFC brand owners, caused great commercial losses to the plaintiff and infringed the plaintiff’s right of reputation. The court held that the basic facts stated in the articles involved were fictitious and the wording was seriously untrue. The critical content in the article was full of derogatory and insulting words and had completely crossed the reasonable boundaries of the critical articles. The article involved in the case is not a normal comment and criticism on food safety, and should be regarded as the act of infringing the reputation right of the comment object. Focus 2: "forwarding" whether to undertake the same tort liability? Court theory

微信号称肯德基使用6个翅膀怪鸡 法院判赔60万   为博眼球吸引粉丝,十个微信公众号所隶属三家公司发布不实内容构成侵权   使用“怪鸡”?肯德基告微信号获赔60万   晨报记者 李东华   肯德基使用6个翅膀8条腿的“怪鸡”?“烤熟的鸡肉有活蛆”?前段时间在微信朋友圈流传的说法让肯德基不胜其扰,最终选择将十个微信公众号告上法庭。日前,徐汇法院对这起名誉侵权案件作出一审判决,这十个微信公众号所隶属的三家公司不仅面临着60万元的赔偿,还需要在腾讯、新浪、搜狐等门户网站的新闻版块进行赔礼道歉。   “我朋友的父亲是某银行的一个高层领导,他有幸参观了肯德基的养鸡场,发现每只鸡有6个翅膀8条腿,身上全被插满管子……”在这篇文章当中,采用第一人称和第三人称相结合的叙事方式,伴随着设问、反复、对比的修辞手法,并配上网图,通过“他人对肯德基厂真实的探访,客观地披露肯德基厂的内幕”,以及作者自身的“思考”、“评价”,最后加上夸张的标题——《昨晚刚发生的,现在事情严重了才播出来,赶紧通知家人吧!!》,指出肯德基所供应的鸡肉食品不仅为激素鸡,而且为没有毛和多个翅膀、多个腿的怪鸡。   案件原告律师告诉记者,“截至4月底,我们发现微信公众号上有4000多条相关内容,其中超过130个账号的帖子阅读数超过10万。而文章所述内容早在2008年就被媒体评为‘八大离谱事件’之一。”   由于不堪网络谣言的困扰,肯德基一纸诉状将三家公司的10个涉嫌造谣的微信账号告上法庭,并要求共计350万元赔偿。   庭审中,原告举出多份证据证明自家产品的安全性,其所使用的全部鸡肉原料均来自中国境内具有相当规模和良好信誉的鸡肉供应商,肯德基供应商提供的鸡肉均符合国家有关食品安全标准,绝不可能出现“速成鸡”、“激素鸡”等情况。   焦点1:“批评性文章”能否减轻责任?   原告认为,涉案文章内容与事实完全不符。而且涉案文章造成肯德基餐厅在各地的销售的急剧下滑,严重损害了消费者对肯德基品牌所有者的信赖,给原告造成了重大的商业损失,侵犯了原告的名誉权。   法院认为,涉案的文章中陈述的基本事实属于虚构,措辞严重失实,文中的批评性内容充斥了贬义、侮辱性的词语,已完全跨越评论性文章的合理界限。涉案文章已不属于对食品安全问题的正常评论及批评,应认定为侵害评论对象名誉权的行为。   焦点2:“转发”是否承担同等侵权责任?   庭审中,三被告提出,涉案文章为“转发”而非原创,关于文章内容是否真实,对肯德基是怪鸡的传言真假自身无法辨析,并不存在恶意侵权的故意; 当得知文章内容虚假后,也及时进行了删除,并没有造成严重影响。对此,原告认为,被告未对相关内容进行核实,也并未亲眼见到图片所展示的内容,未尽注意义务,虚构了事实,并使用了侮辱性的词语,已构成名誉权侵权。   法院认为,三被告对文章中明显存在诽谤、侮辱性的言辞视而不见,并多次转发的行为存在明显过错。此外,所转发的文章中也未披露其为转发,被告在选择、发布、转发时存在希望涉案文章能够被社会公众广泛传阅、认同的故意,并造成了数十万人阅读的严重后果,已经构成侵权。   最终,法院判决三被告在主流门户网站新闻版块首页显著位置赔礼道歉,并酌情确定赔偿原告经济损失及合理维权费用60万元。 进入【新浪财经股吧】讨论相关的主题文章:

« »

Comments closed.