The Study On "Different Judgments On Similar Cases" In The Media Reputation Infringement Cases

The phenomenon of similar judgments on similar cases is not only a certain demand of the rule of law and the equality of the judiciary,but also the demand of the certainty of the law itself,as well as the demand of the expectation of the citizens' consequences for their own behavior.However in judicial practice,the phenomenon of“different judgments on similar cases" in the reputation infringement cases is not rare.For the correction and the regulation of the media content and effective form of the media self-discipline mechanism,the judiciary referee that rationally applies the legal provisions has an important guiding role in particular.The phenomenon of“different judgments on similar cases”brings confusion,uncertainty and even the“insecurity”to the media,which exacerbates the urgency and severity of media infringement cases.This paper uses the case of judicial adjudication as the basis of analysis.First,with the help of case analysis method,the 560 typical media reputation infringement cases that occurred in China from 2007 to 2017 were identified from four levels of“the plaintiff identity”,"reports involving the case","defense incident" and“constitutional requirements" as similar cases.Similar judgments were identified from the final result of the court.This paper found 17 groups of "different judgments on similar cases".Taking different defense incidents as the classification criteria,it was found that the phenomenon of“different judgments on similar cases" mainly focused on the judgment standard of "basic truth",the application of the concept of "public figures",the duty to review and the issue of reprinting.Taking different constitutive elements as the classification criteria,it was found that the phenomenon of“different judgments on similar cases"concentrated in three aspects:“the identification of illegal facts","whether the damage results based on subjective feelings" and "the allocation of the burden of proofs.Second,using the approach of comparative study,the 17 groups of“different judgments on similar cases" summed up in this paper are compared with 17 groups of“different judgments on similar cases" summed up in the media infringement cases from 1985 to 2009 by existing scholar research.On the one hand,the standard of“insulting content" is still vague and unified in judicial practice.The allocation of the burden of proof is still confused.There are still differences in the responsibility of the media reprinted.On the other hand,many problems have changed.Under the influence of academic research,the concept of“public figures" has gradually changed from“whether public figures can be used as a media defense" to the issue of the court's grasp of the scale that public figures should tolerate.Whether the sources of information besides authoritative sources constitute a reasonable and credible source of information,there is a larger difference of opinion in judgments.With the development of new media technology,there have been many new features of online media reputation infringement cases.In addition,this paper think that the reasons of“different judgments on similar cases" in media reputation infringement cases have some aspects as follows:from a macro perspective,on the one hand,it' s because of historical changes which brings changes in the people' s concept of the rule of law.On the other hand,it ' s the result of political factors which intervenes judicial activities.From a average level perspective,on the one hand,it' s because of the inherent defects of statutory law,including the incompleteness of the legal system and the ambiguity of the expressions or provisions of relevant legal provisions.On the other hand,it' s the result of the complexity and particularity in media reputation infringement cases.From a micro level,on the one hand,it is because of the judge's discretion.On the other hand,it is due to the individual factors of the judge.In recent years,the new changes in the“different judgments on similar cases”are closely related to the promotion of academic research and changes in the media environment and public opinion environment.