The Jurisprudence Of The "first Case Of The Right To Be Forgotten" In China Was Judicially Vetoed

In recent years,China's economy has developed rapidly.Citizens' ideas,especially that the concept of rights have undergone tremendous changes.The demand for citizens' rights is increasingly diversified.The emergence of new claims such as "the right to sacrifice" and "the right to mourn" make us feel that this is a "time generation of rights",but it is concerned about "the generalization of rights",which makes us have to rethink the inclusiveness and development of existing legal rights systems.In the “first case of right to be forgotten” of China,the plaintiff Ren Mou proposed the “right to be forgotten” claim that made most people feel fresh,and the courts of two levels made a dismissal after considering various factors in a comprehensive manner.In fact,the “right to be forgotten” is not an unprecedented concept.The European Court of Justice confirmed this right in 2014 in the “Google Spain” case.The refutation of citizen's “right to be forgotten” claim in China is not only due to the lack of current legal basis for this right claim,but also measured by other aspects,such as China's legal tradition,information industry policy,and current rights system.This article takes the case as a starting point.After introducing the background and causes of the right claims,it compares them with the first case of the“right to be forgotten” of the European Union,and further analyzes the specific reasons for the different types of judgments in the cases and the judgment results of the two cases.Finally,Then the plaintiff's "right to be forgotten" claim is judged by the judiciary's vetoed jurisprudence in three aspects: the statutory requirements on the basis of the referee,the justification of the right claims,and the realization conditions.The main body of this article is about the jurisprudential interpretation of this case,which is denied by the judiciary.It is specifically divided into the following four parts:The first part briefly introduces the basic case of China's “first case of right to be forgotten” and then through the interpretation of the judgment of the court of the second instance,it refines the grounds for the verdict of the right to be forgotten to be rejected by the judiciary;Finally,the judges behind the judgment in this case are introduced.The second part first introduces the domestic and foreign backgrounds of the“right to be forgotten” claim from the continuous emergence of domestic emerging rights claims and foreign “forgotten rights” legal regulation and implementation.Thenit affirms the value of the“right to be forgotten”,proposing that the claim of "the right to be forgotten" is the specific background of the existence of the security risk in the protection of personal information under the big data age.In fact,some citizens in China do have "forgotten" real rights demand,and furtherly,concluding the reasons for the "right to be forgotten" appeal.The third part responds to questions raised by some scholars suggesting that the first case of “the right to be forgotten” in China and the first case of the “right to be forgotten” of the European Union are not comparable.It is clear that this article compares the two cases to the conclusion that "the same case should be judged",but to take the first case of "the right to be forgotten" as a counterexample,and to analyze why the claim has not been obtained.The deep reasons for judicial support are followed.Then,the key comparison points in two cases are abstracted,and the two cases are compared in detail.The fourth part is an attempt to sum up the jurisprudence basis for the judicial veto of the “first case of the right to be forgotten” on the basis of the existing rights theory and the judging basis,ideas and results of specific emerging appeals appearing in the judicial practice.