Huang v. Mei
Case Law- Country
- Country Location
Latitude: 33.86791231798495
Longitude: 104.42719150016907
- Country Location (linked Case Law)
- China
- Decision Date
- Dec 22, 2015
- Case Status
- Closed
- Case Outcome (Procedural)
- Affirmed Lower Court
- Case Outcome (Disposition)
- Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal
- Keywords
- Defamation
- Publications
- Judicial Body
- Appellate Court
- Case Number
- No. 05325 (2014) [First Instance. Appellate not avail.]
- Case Summary
The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality upheld a lower court ruling that a blog post, which heavily criticized a magazine for publishing an article questioning the historic actions of five Chinese soldiers, was not defamatory. The author and editor of the impugned article, “Inconsistencies in the Details of ‘Five Heroes of Wolf's Teeth Mountain'" which was published by Yanhuang Chunqiu", a liberal Chinese-language magazine, brought defamation proceeding against Mei Xinyu after he posted a blog defending the heroic images of the five famous Chinese revolutionaries and castigating the magazine. The Court stated that citizens have, by law, a right to protection of reputation and personality and that any damage to those rights must be assessed by considering the context of the impugned speech, its backdrop, the resulting damage and the causation between the action and damage. In this case the Court reasoned that Mei’s post had to be seen in the light of the esteem with which the public held the heroic figures and that it reflected public sentiment and the core values of socialism. The Court further stated that although Mei's post contained some inappropriate words against the magazine, they did not target the author or editor directly and that the general public would make their own judgement on who was right or wrong. Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that part of the analysis was derived from secondary sources since the appellate judgment is not available.
- Case Significance
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
- Source URL
- Columbia Global Freedom of Expression