On the infringement of the right of defamation of students in Jinan game College

The vocational training should be the school and the student's mutual benefit, why in the end is one side feels cheated, the side feels injured?　　So, in the end, who is the right to the occupation training? This reporter Zhang Feng in the old state, Hu and other People v. Game School (Jinan Huizhong Educational Training School) false propaganda infringement of their legitimate rights and interests in the case of Jinan Licheng District People's court in full swing, May 5, Jinan Huizhong Educational Training School v. Chen State, Hu reputation Right dispute case one trial have fruit, The case of the first instance of the court Jinan Lixia District People's courts rejected the public puzzle "asked the two defendants to apologize, for its restoration of reputation, to eliminate adverse effects, the two defendants to compensate for economic loss of 107980 yuan" of the lawsuit requirements, and the award of the public puzzle burden of the case of 400 yuan. A few days ago, the plaintiff appealed against the verdict to the Jinan Intermediate Court.　　These two cases of mutual defendants have aroused widespread concern. In Jinan Huizhong Educational Training School v. Hu reputation Right dispute case, meeting the public puzzle lawsuit, the defendant Chen State, Hu Department of the school staff, two people without approval of the school on October 24, 2008 privately take part of the student information, and in the students, employees QQ Group issued "Abolition of employment, student employment is not guaranteed" , and then on October 25, 2008 in the campus noisy, students are forbidden to enter the classroom, the parents of students to spread the school is a liar rumors, so that the school day students were forced to cancel the test, students can not attend classes, seriously interfering with the normal teaching order, for this school to pay a high level of remedial, examination and other related costs. Since then, the two defendants to the roadside hanging white banners, strong blocking office doors, spread rumors to students and other ways to discredit the school, resulting in a large number of students parents and students in the field to the school questioning, causing a bad impact on schools, for this reason, the school to the plaintiff infringement of its right to reputation for the Jinan Lixia District People's Court,　　Request a decree of the court: 1. Two the defendant apologized to the plaintiff for the restoration of his honour and the elimination of the adverse effects; 2. Two the defendant's compensation for the economic loss caused to the plaintiff by his unlawful acts was 107980 yuan. In this respect, as the accused of the rule of law, Hu jointly argued that they are all the plaintiffs to the public puzzle students. 2006, the public puzzle in the "Daily life" and other media published enrollment ads, commitment to the school to study students to sign employment agreement, starting salary of more than 3500 yuan. After the school consulted, the plaintiff made the same reply. So, they either give up their original career plan, or give up the original in the property management company's work, the various fund-raising, has made up nearly 20,000 yuan of tuition fees, after studying hard, through the school to open all the courses, but they found that graduation comes, is their own unemployment day, vocational training does not bring any career prospects, The purpose of their training was completely dashed. After many negotiations with the school, unable to implement the commitment to the employment of schools to arrange the absence of any professional background they stay in the school to guide the employment of others, to receive a mere 1000 yuan salary. In the end, they spendA lot of training is just making them a cheap labour for the plaintiffs. Even so, only a year or so, they were abandoned by the school, was pushed to the plight of the jobless. To this end, they have repeatedly with the school negotiations, were rebuffed, angry with other part of the injured students by playing banners and other ways to express their indignation to the school.　　They argue that the dispute was caused solely by school fraud. Jinan Lixia District People's Court after trial investigation, quality certificate, combined with the case, the analysis confirmed the following facts: The defendant Chen State, Hu through the media advertising to learn about the plaintiff related enrollment information, in 2006 enrolled in the plaintiff study animation professional, the two sides signed employment recommendation Agreement, agreed to the remuneration after employment and other related content, The latter two defendants left school and then left. October 25, 2008, the two defendants to the plaintiff did not fulfill the employment agreement signed at the time of the relevant remuneration, in the new campus of the plaintiff's high-tech zone national animation industry base to play banners, above wrote "Wronged!"　　The complaint letter, the school did not fulfill the Employment settlement agreement ┅┅ "and so on, on the same day, the defendant parents went to the plaintiff classroom noisy, after the plaintiff unit teacher urged to leave. The Court considered that the infringement of the right to reputation refers to the use of the law prohibited insult, slander and other means to damage the reputation of legal persons, so that the human dignity or social evaluation of the negative impact, and the perpetrator subjective intentional or gross negligence of the act.　　Based on the above facts, the Court held that it was difficult to identify two defendants who had violated the plaintiff's reputation, such as insult and slander, and the plaintiff's claim that the two defendants infringed their right of reputation was not tenable, and the plaintiff's lawsuit request was not supported.　　It is worth mentioning that: the Lixia District People's Court in the case of the civil verdict, wrote a case after the language, the reporter thought it necessary to extract down here, hoping to enlighten everyone. "The plaintiff and the defendant should learn from this case because the plaintiff's lack of evidence does not confirm that the defendant constituted an infringement." The plaintiff should pay attention to fulfill the promise in the future enrollment work, pay attention to seeking truth from facts in the enrollment propaganda, not only consider the immediate benefit, but also should consider the long-term interest. The defendant's way of dealing with the problem is too extreme, should use rational, civilized, reasonable and lawful way to solve the problem, using the excessive way such as banners, not only does not help solve the problem, but will intensify the contradictions between the two sides. We hope that the two parties will consider the transposition, more than a point of love and tolerance, guarding a quiet heart, with a broad mind to dissolve the sadness and estrangement, and to remember "and" and Houdesaifort, to be honest, to do things, tolerance is gold, conscience is the basis of the body, the true value of the world million gold. ”