Professor Chen Shifen sued Internet celebrity "History Brother" for defamation. The High Court changed the verdict of the first instance to compensation of NT$200,000.
Chen Shifen, a professor living in the United States, was dissatisfied with the accusations made by Internet celebrity Li Yixiu that he was a "professor wandering in North America" and "without tenure". The High Court changed the verdict in the first instance and ruled that Li Nan should pay NT$200,000 in principal and interest, but rejected the part published in the newspaper.
Quick Look
- Chen Shifen, a professor living in the United States, was dissatisfied with the Internet celebrity "History Brother" Li Yixiu's public criticism of him as a "professor wandering in North America" and "without tenure" and other words that damaged his reputation, and he filed a lawsuit for compensation.
- After the first instance hearing, the High Court changed the verdict that Li Yixiu should pay compensation of 200,000 yuan in principal and interest, but rejected the newspaper part.
- The whole case can still be appealed.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Chen Shifen, a professor living in the United States, was dissatisfied with the public criticism of his academic title and status by Internet celebrity Li Yixiu. He believed that his reputation had been damaged and filed a civil lawsuit for compensation.
Professor Chen Shifen (pen name Weng Darui) who lives in the United States was dissatisfied with the Internet celebrity "History Brother" Li Yixiu's public criticism of him as a "professor wandering in North America" and questioned that Chen was a "flank", which had damaged his reputation. He requested compensation of 1.51 million yuan and published a notice of his victory. The Taipei District Court of the first instance ruled that Chen lost the case. The high court of the second instance found that Li Nan had derogated Chen's social evaluation, and the verdict was changed to 300,000 yuan in compensation and a notice must be published on the front page of the Liberty Times. Li Nan appealed, and the High Court changed the judgment in the first instance that he should be compensated 200,000 yuan in principal and interest, and rejected the request for newspaper publication (no newspaper publication required).
Chen Shifen filed a lawsuit claiming that Internet celebrity Li Yixiu publicly stated on a video program and Facebook on August 28, 2023, "An American professor travels around the world under a pseudonym, and then he can also get green media, and some big media, they have the resources Is it okay to watch an interview with a deep-seated anchor who is a national teacher?" Li also said that "Ondari is in the manufacturing industry," "there is no tenured professor," "a wandering professor in North America," "a wandering teacher," and "a flanker."
On the 31st of the same month, Li Yixiu publicly posted on the Facebook account "History Brother Clarification Blu", saying, "I said he 'doesn't have a tenure'" and other words. Chen Shifen believed that the relevant remarks were untrue and had damaged his reputation. Therefore, he sought compensation in accordance with the infringement regulations and asked Li Yixiu to publish a notice on the national front page of "Liberty Times".
The Taipei District Court of first instance ruled against Chen Shifen, but Chen Shifen appealed. The High Court of second instance changed the verdict and ruled that Li Yixiu should pay compensation of NT$300,000, and published an announcement of Chen's victory on the front page of Liberty Times. Li Yixiu appealed to the Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed and sent back.
In the first instance, the High Court held that Chen Shifen was a full-time tenured professor at the Ivey Business School and Western Washington University in the United States, and academic experience is an important indicator of a scholar's academic reputation and achievements. However, Li Yixiu used relevant remarks to accuse Chen Shifen of not being a full-time professor and not having tenure, which had damaged Chen Shifen's reputation.
The High Court further considered in the first instance that Li Yixiu mixed the above remarks when publishing political comments about media phenomena in order to undermine the credibility of Chen Shifen's remarks and consolidate his comments. After Chen Shifen clarified, Li Yixiu continued to post controversial articles. Taking into account the degree of damage to Chen Shifen's reputation, as well as the occupation, education level, property and economic status of both parties, it was determined that Li Yixiu should pay 200,000 yuan in solace.
As for Chen Shifen's request for Li Yixiu to be published in the newspaper, the High Court held in the first instance that Chen Shifen's teaching position can be found on Wikipedia, and the matter has little to do with the public interest. If Li Yixiu is ordered to publish the notice, the damage caused to his "freedom of expression without expression" guaranteed by the constitution will be greater than the benefits Chen Shifen can obtain, and it is not consistent with the principle of proportionality. Therefore, this part of the request was rejected.
The High Court finally ruled in the first instance that Li Yixiu should compensate Chen Shifen 200,000 yuan in principal and interest, and rejected the remaining appeals. Chen Shifen can still appeal the whole case, but Li Yixiu cannot appeal.
Open Questions
- Will both parties appeal to the Supreme Court again in the future?
