Wang Luodan searches for her duck: Don't let public pressure distort the path of justice.
[2] Compiled from: The Paper, Zhijing Net
Case review
On the morning of July 3, actress Wang Luodan posted on Weibo that her colleague's pet duck "Jiji" was taken by someone in her hometown of Xixian County, Henan Province. If she could find the person who took the duck, she would express her gratitude with ten vacuum-sealed Beijing roast ducks of the same size, and out of "eagerness to find the duck," she publicly posted an unmasked image of the person who took it. Subsequently, Wang Luodan deleted the Weibo post and posted another one: "The person has been found. But Jiji is no longer in this world. Not coveting, not harming, not eating other people's pets is the respect one should have for this society!"
Such a "lost duck notice" sparked heated discussions among netizens and even topped the Weibo trending list for a time. Some netizens accused the duck catcher of theft. Others argued that Wang Luodan, as a celebrity with tens of millions of followers, should not have publicized someone's portrait just to find a pet duck, calling the move inappropriate. Still others lamented that celebrities are simply different—when a star loses a pet duck, the police immediately open an investigation.
[5] It can be seen that this incident not only sparked condemnation of the duck-taker but also highlighted the role of celebrity influence and online public opinion. So, what responsibility should the duck-taker bear for their actions? And was Wang Luodan's approach correct?
Relevant Laws
[6] Does the duck-taker constitute theft?
Article 264 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China
Whoever steals public or private property in a relatively large amount, or commits multiple thefts, burglary, theft with a weapon, or pickpocketing, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also, or shall only, be fined.
It can be confirmed that the duck catcher's act of taking ducks he knew did not belong to him clearly constitutes theft. However, it is worth noting that under the aforementioned provisions, only theft involving a “relatively large amount” can be criminalized. So how do we determine whether it is a “relatively large amount”? It is usually based on the judgment of an ordinary person. Although the owner of the duck and her friend Wang Luodan knew that the duck was worth tens of thousands of yuan, because an ordinary person would not consider the duck's value to be relatively large, the duck catcher may not constitute the crime of theft.
Did Wang Luodan infringe on the duck catcher's right to portrait?
Article 100 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China
Citizens enjoy the right to portrait. Without their consent, their portraits shall not be used for profit-making purposes.
It is worth noting that the aforementioned legal provision mentions "for profit-making purposes," whereas Wang Luodan posted the photo of the duck catcher online not for profit, but solely to find the duck. Therefore, Wang Luodan's act of posting the photo does not meet the elements of portrait rights infringement, nor did it infringe upon the duck catcher's portrait rights.
[1] The author's perspective
In my opinion, even from a criminal perspective, the duck catcher may not constitute theft, but from a civil perspective, the duck catcher's tortious act still exists. The duck catcher's behavior clearly infringes upon the civil rights and interests of the duck's owner, so the duck catcher should bear the responsibility of compensating for losses, with the compensation amount referring to the actual value of the duck. At the same time, if the death of the pet duck indeed causes significant mental damage to the duck's owner, the owner can claim compensation for mental damages from the duck catcher.
Looking back at this incident, it becomes clear that the majority of netizens' anger was focused on the woman who "casually took the duck." Regardless of whether this woman knew the duck was a pet, and regardless of the duck's value, taking someone else's property without permission and damaging another person's private property is absolutely prohibited by law. This woman deserved to be punished by law and severely condemned morally.
Today, the rapid development of media has made it a force in social governance that cannot be ignored. When their legitimate rights and interests are unjustly infringed upon, many people begin to try to use Weibo and other self-media platforms to seek justice for themselves. However, as a force in social governance, the media's stability is difficult to control, or one might say it is “flammable and explosive.” It can indeed sometimes help resolve problems quickly, but at the same time it can also unknowingly spread outward, creating unexpected contradictions and conflicts. After excessive fermentation, “justice” can sometimes turn into unbridled “malice.” Normal criticism and reproach are reasonable, but they must also be kept within certain limits. One must not overcorrect, must not casually escalate to doxxing, or even inadvertently create the reverse negative effect of cyberbullying. Therefore, when people use online means to speak out and defend their rights, they also need to pay attention to properly grasping the boundaries between law and morality.
