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
[3] On the morning of July 3, actress Wang Luodan posted on Weibo that her colleague's pet duck "Jiji" had been taken by someone in her hometown in Xi County, Henan. If the person who took the duck could be found, she would offer ten fresh-keeping packages of Beijing roast duck of the same size as a reward. Out of "eagerness to find the duck," she published the person's image without blurring. Later, Wang Luodan deleted that Weibo and posted another: "The person has been found. But Jiji is no longer in this world. Not coveting, not harming, not eating others' pets is the respect people should have for this society!"
[4] This "duck search notice" sparked heated discussion among netizens and even briefly topped Weibo's trending list. Some netizens accused the duck-taker of theft. Others believed that Wang Luodan, as a celebrity with millions of followers, should not have publicly shared someone else's portrait just to find a pet duck, calling this approach inappropriate. Some also lamented that celebrities are different—when a celebrity loses a pet duck, the police immediately launch 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 person who caught the ducks, knowing they did not belong to him, clearly committed theft. However, it is noteworthy that under the above provision, only theft involving a "relatively large amount" can constitute a crime. So how is "relatively large amount" determined? It is usually based on the judgment of an ordinary person. Although the duck owner and her friend Wang Luodan knew the ducks were worth tens of thousands of yuan, since an ordinary person would not consider the ducks to be of significant value, the duck catcher may not be guilty of theft.
Did Wang Luodan infringe on the duck catcher's right to portrait?
Article 100 of the General Principles of the 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 purposes," but Wang Luodan posted the photo of the duck catcher online not for profit, but only to find the duck. Therefore, Wang Luodan's act of posting the photo does not meet the requirements for infringement of portrait rights, nor does 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 is clear that most netizens' anger is focused on the woman who "took the duck casually." Regardless of whether this woman knew the duck was a pet, and regardless of the duck's intrinsic value, taking someone else's property without permission and damaging another's private property is absolutely not allowed by law. This woman should face legal punishment and severe moral condemnation.
Nowadays, the rapid development of media has made it a social governance force that cannot be ignored. When their own rights are unjustly infringed upon, many people begin to try using self-media like Weibo to seek justice for themselves. However, as a force of social governance, the stability of media is difficult to control, or it can be said to be "flammable and explosive." It can indeed sometimes help quickly resolve problems, but it can also inadvertently spread outward, creating unexpected conflicts and contradictions. Over-fermented "justice" can sometimes turn into unbridled "malice." Normal criticism and blame are reasonable, but they must be kept within certain limits, not overcorrected, not escalated to doxxing, or even inadvertently forming the negative reverse effect of cyberbullying. Therefore, when people use online means to voice their rights, they also need to pay attention to properly balancing the boundaries of law and morality.
