Li Bingbing reported, Reyizha apologizes—where should celebrities' right to reputation go?

[3] Compiled from: Shenzhen Evening News, The Paper
 
[4] Incident One: Li Bingbing’s Video Reported and Removed, Reason Allegedly Revealing Attire
On December 14, Li Bingbing announced her official debut on Douyin and posted her first video titled "So, Do You Get What 'Sister Li' Means?" The video quickly drew widespread attention from netizens, but it was subsequently reported by users.

 
 

The netizen who reported Li Bingbing is a pediatrician who believed that Li Bingbing was dressed inappropriately and too revealingly in the video. He stated: “I am a pediatrician and have frequent contact with children. I am concerned that a public figure dressing too revealingly could have a negative impact on teenagers and provide misguided influence.” Douyin also approved this report and imposed corresponding penalties on Li Bingbing.
 
On December 20, Li Bingbing's studio issued a statement on Weibo. The statement pointed out that all videos were pre-reviewed by the platform before release to confirm no violating information before publishing, and the videos rumored to have been successfully reported can still be played normally, proving that the videos comply with platform regulations.
 
The studio also stated that evidence of alleged infringement has been collected, and legal action will be taken against malicious reporters who insult or defame Li Bingbing.
 
 
Incident 2: Reyizha lost her reputation rights lawsuit and publicly apologized to netizens.
In 2019, a netizen posted on Weibo, accusing Re Yizha of having an "exhibitionism fetish" and "using depression for publicity," among other claims. Re Yizha reposted the Weibo post with the caption: "Let's see who else dares to come and scold me directly? I'll expose them myself!"

 

This led to a reputation rights lawsuit between the two parties. The court's first-instance ruling held that Reyizha, as a public figure, made inflammatory remarks that incited fans and netizens to engage in online harassment. Reyizha appealed. Recently, the second-instance ruling upheld the original decision, stating that both parties were at fault and must apologize to each other.
 
On the evening of December 20, 2021, Reyi posted an apology on Weibo, stating: “On October 14, 2019, that account used provocative language to comment on my depression. Because I was in the midst of a depressive episode at the time and had stopped taking antidepressants due to my pregnancy, I lost emotional control, reposted Hardcore Pea’s Weibo post, and made some inappropriate remarks. I once again apologize to the blogger Hardcore Pea for my impulsive behavior at that time. Everyone is equal before the law, and I have also come to realize that when problems arise, one should not act impulsively but should leave the matter to the law for judgment. As a public figure, I understand that while doing my job well, I must be even more cautious with my words and actions.”
 
 
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 1024: [Right to Reputation]
Civil subjects enjoy the right to reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon others’ right to reputation by means of insult, defamation, or the like.
Reputation refers to the social evaluation of a civil subject’s moral character, prestige, talent, credit, and the like.
 
Article 1025: [Limitations on the Right to Reputation]
Where a person engages in news reporting, public opinion supervision, or similar activities for the public interest, thereby affecting another person's reputation, they shall not bear civil liability, except in any of the following circumstances:
(1) Fabricating or distorting facts;
(2) Failing to fulfill the duty of reasonable verification regarding seriously inaccurate content provided by others;
(3) Using insulting language or other means to degrade another person's reputation.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
Both of the above cases involve the reputational rights of celebrities. Because celebrities are more well-known than ordinary people, they are subject to greater public scrutiny, and statements that harm a celebrity's image can easily lead to reputation-related lawsuits. In the Li Bingbing case mentioned above, netizens reported her video on the grounds that her outfit was too “revealing.” However, when compared with Douyin’s relevant rules in this regard, Li Bingbing’s appearance in the video was actually not revealing. Of course, the reporting conduct itself did not violate the law; it is simply that the reporter gloated after the report was successful and posted about it for all to see. Therefore, if the final determination is that the video was compliant, the reporter very likely caused damage to Li Bingbing’s reputation and would bear corresponding legal liability.
 
Looking back at the Re Yizha incident, it is true that some netizens initially made inappropriate remarks, such as accusing her of an “exhibitionism fetish” and “using depression for publicity.” However, given her fierce personality, Re Yizha chose to confront these comments openly online, which fueled conflicts between her fans and other netizens. As a public figure, her influence naturally cannot be equated with that of an ordinary person, so the court ruled that both Re Yizha and the netizen involved should apologize to each other. This shows that due to the nature of celebrity as a profession, the privacy rights, reputation rights, and influence of stars are inherently different from those of ordinary citizens. When handling cases involving such special groups, extra caution is required—not only to protect the rights of celebrities but also to prevent those rights from being arbitrarily expanded. In addition, online platforms, as intermediaries, must also stay vigilant, strictly control published content, rigorously oversee platform operations, and not act as hands-off managers who turn a blind eye.