The order and tranquility of cyberspace require the strong protection of the rule of law. In recent years, with the rapid development of Internet technology and the comprehensive popularization of digital life, cyberspace has become an important platform for hundreds of millions of people to share their lives and obtain information, promoting social development. However, with the rapid development of the Internet, cyber violence also breeds and spreads, becoming a prominent problem that endangers the network ecology and infringes on the rights and interests of the masses. Personal online identity can be virtual, but legal responsibility cannot be absent. In the face of the shadow of violence that breeds in cyberspace, the people's courts have always adhered to a strict punishment stance, attached great importance to the governance of online violence, and legally sentenced the perpetrators of online violence to bear corresponding legal responsibilities. On March 3rd, the Supreme People's Court released typical cases of punishing online violent crimes in accordance with the law, including online insults, defamation, infringement of citizens' personal information, as well as common and frequent types of online violent crimes such as extortion and commercial defamation using the internet. It clearly stated that "cyberspace is not an lawless place", educated and guided netizens to consciously abide by the law, and led the trend of social civilization. Online "unboxing": Personal information is protected, and cyberbullying and infringement will be held accountable. Online "unboxing", simply put, is an upgraded version of human flesh search, which refers to the act of obtaining others' personal privacy information through various illegal means and publishing it for the purpose of threatening the person being "unboxed" or inciting others to engage in cyberbullying against that person. It is not only one of the typical representative behaviors of online violence in recent years, but also a deadly catalyst that promotes the extension of online violence from virtual space to real life. In the third case released this time, Zhu, a teacher at a middle school in Jiangsu Province, encountered a cyberbullying of "unboxing" - the victim Zhu was a teacher at a middle school in Jiangsu Province, and the defendant Wu was a relative of Zhu. Wu repeatedly mentioned this matter to the defendant Chen after having a conflict with Zhu. Chen suggested that he could smear Zhu by obtaining his personal information and posting negative posts online. Wu then provided Chen with the ID information of Zhu's wife in order to inquire about Zhu's personal information. In May 2020, Chen purchased 1442 pieces of information including accommodation records, civil aviation and railway ticket purchase records of Zhu and Chen's ex girlfriend Yang from the defendant Chen at a price of RMB 13150 (the same currency below). After conducting "unboxing" to obtain private information, the defendants Wu and Chen wrote defamatory posts and published them online. The total number of readers, reposts, and replies to the posts exceeded 2 million, causing serious adverse effects on the work, life, and school of the victim Zhu. The court believes that the defendants Wu and Chen violated relevant national regulations by illegally obtaining citizens' personal information and using it to commit crimes, which can be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 5, Item 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Citizens' Personal Information "(Interpretation [2017] No. 10), constituting the crime of infringing on citizens' personal information. As a highly harmful behavior in online violence, "unboxing" on the internet illegally exposes others' privacy and publishes citizens' personal information, making the victim a direct target of massive negative comments, and thus suffering from online violence such as insults, insults, rumors, and even causing offline harassment and harm, causing serious damage to citizens' personal rights and interests. The people's courts, based on their judicial responsibilities, effectively implement the Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security on Punishing Cyberbullying and Illegal Crimes in accordance with the Law. For those who defame others' personal information through online "unboxing" and the circumstances are serious, they shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the law. Paid deletion of posts: the reputation of the enterprise cannot be disgraced, and extortion must be severely punished. Those who use WeChat official account and other self media platforms on the network to publish and reprint negative information that can affect the normal operation of the enterprise, and extort by means of fake cooperation or paid deletion of posts, will also be severely punished by law. The lawful verdict of the extortion case involving Huang and Lv demonstrates the clear stance of the people's court in maintaining market order, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises, and severely cracking down on online "black public relations", effectively maintaining a fair and orderly market environment and a clear and healthy online ecology. The reputation of a company is sometimes directly related to its production, operation, and stable development. In order to seek illegal interests, the defendants Huang and Han (handled separately) and others used the enterprise's mentality of appeasing others by publishing and reprinting negative information that could affect the normal operation of the enterprise through WeChat official account and other We Media platforms, such as "spreading and preventing fraud". Later, Huang took the initiative to contact the victim company to ask for money, or when the victim company contacted him to delete the post, he refused to delete it by not paying the specified amount of fees and threatened to further hype up negative information, demanding "cooperation fees" and "public relations fees". The defendant Mr. Lv, knowing that Mr. Huang had committed the above acts, still provided his bank card, WeChat account and Alipay account to help Mr. Huang collect a total of 120000 yuan. The court held that the defendant Huang Moumou, in order to seek illegal interests, conspired with others to use WeChat official account and other We Media platforms to publish or reprint negative information of the enterprise, and then extorted property for many times. The amount was especially huge, and his behavior has constituted the crime of extortion. The defendant Lv knowingly provided Huang with a payment account to collect stolen funds, despite knowing that Huang had committed the crime of extortion. The amount of criminal proceeds collected was huge, and his behavior also constituted the crime of extortion. In recent years, some illegal individuals have taken advantage of the widespread, fast, long-lasting, and difficult to eliminate nature of information networks, causing victims to suffer reputational damage and disruption to their daily lives. As a result, they are forced to deliver property in exchange for the cessation of the infringement and the elimination of its impact. Identifying such behavior as extortion and blackmail in accordance with the law will help to accurately combat the criminal act of "using cyberbullying to extort money" and effectively safeguard citizens' personality and property rights. Internet "black mouth": Online speech has boundaries, and spreading rumors and slanders must be taken responsibility. With short videos, live broadcasts, and other platforms becoming important channels for information dissemination, offensive speech around issues such as business operations and product quality often appears in the form of "evaluation", "exposure", "lightning protection", and is intertwined with insulting expressions directed at corporate leaders and employees. Once such information is recommended through platform algorithms and spreads, it not only damages the business reputation of the enterprise, but also has a serious negative impact on the reputation of relevant personnel. Case five is a typical case of sentencing online "haters" to maliciously defame and smear the reputation of enterprises and entrepreneurs, and to bear legal responsibility in accordance with the law. Starting from March 30, 2025, Chai borrowed a platform account registered under Wen's real name, "Chai Zhan", to post short videos or conduct live broadcasts on social media, publicly claiming that a well-known enterprise's profits in jade sales were "tens or hundreds of times" and "fake cannot last for a few months", and accusing its legal representative Yu of "colluding with black and evil forces" and "tax evasion". While posting relevant content under the guise of "cracking down on counterfeits", Chai also directed traffic to a company in Wenzhou and a company in Wuhan that he actually controlled or benefited from, for promoting sales. In April 2025, a well-known enterprise and its legal representative Yu sued Chai, Wen, and the two aforementioned companies in court for commercial defamation and infringement of reputation rights. In the lawsuit, a well-known enterprise's appointed litigation agent obtained relevant data of 30 videos involved in the case from a certain platform operating company with a lawyer's investigation order. The cumulative views reached 7213977, the likes reached 18645, and the comments reached 23789, forming public opinion and hot searches on the internet. And the market supervision department found that the Hotan Jade sold by the well-known enterprise involved in the case did not have the relevant information mentioned by Chai. For the commercial defamation behavior involved in the case, the court held that the defendant Chai used the "Chai Zhan" online platform account to conduct live broadcasts or publish comments about the poor quality and high price of jade from a well-known enterprise, with the aim of guiding potential consumers to turn to Chai or its affiliated enterprise products, compete for the same customers, and have obvious conflicts of interest with the plaintiff's well-known enterprise, which meets the requirements of commercial defamation competition relationship and constitutes unfair competition behavior against the plaintiff. For the infringement of reputation rights involved in the case, the court held that the defendant Chai, knowing that his actions may damage the reputation of others, still used vulgar and insulting words in the video. Without factual basis, he posted false negative remarks against the plaintiff Yu, which insulted and defamed the plaintiff. Their behavior objectively leads to negative public perception of the plaintiff's character and reputation, resulting in a decrease in their social evaluation. The fact that the damage has objectively existed constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's reputation rights. The convenience of the internet not only improves the efficiency of information dissemination, but also reduces the threshold for criminals to carry out commercial defamation, providing them with opportunities to take advantage of. The use of malicious rumors, attracting traffic, and profiting from it by online "black mouthed" individuals has exceeded the scope of legitimate commercial evaluation and is considered an illegal act that should be regulated in accordance with the law. The People's Court has fully demonstrated its firm determination to fight against online bullying and protect the clean air of the internet by issuing typical cases, clarifying rules through cases and delineating boundaries through cases. The people's court will adhere to strict and fair judiciary, effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and strive to create a clear and peaceful online home for the people and society. (New Society)