Is it "safe roast" to post without naming names and only use "so and so" or initials? Is setting up a "lottery" activity to guide others to share comments a reasonable interaction or a "rhythm"? Recently, the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing tried a reputation dispute case and found that a certain online user who caused a large-scale spread of speech through the "borderline" method of "suggestive posting+unlimited circle lottery" constituted infringement. The court upheld the judgment made by the first instance court that the online user apologized to Mr. A and compensated for reasonable expenses. Actor Jia is a public figure with a certain level of social recognition, and his verified Weibo account has a high number of followers. A certain online user A is a fan of another actor B with certain social popularity, and is a "black fan" of actor A. A has repeatedly posted comments related to A through his personal Weibo account. In related Weibo posts, A used expressions such as "Jia X, a notorious artist" and "notorious", and posted image information containing content such as "defrauding ordinary people of money" and "inciting ordinary people to take medicine". At the same time, A posted a Weibo account titled "Unlimited Circle Lottery" around a specific topic targeting A, stating that "if you forward over 5000, you can continue to increase your chances (+in the comment section)" "The conditions for drawing J: as long as you provide any evidence, whether it is customer service phone number or email, to help B's fans defend their rights, you can participate in the lottery" "The prize pool is over 100000! The number of people is over a hundred! Everyone has a chance! Specific prizes can be found in comments, etc., with forwarding, comments, etc. as participation conditions, and the scope of participation is not limited. Any user can participate. After the relevant content was published, it quickly gained a large number of shares, comments, and likes, forming a significant expansion effect. Jia believed that the relevant remarks seriously damaged his reputation, so he filed a lawsuit. A argued that the remarks involved in the case did not clearly point to A, and the topic belonged to normal discussion and evaluation, did not exceed reasonable scope, and belonged to reasonable public opinion supervision. After trial, the first instance court held that when determining the direction of a speech, the key is not whether the name is fully named, but should be comprehensively evaluated based on the content of the speech, the background of the release, related topics, and the general public's cognitive habits. Even though A did not directly use the full name of A when making statements related to the case, but instead referred to it as "A X" or other titles, the combination of topic tags, role information, and other content is enough to make others realize that the statements related to the case have a direct or high correspondence with A. The statements involved in the case repeatedly use expressions such as "notorious artist" and "notorious", which clearly have a tendency to belittle the personality of others and exceed the necessary limits of rational evaluation. At the same time, A failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove the relevant facts and did not prove that he had fulfilled the necessary verification obligations regarding the content he posted, such as "defrauding ordinary people of money" and "inciting ordinary people to take medicine". Once this type of information is disseminated, it is enough to significantly reduce the social evaluation of Mr. A. A's behavior constitutes a violation of A's reputation rights. In addition, A organized the dissemination of relevant speech by setting up an "unlimited circle lottery", using the lottery as an incentive condition, requiring participants to share, comment, and attach specific topics. The subjective malice was obvious, objectively expanding the scope of dissemination of the involved speech, leading to the expansion of infringement results, which is an aggravating circumstance of infringement. The first instance court, taking into account factors such as the scope of infringement, degree of fault, mode of behavior, and consequences, ruled that A should apologize to A and compensate for reasonable expenses. After the first instance verdict, A was dissatisfied and appealed. The Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. The remarks involved in the case are typical of infringers insinuating the behavior of others through "insinuation". If the object characteristic elements in the speech are sufficient to make the information audience aware of the high correspondence between the speech and a specific object, resulting in a decrease in the social evaluation of the specific object, and meeting other elements of infringement liability, it still constitutes infringement of reputation rights. In the online environment, 'not naming' does not necessarily mean 'not pointing'. The determination of whether the target of speech such as "insinuation" has specificity can be determined from the following four aspects: firstly, it depends on whether the speech is a generalized expression aimed at unspecified objects, or a specific direction formed by specific events and character backgrounds. If the behavior is clearly targeted towards an unspecified object, it does not have directionality; The second is to check whether the speech contains identifiable characteristic elements, such as professional identity, participation in works, related events, etc. Once these elements form a corresponding relationship with specific objects in reality, they have a directional basis; The third is to see if this correspondence has reached a level sufficient for recognition. It is not required to be unique or exclusive, as long as the audience within a certain range can judge the target based on this; Fourthly, if the relevant public can naturally associate the speech with a specific subject based on their usual understanding after receiving the information, it indicates that the speech has a practical direction. At the same time, this case responds to the legal characterization and risk boundaries of the new dissemination method of "unrestricted lottery". From the perspective of expression, "unlimited circle lottery" usually uses setting prizes as incentives, sharing, commenting, and attaching specific topics as participation conditions, without any restrictions on the participating group. Its essence is a profit driven dissemination method. Unlike traditional information dissemination methods, this approach lowers the participation threshold and introduces various reward mechanisms, allowing non-specific users to objectively expand information dissemination while participating in the lottery. By leveraging the re dissemination of participants, information can be spread across multiple ranges and nodes in a short period of time, with a much wider and faster dissemination range than other methods. Individual citizens enjoy freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not without boundaries and should be exercised within the scope of legality, reasonableness, and respect for the personal rights and interests of others. Public figures have a higher degree of tolerance towards public comments due to their high level of social attention, but this tolerance obligation does not extend indefinitely, nor does it mean that they can be arbitrarily belittled, insulted, or defamed. Although online users have the right to express their opinions independently, for entities that do not have the authority to investigate and handle cases in accordance with the law, they are not allowed to mobilize the public to disseminate unverified negative information under the pretext of collecting so-called "clues" and "evidence", and make evaluations of specific entities based on this. What the law protects is a comment space based on facts, for the public interest, and maintaining moderate rationality, rather than personal attacks driven by emotional venting and malicious dissemination. In cyberspace, both expression and dissemination mechanisms are included in the scope of legal evaluation, and the perpetrator is not only responsible for what is said, but also for how it is disseminated. The cyberspace is not an lawless place, and any citizen exercising freedom of speech has a legal obligation not to infringe upon the personality rights of others. Crossing the boundary will inevitably result in civil liability for infringement. (Looking into the New Era)