A man in Chaohu City, Anhui Province enlarged the ID photo of his ex girlfriend and posted it on the car. He drove to his ex girlfriend's hometown and repeatedly shouted insulting remarks with a loudspeaker. At the same time, he posted insulting and defamatory remarks on a dating platform. Recently, Hefei intermediate people's court in Anhui Province made a final ruling on this reputation case, upheld the first instance judgment of Chaohu people's court, and ruled that the defendant Hu posted an apology statement on the plaintiff Zhao's hometown village committee, issued an apology statement on a dating platform, and compensated Zhao for 10000 yuan of spiritual solace. In 2021, Hu and Zhao met through a dating platform, and then developed into a lover's relationship and began to live together. During the period when the two rented together, Zhao borrowed 8000 yuan from Hu and issued a debit note to Hu. After the two sides broke up due to other contradictions, Hu took people to Zhao's hometown, enlarged and posted Zhao's ID photo on the car, drove the car and repeatedly shouted insulting remarks about Zhao's reputation with a loud speaker, posted insulting news about Zhao on a dating platform, and posted Zhao's ID photo at the same time. Zhao chose to call the police. After the police intervened, Hu deleted his inappropriate remarks made on a dating platform. Zhao sued Hu to Chaohu court, requesting that Zhao be ordered to eliminate the influence, restore his reputation, make an apology, and compensate for mental losses. After hearing the case, the court of first instance held that reputation is a social evaluation of the morality, reputation, ability and credit of civil subjects. Civil subjects enjoy the right of reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon the reputation rights of others by insulting or slandering. If a citizen's right of reputation is infringed, he has the right to require the infringer to stop the infringement, eliminate the influence, restore his reputation, make an apology, and may claim compensation for the losses. Although there was a debt dispute between the plaintiff Zhao and the defendant Hu, Hu repeatedly slandered Zhao by using a loudspeaker in Zhao's hometown, and made insulting and defamatory remarks against Zhao on a dating platform, with Zhao's ID photo attached, which obviously exceeded the reasonable limit of asking for a loan, with the intention of belittling Zhao's reputation, and was bound to reduce Zhao's social evaluation. Hu's inappropriate remarks were published in Zhao's hometown and a dating platform, which are easy to spread and have a certain influence, and have had a negative impact on Zhao's reputation within a certain range. Hu's behavior has violated Zhao's reputation right. Because Hu's improper remarks have been deleted, the court of first instance ruled that the defendant Hu posted an apology statement at the village committee of the plaintiff Zhao's hometown, issued an apology statement on a dating platform, and compensated Zhao for 10000 yuan of spiritual solace according to the actual situation and scope of influence of the case. The defendant Hu refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Hefei intermediate people's court. After the trial, the court of second instance held that Hu went to Zhao's hometown and repeatedly shouted insulting remarks with a loudspeaker, which was extremely insulting. It was even more insulting to enlarge and post Zhao's ID photo on the car and post Zhao's ID photo on the speech published on a dating platform, which was enough to make people sure that the specific subject targeted by the above speech was Zhao. The above remarks were published and publicized in public space, resulting in the reduction of the public's evaluation of Zhao, and Hu's behavior violated Zhao's right of reputation. Hu's infringement of Zhao's reputation caused serious mental damage to him. The court of first instance ruled that Hu should compensate Zhao for mental damage by 10000 yuan, which has factual and legal basis. Hu claimed that taking the above behavior was Zhao's failure to repay his debts, but even if the loan relationship advocated by Hu really existed, he should safeguard his own rights and interests in a legal way, and cannot achieve his goal of safeguarding his rights by infringing on the rights of others. Zhao's failure to repay the money he claimed cannot legalize the above illegal acts, nor can it be used as a legal basis for him not to bear tort liability. The Hefei intermediate people's court rejected Hu's appeal and upheld the original judgment. (reporter zhouruiping, correspondent Wang minwen) (Xinhua News Agency)