87
朋友圈吐槽前老板“四十岁老登”被起诉，法官这么说
According to CCTV News, the Shanghai Pudong Court mediated a right-of-reputation dispute sparked by a WeChat Moments post mocking a former boss as a 'lao deng'; the judge clarified that using an internet buzzword aimed at a specific person along with derogatory statements may constitute infringement, and Moments privacy settings do not provide a defense. 央 央视新闻
Yesterday 1114 words (about 5 min) View Source →
Sign in to highlight text and take notes as you read. Sign in now
央视新闻 2026-08-05 17:16 北京
离职员工在朋友圈吐槽前老板是“老登”，是否可能触碰法律红线？近日，上海市浦东新区人民法院（下称浦东法院）审理了一起因朋友圈吐槽前老板引发的名誉权纠纷案件。
离职后发朋友圈称老板是“老登”
员工被起诉
“00后”小刘（化名）从公司离职后，在微信朋友圈发布动态，称前老板老蔡（化名）“四十岁的老登”“一股老人味”，还称老蔡“企图乘机占她便宜”“锲而不舍展示魅力”“故意拖着工资搞心态”“逼迫离职”等，并在文末配以带有嘲讽意味的语句“祝你有个安详的晚年吧”。因认为小刘的行为侵犯自身名誉权，老蔡将其诉至浦东法院。
老蔡诉称，小刘在朋友圈的发文使用带有年龄歧视、人格贬损的侮辱词汇，虚构职场骚扰、恶意欠薪等不实信息，严重降低自身社会评价，已构成名誉权侵权，遂要求小刘删除相关内容、公开赔礼道歉，并赔偿经济损失、精神损害抚慰金、律师费共计5000余元。
小刘辩称，自己并无刻意诋毁对方的主观恶意，且朋友圈已设置“仅前同事可见”“三天可见”，传播范围有限，不构成侵权。
法官：超出合理表达的范畴
本案承办法官结合在案证据和双方的相关主张初步认为，小刘在朋友圈公开称老蔡为“四十岁老登”，搭配“老人味”等表述，带有年龄贬损的意味，超出合理表达的范畴。关于老蔡“企图占便宜”“故意拖工资”“逼迫离职”等负面陈述，小刘均未能提交证据予以佐证。小刘虽限定朋友圈可见人群、设置三天可见，但涉案言论仍在原同事这一特定社交圈层传播，极易导致老蔡社会评价降低，存在侵害其名誉权的可能。
承办法官联合特邀调解员释法明理、沟通协调，小刘意识到自己发表的内容确有不当。考虑到小刘暂无收入、经济承压，同时老蔡核心诉求为恢复名誉、消除影响，法官、调解员逐步明确了调解思路，并与双方进行了充分沟通。经调解，双方最终握手言和：小刘在朋友圈发布道歉声明。目前，小刘已全部履行完毕。
浦东法院立案庭法官 吴宜卉表示，“老登”虽是网络流行词，多被年轻人用于“吐槽”，但 一旦指向现实中的特定个人，并搭配贬低、嘲讽等语句，单纯的网络“玩梗”就可能转变为刻意人格贬损，存在侵权的风险。
另外，社交平台的权限设置无法否定侮辱、诽谤行为本身的违法属性。小刘误以为朋友圈设置分组可见、三天可见就属于私密空间。实际上，朋友圈分组仅缩小了传播人群，无法做到完全隔绝第三方浏览，只要言论被其他人员看到，就可能会对当事人名誉产生负面影响。三天可见仅缩短内容线上留存时间，此前已经扩散、留存的负面印象不会随之消除。
面对职场矛盾、人际纠纷等，应通过合法途径理性化解矛盾，切勿被负面情绪裹挟。 ▌本文来源：央视新闻微信公众号综合上海浦东法院 *
监制/王元 主编/王瑄
编辑/杨惠珺
封面图来自视觉中国 **©央视新闻**
转发提醒！
Key Quotes
> Although 'lao deng' is an internet buzzword often used by young people to 'roast' or vent, once it is directed at a specific real person and paired with demeaning, sarcastic remarks, a simple internet meme can turn into deliberate denigration of personality, creating the risk of infringement.
> Privacy settings on social platforms cannot negate the unlawful nature of insult and defamation. Restricting a Moments post to certain groups only narrows the audience; it cannot completely isolate third-party viewing. As long as the remarks are seen by others, they may negatively affect the reputation of the person concerned.
Tags
Policy Interpretation
In-depth Report
Right of Reputation
Online Infringement
Workplace Disputes
Related Articles
* Hundred-billion computing power projects frequently launched across multiple regions * What Is It That the World Cup Strikes in Us? * Frequent Antibiotic Exceedances in Bullfrogs: Are They Still Safe to Eat? Expert Answers * When a Young Talent Drops In: 300 Days of Transforming Tencent Hunyuan * Bus stations are disappearing, yet Guangdong's long-distance buses are thriving * Coded Language for Traffic Diversion, Selling Pornographic Services! CCTV Exposes Midnight Livestream Chaos * Thermal Power, 'Fighting' Has Begun * Focus Interview | Barricades Block Escape Routes, Rectification Notices Ignored: Reporter Investigates Jinjiang Shoe Factory Fire * CCTV Exposes: Popular Skincare Products Are Actually 'Three-No' Products! * July PMI Slows, Incremental Policies Introduced