Lao Dong Newspaper reporters exchanged with Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc - The Light Partnership Law Firm, Hanoi Bar Association about the boundary between freedom of speech and acts of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations in cyberspace.
Lawyer, recently, from some controversial cases on social networks, there has been a situation where many accounts call for handling, even "demanding imprisonment" or "convicting" an individual when competent authorities have not yet issued a conclusion. From a legal perspective, what is the boundary between the right to freedom of expression of opinions and acts infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: To determine whether an act violates the law or not, first of all, there must be a process of verification and clarification by competent authorities.
Depending on the nature of the case, the review may be under the authority of the specialized inspection agency; if there are signs of crime, it must be investigated by the Investigation Police Agency and the competent Court to try and sentence according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Only then is there a basis to determine whether a person has violated the law or is guilty or not.
Article 25 of the 2013 Constitution stipulates that citizens have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, access to information... However, the exercise of these rights must be in accordance with the law.
Thus, the law ensures the right to freedom of expression of citizens' opinions but does not allow any individual to arbitrarily "judge", "convict" others without a conclusion from a competent authority.
Not only the poster, but many other accounts participate in commenting with insulting, accusatory words or following the crowd to attack an individual. Do such commenters bear legal responsibility for the content they post?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: When there is sufficient basis to determine that the disseminated information is fabricated and untrue in order to insult the honor and dignity of others, those who know clearly that the information is untrue but still comment with insulting, attacking or encouraging words for acts of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others may also be considered for responsibility according to the provisions of law.
The cyberspace is not an immune zone. Each individual must be responsible for the content they post, share or comment on.
In fact, there are many cases where social network users do not specifically name any individuals but use the "blatant, implied" way or give details that make public opinion understand that they are targeting a specific person. If these contents are unfounded and affect the honor and reputation of others, how will the law handle them?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: Not directly mentioning an individual's name does not mean that the publisher will not be legally responsible.
If the content of the article and related details allow public opinion to identify the target audience, and the information provided is unfounded, infringing upon the honor, dignity or legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations, the publisher may still be considered for handling according to the provisions of law.
In case the article appears with many comments specifically naming specific individuals and organizations and the poster continues to respond or comment in the direction of accusing and attacking, this is also a detail that can be considered by competent authorities when comprehensively assessing the case.
In the event that a suggestive post like this leads to thousands of offensive, derogatory or call-for-boycott comments for the targeted person, what legal responsibilities can the poster and commenters bear according to current regulations?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: If there is evidence to determine that the uploader or sharer clearly knows the content is false but still continues to spread it on the Internet, then depending on the nature and severity of the violation, they may be administratively sanctioned.
According to the provisions of Decree 174/2026/ND-CP, the penalty for the act of providing and sharing false information on the online environment can be up to 50 million VND.
In case the act has sufficient elements constituting a crime, the violator may also be considered for criminal responsibility for the crime of Slander under Article 156 of the 2015 Penal Code.
According to the lawyer, are the current regulations on handling acts of slander, insulting honor, dignity or spreading false information in cyberspace deterrent enough? Is it necessary to supplement sanctions for acts of "following" the psychology of the crowd to attack others on social networks?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: In my opinion, the act of "following" the psychology of the crowd is actually an act of intentionally spreading information for certain purposes, possibly to attract views, interactions or affect the reputation, honor, and dignity of others. In essence, these acts have been regulated by law.
However, with the very rapid development of the Internet and social networks today, detecting and handling all violations is not simple.
Therefore, it is necessary to focus on strictly handling cases of regularly posting or sharing unverified information that has not been concluded by competent authorities in order to create interaction, thereby enhancing deterrence and awareness of law compliance among social network users.
To ensure freedom of speech but not turn social networks into places to spread rumors, insults or "public opinion trials", what recommendations does the lawyer have for social network users as well as functional agencies in preventing and handling violations?
- Lawyer Nguyen Minh Ngoc: In recent years, functional agencies as well as press agencies have effectively utilized the online environment to propagate and disseminate laws, contributing to raising people's awareness.
However, along with the strong development of the Internet, the formation of a standard behavior culture in cyberspace requires time and the synchronous involvement of many subjects.
Social network users need to verify information before sharing or commenting, avoiding contributing to the spread of false information or infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of others.
In addition, functional agencies need to continue to strictly handle acts of taking advantage of social networks to slander, insult honor and dignity, spread false information; and at the same time promote legal propaganda to build a healthy, civilized and rule-of-law network environment.
