According to " Ping An Beijing ", recently, Beijing police seized actor Li Moumou (male, 35 years old) in a case of illegal crime. The person confessed to the illegal facts of multiple prostitution, and he has been is administratively detained in accordance with the law.
After verification by CCTV reporters on the General Station and relevant departments, actor Li Moumou is Li Yifeng .
September 11, according to official reports, Li Yifeng was administratively detained for multiple prostitution, and he confessed to it. As the first top star in the entertainment industry, Li Yifeng has always had excellent personalities and is very attractive to fans. Although he is 35 years old, he still has a strong appeal.
At present, many brands that Li Yifeng cooperated with have announced their termination of contracts with him. I believe that the subsequent claim will be made against him. Li Yifeng has more than ten endorsements, and the amount he needs to compensate is as high as tens of millions.
Guest: Liu Ruzhong Lawyer
Taihetai (Beijing) Law Firm Senior Partner
Fang Hong: If ordinary people seek prostitution, can their personal privacy and name be made public?
Lawyer Liu Ruzhong: The main legal basis for the disclosure of illegal facts of citizens, legal persons or other organizations is Article 48, paragraph 1 of the Administrative Penalty Law. Administrative Penalty Decisions with certain social impacts should be made public in accordance with the law. Then, for ordinary people, generally does not think it has a certain social impact. Therefore, the administrative penalties suffered by ordinary people are generally not disclosed.
The so-called social impact has a certain degree of social impact. I personally think it should refer to the fact that the illegal act itself has a certain degree of social impact. But most administrative agencies currently regard the social influence of the punished person as a criterion for judgment. Therefore, I noticed that most of the illegal facts of celebrities seeking prostitution are made public one by one.
Celebrities have been actively or passively in the media for a long time, and have a stronger influence on the public than ordinary people. Therefore, celebrities should establish a relatively good image and avoid the negative impact of their misbehavior behavior. law will also restrict this privacy right of celebrities to a certain extent, requiring celebrities to have a higher tolerance than ordinary people. However, this does not mean that celebrities have no privacy or no privacy to speak of.
generally believes that some personal privacy that is obviously unrelated to public interests should be protected. I personally think prostitution still belongs to Li Moufeng’s privacy information. However, this information disclosure makes an actor who is popular among the public alike likely to be criticized by thousands of people in a flash. His personal privacy is infringed upon by difficult to recover, which obviously causes unnecessary damage to him.
Therefore, I personally believe that even if it should be made public, the relevant departments can appropriately vaguely deal with these illegal acts of prostitution when it is made public. This fuzzy treatment can only disclose the basic fact that the parties are subject to administrative detention for administrative violations. also provides certain protection for celebrities’ personal privacy to a certain extent.
Fang Hong: Li Yifeng and Li Yundi were both ruined because of prostitution. It should be said that many celebrities may be angry and dare not speak out when it comes to making their privacy public. However, we have never heard of any star who will protect his rights through legal means. Is a legally controversial issue? Is prostitution information enjoyed by celebrities that is protected by law and should not be disclosed?
Lawyer Liu Ruzhong: This controversy must exist.
For celebrities, once this information is disclosed, the consequence is actually more serious than detention. In fact, in a sense, is a more serious punishment for celebrities. In fact, we have also seen the removal of stars who solicit prostitution, such as Musicians Association, Actors Association, etc. In fact, from the perspective of the Administrative Penalty Law, if someone is restricted from pursuing a job, this itself is an administrative penalty.'s punishment for an association to fire a celebrity who is prosecuted or cannot engage in acting careers in the future is an administrative penalty that restricts his career.
This kind of punishment actually has no legal basis.
I know of illegal acts such as financial securities and securities that I have been aware of are subject to corresponding administrative penalties, and the law will sometimes restrict its employment, such as restricting its entry into the securities industry within 3 years and restricting its entry into the financial industry within 5 years. However, for other general illegal acts of , there are few regulations that restrict employment.
For prostitution violations, I personally have always regarded it as a so-called institutional violation. What is institutional violation? That is, the system stipulates that it is an illegal act, which is an illegal act. The system stipulates that it is legal, and it is legal. For example, in some states and provinces in , the Netherlands, , the United Kingdom, and Canada, they have legal places for soliciting prostitution and related systems. Therefore, I personally think that the social harm of prostitution and other illegal acts cannot be the same or cannot be completely equivalent. Then, if you disclose relevant information, especially in the Internet era, it is nothing more than asking him to parade in the streets, which will have serious adverse effects on him.
Why don’t celebrities take up legal weapons to protect their rights? This is because there may be different views in judicial practice. Even my views are my personal views. In , do the relevant judges agree with my views? It's not certain. Moreover, their approval or identification may be subject to some social moral evaluation, and they may not dare to agree, even if they agree in their hearts.
Fang Hong: For celebrities, the impact has already occurred, and even if they pass legal procedures, they cannot make up for the losses they suffer. If the celebrity protects its rights successfully, it may be beneficial to other celebrities. But these are potential or unpredictable, and even the possibility is not very high. After all, celebrities are the idols of many young people. No matter what they do, as long as they violate the law or even violate public morality, they will be condemned by the public and even kicked out of the entire entertainment industry. This is also the heavy price that their traffic aura cannot bear. In 2021, Li Yifeng participated in the shooting of the Rocket Force's " player in place ". This is the first military literary and artistic work filmed by the Rocket Force since its founding. Not only has the investment huge, but the military has also put a lot of energy into shooting. This drama. What do you think about the misconduct of an actor's behavior?
Lawyer Liu Ruzhong: If a work like is a result of the joint efforts of the entire crew, it may be removed from the shelves just because one of the stars or actors or cannot be broadcast. It is possible for investors and producers to Caused great losses. This kind of loss may not be able to afford it.
So, I don’t think we need or don’t have to imagine everyone as saints, and we won’t make mistakes. Even if we make mistakes, even if we are criminals, we will finally let them return to society. Therefore, I have always opposed this so-called "social death". A star will let him die socially if he does something illegal. This is what makes him bear a heavy burden that he cannot bear in a sense.
Finally, I also want to declare that I must be against prostitution. prostitution is definitely an illegal act and should be punished under the legal system of China. However, does this punishment in meet the penalty equivalent or does it meet the ratio principle ? We should not let them bear too much responsibility besides legal responsibilities.
Fang Hong: The British Magna Carta stipulates that people are not allowed to be severely punished for misdemeanors. This is a good understanding of the principle of proportion. The principle of proportion is the most effective principle to restrict administrative power from violating the law. So, when we talk about this case, we are not just focusing on a big star, but on each of us. Because if administrative penalties violate the principle of proportionality, they may not be able to effectively curb the abuse of administrative discretion and the arbitrary administrative power.
