Promote the work for the people

Two, the report reflects the situation and the problem of fabricating the fact that openly vilify other people's personality, or the use of insulting slander against the reputation of others. Analysis of the specific content of the report from the case: 1, the report said the plaintiff is not a professor did not qualify for medical practice. From the point of view of the identification of the fact that the plaintiff was awarded the Shanghai Municipal Center for reproductive medicine training “ visiting professor ” the title, but “ &rdquo visiting professor; and in the strict sense professor “ ” are two different concepts. On the plaintiff qualifications, the plaintiff had in September 1992 has been issued by the District Health Bureau of medical qualification, however, as the competent department of health of the district level is issuing rights, which itself is controversial in health management among departments. Therefore, the defendant in the "report" of the two questions have their relative rationality and objectivity, not deliberately fabricating facts. 2. The last paragraph of the report reflects the nature of Chen Kai's behavior in the community caused by the adverse effects of the insult, slander. From the subjective point of view, the defendant as the Shanghai City, specializing in education of the academic community, in order to make the city leaders and relevant departments to understand the situation, the protection of public interests and social interests of teenagers have written this "report", and not to fudge the truth against the reputation of others. From an objective point of view, although the use of the text of the accused is extreme, but not enough to insult and slander. The combination of the two points above the case of the "report" does not infringe the plaintiff's reputation.