What legal responsibilities should Ningbo bear when it exposes "small three" and spreads chat records?- Zhiheng Law Firm

When a spouse cheats, many people’s first reaction is to “expose the scandal,” ruining the other person’s reputation and leaving their partner with no way back. This mood is understandable, but it must be reminded: being morally "justified" does not mean being legally free to expose. The extramarital affair itself violates the faithful duty of husband and wife and goes against public order and good customs, but this does not mean that the innocent party can use any means to expose, humiliate and spread the privacy of the other party. Once you cross the border, you, who were originally on the side of the truth, are likely to become the defendant in turn, bearing the consequences of stopping the infringement, apologizing, compensating for mental damage and even being detained by public security. This paper combines the civil code personality rights, tort liability and the latest revision of the public security management punishment law, combing the exposure in Ningbo "small three", the spread of chat records in the end to bear what responsibility, as well as the no-fault party really secure rights path.

Four Legal Red Lines of 1. Exposure Behavior

Red line one: Right to reputation. Article 1024 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil subjects have the right to reputation, and no organization or individual may infringe on the reputation of others by insulting, defaming, etc. Reputation is a social evaluation of a person's character, reputation, talent, credit, etc. To judge whether infringement, the key depends on two points: one is whether the content constitutes insult or slander, and the other is whether it is spread to a third party, resulting in a decrease in the social evaluation of the other party. Publicly denouncing and verbally abusing a “third party” in WeChat Moments or neighborhood group chats may still constitute defamation, even if the statements are factually true, as long as they contain insulting language and are widely disseminated.

Red Line Two: Privacy. Article 1032 of the Civil Code clearly states that natural persons enjoy the right to privacy, and no organization or individual may infringe upon the right to privacy of others by spying, intruding, disclosing or disclosing it; privacy includes the peace of private life and private spaces, private activities and private information that are not known to others. The relationship between men and women outside marriage, intimate photos and chat content are typical private information and private activities. Article 1033 further lists six types of prohibited acts, including "photographing, spying on, eavesdropping on, and disclosing the private activities of others", "handling other people's private information" and "entering, photographing, and spying on other people's homes, hotel rooms and other private spaces". Revealing chat logs and hotel check-in records falls squarely under this provision.

Red line three: Personal information protection. Articles 1034 to 1039 of the Civil Code establish rules for the protection of personal information. Name, date of birth, ID number, address, telephone number, whereabouts and other information that can identify a specific natural person are protected by law. The handling of personal information shall follow the principles of lawfulness, propriety and necessity, and shall not be excessively handled. Sending the name, unit, address, and photos of "Little San" to the Internet is an illegal disclosure of other people's personal information. It is not only a privacy infringement, but also an independent personal information infringement. In judicial practice, there are such cases: the original person published the name, address, and photos of a third party on Sina Weibo and abused them. As a result, the court found that the right of reputation was infringed and ordered that no more infringing remarks should be made.

Red Line Four: Security Punishment and Criminal Responsibility.Public disclosure is not merely a civil matter. According to the newly revised "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" that came into effect on January 1, 2026, peeping, secretly photographing, eavesdropping, or disseminating the privacy of others may be detained and fined (this act was Article 42, Item 6 in the original law, The new law is adjusted to Article 50, Paragraph 1, Item 6). If the circumstances are serious and openly derogate others by insulting or defamation, it may also violate the crime of insult and defamation in Article 246 of the Criminal Law, and the maximum penalty is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights. It is particularly important to note that the crimes of insult and defamation generally fall under the category of private prosecution cases, meaning that the victim must file a lawsuit in court; public security organs and the procuratorial organs typically do not intervene on their own, except in cases that seriously endanger social order or national interests.

2. common exposure behavior is qualitative one by one

The circle of friends and owners abused "Xiao San".This is the most common type. Many people think it doesn't matter to vent a few words in a small circle of acquaintances, but WeChat circle of friends and owners are not private spaces. Once the content is forwarded and spread, it is in line with "being known to a third person". Combining verbal abuse with sarcasm and employing derogatory language constitutes insult; fabricating false allegations such as that the other party “prostitutes herself” or “defrauds people” constitutes defamation. In a certain case, the original flower shop in front of a third party publicly cursed him for seducing his husband and destroying his family, attracting crowds of onlookers. The court found that this practice of promoting privacy reduced the other party's social evaluation and constituted an infringement of the right of reputation. Only because the third party itself had a major fault, it was only awarded an apology and did not support compensation for mental damages. It is evident that “the other party was at fault” may mitigate liability, but it does not alter the characterization of the tort.

Public bed photos, intimate videos. This is the highest risk category. Nude photos and sex videos belong to the core of private information and private activities. Article 1033 of the Civil Code explicitly prohibits shooting, peeping, and disclosing other people's private activities, and prohibits handling other people's private information. In some cases, the photos were taken voluntarily during the love affair. After the woman explicitly requested to delete them, the man still kept them and forwarded them. The court still found that the privacy was violated and ordered to stop the infringement, delete them and apologize. Furthermore, if obscene photos and videos are spread, they may also commit crimes related to the spread of obscene materials, and the consequences far exceed civil compensation.

Posting big-character posters and hanging banners. Posting big-character posters and pulling banners at the gate of the community and in front of the unit, which reads "so-and-so seduces a married woman", is essentially openly insulting and derogating the personality of others in public places. This kind of behavior is highly insulting and widely spread, which not only constitutes a reputation infringement, but also easily triggers public security punishment; if it causes onlookers, blockages, and affects public order, the public security can directly intervene. Many original spouses believe that “putting up banners is just a way to vent,” but in reality, this is precisely the approach most likely to slip from “asserting one’s rights” into “illegal behavior.”

Disseminate to other units and colleagues. In order to "let the other party lose their jobs", some people send the materials to the unit where the "small three" is located, or spread them among work groups and colleagues. This practice seems to be a "precise attack", but in fact it also infringes on the right to reputation and privacy. The employer is not a law enforcement agency and has no right or obligation to act as a "moral tribunal". If malicious dissemination results in the other party’s dismissal or demotion, the perpetrator may also be held liable for more severe damages, including indirect losses such as the other party’s lost wages.

Open chat records and room opening records. Chat records, transfer records and hotel check-in information are forwarded by many people everywhere as "hard evidence. But from the perspective of personality rights, these contents involve each other's privacy and personal information. Article 1033 of the Civil Code prohibits "disclosure of the private activities of others" and "processing of private information of others". Even if the content is true, disclosure without consent constitutes infringement, because the core of privacy is "not willing to be known to others", not the authenticity of the content. The room opening record may also lead to the disclosure of personal information of the hotel and platform, and the responsibility will be derived separately.

Tracking, candid camera forensics. To obtain evidence through prolonged surveillance, stakeouts, and surreptitious filming also carries significant risks. Photographing a person’s ordinary activities in a public place generally does not constitute an invasion of privacy; however, following someone to the door of their residence or hotel room and photographing the interior, or installing hidden cameras, directly falls within the prohibitions set forth in Articles 1033(2) and 1033(3) of the Civil Code. The newly revised "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" also clearly stipulates peeping, secretly photographing and eavesdropping as illegal acts. Evidence obtained by such means may also be excluded by the court because it is "obtained by means of infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of others or in violation of the prohibitive provisions of the law.

3. the boundary between legal evidence collection and illegal evidence collection

The legality of evidence collection directly determines two matters: first, whether the evidence will be admitted by the court; and second, whether the person who collected the evidence will be held liable. The judgment standard can be summarized into three questions-whether it has invaded the private space of others, whether it has violated the reasonable expectation of others for privacy, and whether it has violated the prohibitive provisions of the law.

In the usual legal way:

The cameras and recording devices installed in their own homes and cars record the behaviors of spouses and third parties;
Intimate images of two people walking together and behaving in public places (streets, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), because the behavior in public places is not private;
one spouse voluntarily admits the words, recording, guarantee and repentance of cheating;
Obtain and make publicly available information and transaction records through legal channels.

Generally illegal practices:

illegally break into other people's houses, break into the "small three" home to shoot, smash;
Entering hotel rooms, or installing surveillance and eavesdropping devices in other people’s vehicles or residences;
Steal, crack and invade others' mobile phone, WeChat and email accounts to obtain chat records;
Hire so-called "private detectives" to track and secretly take photos, or buy other people's room opening records and whereabouts information;
Extract confessions, photographs or written materials by violence or coercion.

It should be noted that legality is one of the threshold requirements for the admissibility of evidence. Evidence obtained by infringing upon the rights and interests of others or violating the prohibitive provisions of the law shall not be used as the basis for determining the facts of a case. In other words, the "hard evidence" obtained by breaking into the house, installing monitoring and invading the account may not help you win the lawsuit, but also let you face the lawsuit yourself. The safe way is to only fix and preserve the facts you have legally come into contact with, and apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection when necessary, instead of crossing the border yourself.

Possible liability of the 4.

Once it is identified as infringement, the multi-level superimposed consequences are often waiting for the exposed person.

civil liability: stop the infringement, delete the content, eliminate the influence, restore the reputation and make an apology. According to Article 1000 of the Civil Code, the manner of assuming these responsibilities should be commensurate with the nature and scope of influence of the infringement; if it refuses to perform, the court may publish an announcement or publish the judgment document in the press, the Internet and other media, and the expenses incurred shall be borne by the perpetrator.
liability for compensation: those who cause losses shall be compensated. If the infringement of the personal rights and interests of a natural person causes serious mental damage, according to Article 1183, the infringed person has the right to request compensation for mental damage. Although the other party's own serious fault can reduce the responsibility of the exposed person, but it does not mean that the total exemption.
Public Security Administrative Penalty: Those who engage in peeping, surreptitious photography, eavesdropping, or the dissemination of others’ private information may, pursuant to the “Law on Public Security Administrative Penalties” (Article 50 under the new law, formerly Article 42), be subject to detention or a fine; more serious cases shall incur heavier penalties.
criminal responsibility: serious insulting and defamation acts may constitute the crime of insulting and defamation stipulated in article 246 of the criminal law, and the victim shall file a private prosecution with the court, and the maximum sentence shall be three years' imprisonment; those who spread obscene materials shall be involved in other crimes.

There is another point worth noting: Article 995 of the Civil Code stipulates that the statute of limitations is not applicable to the claims such as stopping the infringement, eliminating the influence, restoring the reputation and making an apology. In other words, even if things have been going on for many years, as long as the infringing content is still circulating on the Internet, the other party can ask you to delete and apologize at any time. You can't make the responsibility disappear by "dragging time.

Risk of 5. rational and irrational

This is the most common and regrettable ending in extramarital affairs disputes. The innocent party is the victim of marriage. According to Article 1091 of the Civil Code, in the case of bigamy, cohabitation with others, domestic violence, abuse and abandonment, and "other serious faults", the divorce can claim damages. However, once the means of exposure, abuse, candid camera and spreading privacy are adopted in the process of safeguarding rights, they may be caught by the other party, and in turn, they will be sued for infringement of reputation rights and privacy rights.

The script in reality is often like this: you sue for divorce, advocate the other party's derailment and ask for compensation for mental damage; the other party takes out the screenshots you posted on the Internet, the abusive records in the owners' group, and the candid camera equipment you installed, and in turn sues you for infringement of your right of reputation and privacy and claims for mental damage. When the two cases are superimposed, the party that was originally "justified" is instead under the obligation of compensation. To make matters worse, illegally obtained evidence of infidelity may be excluded, causing you to lose the infringement lawsuit and fail to prove the other party's fault in the divorce case, resulting in "two ends empty". The so-called "having a valid argument rendered invalid" precisely describes this kind of situation.

6. The correct path for the non-fault party to protect their rights

Rather than risking infringement by “exposing” something, it’s better to focus your efforts on a few legal and effective approaches.

First, legally secure evidence of the infidelity. Keep the repentance letter, guarantee letter and chat record of admitting infidelity written or sent by the spouse himself, and keep the images taken in public places; Pay attention to preserving the original carrier, avoid editing and splicing, and notarize the evidence or apply to the court for retrieval when necessary.

Second, claim damages for divorce. According to Article 1091 of the Civil Code, if the other party has committed a serious fault such as bigamy or cohabitation with another person, the non-faulting party is entitled, upon divorce, to claim damages, including both material and emotional damages. Using evidence on this is far more meaningful than posting it online.

Third, recover the marital joint property that was gifted to a third party.If a spouse unilaterally gifts marital joint property to a third party—such as by purchasing a house or car for the third party, or making a large‑amount transfer—it constitutes an unauthorized disposition of the joint property that is not necessitated by daily living expenses. According to articles 1062 and 1060 of the Civil Code, the other party may claim that the gift is null and void and request a third party to return it. This approach is lawful and direct, and it often proves more effective than “exposure” in actually recovering losses.

Fourth, resolve the issue through litigation rather than online. Divorce, damages and property return can all be claimed through litigation. Internet exposure brings only a short-term emotional catharsis, and legal procedures bring real results.

How to deal with 7. the defendant

If you have been sued by the other party because of the exposure behavior, you don't need to panic. You can organize the defense from the following directions, but you should pay attention to the respective boundaries.

the limit of the defense of authenticity: if the content is true, it can weaken the determination of "defamation", but it can not resist the charges of "insult" and "privacy. Real privacy information is disclosed, is still an infringement.
The boundary of legitimate rights protection purposes: Article 1025 of the Civil Code protects the behavior of carrying out news reports and public opinion supervision for public interests, but clearly excludes three situations: fabricating and distorting facts, failing to fulfill the obligation of reasonable verification of serious untruths, and using insulting words to derogate others' reputation. The extramarital affair is mainly a private dispute, it is difficult to be identified as "public interest", so the application space of this defense is limited.
The fault of the other party can reduce the liability: Article 1173 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the infringed party is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer can be reduced. A third party who knowingly interferes in a marriage while the other party is already married commits a serious fault and may invoke this as a defense to mitigate liability.
Timely stop loss: deleting the infringing content at the first time, withdrawing the forwarding, and complaining to the platform to get off the shelf can often significantly reduce the amount of compensation, which can also reflect the attitude of admitting mistakes.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: If my spouse is cheating, will I be the defendant if I scold a few words of "small three" in my circle of friends?Very likely. WeChat Moments is not a private space; if it contains insulting remarks that are seen by others, it may constitute defamation. An impulsive emotional outburst isn’t worth taking this risk.

Question 2: If you send chat records that contain true content, does that still constitute an infringement?Calculate. Privacy protects the right to remain unknown to others, regardless of the truth or falsity of the content. The unauthorized disclosure of genuine private information also constitutes an infringement.

Question 3: Can you pull a banner at the door of "Xiao San" to take it out?No way. This kind of blatant insult, derogatory practice, civil apology, may also be punished by public security, is a typical "rights to illegal".

Question 4: Can the photos I took of my spouse’s infidelity be used in a divorce case?It depends on the source. Legal shooting in one's own home and public places is usually available. Those obtained by illegally invading houses and installing candid camera equipment may be excluded due to illegal evidence collection, and you may even be held responsible for yourself.

Question 5: What is the most severe consequence of exposing someone’s private information? In the civil field, the infringement shall be stopped and the mental damage shall be compensated; in the administrative field, they may be detained and fined; if the circumstances are serious enough to constitute the crime of insulting or defamation, they may be sentenced to punishment.

Question 6: Infidelity is immoral, so why does the law still protect the “third party”?The law protects fundamental personal rights such as the right to reputation and the right to privacy, rather than endorsing immoral conduct. Moral judgment cannot substitute for legal determination, and the protection of rights must be carried out within the framework of the law.

9. Practical Insights from a Lawyer

When faced with infidelity, what’s most abundant is emotion—what’s lacking is self‑control. Exposure, abuse, and send the other party's name, unit, and photos to the circle of friends and community groups. It seems to relieve anger, but it is easy to step on the three lines of reputation, privacy, and personal information at once-even if what is said is true, As long as the insulting words are widely spread, it may also constitute infringement, and if the circumstances are serious, it may face public security penalties and even criminal risks. More realistically, once you publicly distribute the private content of the other party, it is tantamount to actively handing the handle to the other party, and the initiative of divorce negotiation changes hands instantly.

Preserve the evidence that needs to be preserved, but stay within legal boundaries. The chat records in one's mobile phone, the items in the common residence and the contact in public can usually be fixed. The materials obtained by breaking into other people's houses or hotel rooms without authorization, or secretly installing eavesdropping or secretly photographing equipment, not only have the probative force in doubt, but also may make you responsible. Keep what you get as it is first, don't rush to forward it, don't take it to the group to "seek justice" first, once it spreads, it will be difficult to collect it, but from the plaintiff to the defendant, the loss outweights the gain.

A more reliable approach to protecting one’s rights is to utilize it within the context of litigation. It is much more effective to focus on proving the other party's fault, striving for more property and damages, and letting the evidence speak in an approved procedure than to vent in the field of public opinion, and it is easier to realize the actual benefits. If you have been sued by the other party on the grounds of infringement, you don't have to panic. First, fix the two points of legal source of evidence and limited scope of dissemination, and then evaluate whether to settle or respond to the lawsuit, so as to avoid emotional response and make the situation worse.

Extramarital affairs harm families, but “exposing” them often fails to resolve the issue and instead creates new wounds. The core conclusion can be summarized in one sentence: is morally justified, which does not mean that it can be exposed at will in law; once the red line of reputation right, privacy right, personal information protection, public security and criminal law is crossed, the defenders themselves will become infringers.

The advice to the no-fault party is to calmly fix legal evidence, take the two right paths of divorce damage compensation and recovery of donated property, and regard legal procedures as weapons instead of the Internet as the execution ground. It is really impossible to restrain emotions, and please keep the bottom line-no abuse, no dissemination of privacy, no candid filming, no disclosure of personal information of others. Only by holding firm to this line can one uphold one’s own principles.