As the entire country unites to fight the epidemic, the internet has also gathered a large amount of information about the epidemic, including various ancestral antiviral remedies and various information about the epidemic from various places. However, we have found that much of the information is untrue. Believing these untrue information will cause certain adverse consequences. Most people who forward these untrue information will argue that they are doing so out of kindness and goodwill, in order to let more people understand the information, but they have neither the responsibility nor the ability to distinguish whether it is true. So, do you need to bear legal responsibility for forwarding untrue epidemic information through online platforms such as WeChat unintentionally?

Legal responsibilities are of three types: criminal legal responsibility, administrative legal responsibility, and civil legal responsibility.

First, Let's look at criminal legal responsibility. Article 291, paragraph 3 of the current Criminal Law stipulates: "Whoever fabricates false information about dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters, or police situations, and disseminates it on the information network or other media, or knowingly disseminates the above-mentioned false information on the information network or other media, seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years, criminal detention, or public surveillance; if serious consequences are caused, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years." Here, the premise for assuming criminal responsibility for forwarding false information is limited to "knowingly", which excludes the criminal responsibility of actors who unintentionally forward untrue epidemic information. Therefore, unintentionally forwarding untrue epidemic information does not require bearing criminal responsibility.

Secondly, Let's look at administrative legal responsibility. The "Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security" stipulates that illegal acts that should be subject to penalties for administration of public security include "spreading rumors, falsely reporting dangerous situations, epidemics, or police situations, or intentionally disrupting public order by other means." Judging from the provisions of the law, the act here requires subjective intention, that is, knowing that the information is untrue and still spreading and disseminating it, should bear administrative legal responsibility. That is to say, as long as it is known or should be known, it will be subject to administrative sanctions. Should know means that a normal person's life experience and social common sense can judge the falsity of the information, and legal responsibility must be borne regardless of whether the information is original or forwarded. However, if you do not have the ability to judge the authenticity of the information, and you do not want to intentionally disrupt public order, you will not bear administrative legal responsibility for forwarding untrue information.

Finally, It is civil legal responsibility. Article 36 of my country's "Tort Liability Law" stipulates that network users and network service providers who use the network to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others shall bear tort liability. The Supreme People's Court, in its judicial interpretation of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving the Infringement of Personal Rights and Interests by Using Information Networks", made provisions on whether network users or network service providers have fault and the degree of fault in reprinting network information. First, it depends on the duty of care that the reprinting entity assumes that is commensurate with its nature and scope of influence; second, the obvious degree of infringement of the personal rights and interests of others by the reprinted information; third, whether the reprinted information has been substantially modified, and whether the title of the article has been added or modified, resulting in serious inconsistency with the content and the possibility of misleading the public. It can be seen that in the assumption of civil legal responsibility for disseminating untrue information, whether it is intentional cannot be used as a reason for exemption, but it is required that the broadcaster has fulfilled the due duty of care, that is to say, the legal responsibility for civil infringement caused by unintentionally forwarding untrue epidemic information cannot be exempted.

Therefore, unintentionally forwarding untrue epidemic information on WeChat may also incur corresponding legal responsibilities. Here, we also solemnly remind the majority of netizens that when they see information about the epidemic and want to forward it in their circle of friends, they must carefully identify it. Some information can be verified through relevant information channels. If you cannot subjectively judge whether the information is true, do not forward it, because your light press has a greater legal risk, which may cause unnecessary social harm and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others.