武漢大學圖書館性騷擾案落幕：男生獲判無罪，女生仍揚言「不放過他」

三年前震驚輿論的「武漢大學圖書館性騷擾事件」，終於在近日迎來法院判決。涉事男生被判無罪，法院給出的理由為「證據不足、動機不明確」，但當事女生楊景媛則公開表示「仍不會放過對方」，堅持繼續追責，使整起事件再次成為輿論焦點。

事件起於2023年，當時就讀於武漢大學經濟學院的女生楊景媛在圖書館自習期間，發現對座男生多次用手觸碰自己的腹股溝部位，遂認定對方正在進行猥褻行為「打飛機」。她當場與其爭執並拍下數段影片，事後將影片與文字描述公開於社交媒體，引發極大關注與討論。男生迅速被網暴，其身份遭起底，學業與心理健康皆遭受重創。根據後續調查，男生長期患有濕疹與皮膚過敏症狀，其母親隨後提供醫療記錄與藥品發票佐證，表明當時行為只是「因癢抓癢」，並非女生所指的猥褻。男生本人亦聲稱當時並無不當意圖，卻因社會輿論壓力與學校行政介入，不僅失去原本保送研究生的資格，還一度因精神狀況惡化住院，診斷為應激綜合症（PTSD）。

法院在判決中指出，事件地點為公共自習室，環境開放、人流密集，而女生拍攝的影片雖記錄男生局部動作，但無法清晰表明其動作具有性暗示或故意挑釁性質。此外，現場並無目擊者能證明其行為指向特定對象，亦無其他實質證據顯示其行為違法。因此，法院認定此案缺乏充分證據證明男方有性騷擾行為，最終做出無罪判決。然而，事件並未就此結束。女生楊景媛在判決後對外聲稱，即便司法判定男方無罪，她依然會繼續透過校內機制與舉報管道，要求校方懲戒該男生，並再次強調「不能讓他好過」。她的態度引發網民大規模反彈，許多人認為其行為已超出正當維權範疇，轉而變成「道德綁架」與「報復性糾纏」。

社會輿論也隨之反思此案帶來的影響：在缺乏實質證據的情況下，是否應該僅依個人主觀感受與影片片段就予以公開定罪？本案中，男生為平息當場爭執，曾寫下一封「道歉信」，但事後證明這封信成為誤導輿論與校方決策的重要因素，也成為他三年內無法自證清白的絆腳石。而在輿論持續發酵之際，網路社群與媒體也對女生楊景媛進行學術背景審查。有爆料稱其畢業論文存在引用錯誤、虛構資料來源等問題，更有民間聲音呼籲學校應對其保研資格展開審核，甚至撤銷其學位，以維護學術公正與校園紀律。

本案反映出的不僅是性騷擾指控難以界定的灰色地帶，也暴露出校方在面對輿論壓力時的草率與決策漏洞。武漢大學作為事件核心之一，在事件初期未能保障雙方基本權益，而是在外界壓力下迅速採取「懲處為先」的處理方式，導致男方長期承受心理創傷。此案現已成為中國高校性騷擾處理制度的重要參考樣本。學界與法律界皆呼籲，未來應建立更加嚴謹的調查與申訴流程，避免因輿論導向或情緒施壓而造成「無辜受害」。同時，也需強化對舉報人責任的規範與審查，杜絕惡意誣告的空間。

這場橫跨三年的糾紛，也再次證明，在高度信息化與輿論活躍的社會中，個人聲譽、心理健康與司法程序間的平衡，遠比表面所見更為脆弱與重要。對於無罪被判的當事人來說，真正的「清白」或許才剛開始，未來仍需法律與制度持續護航，方能真正走出陰影。

A few days ago, the long‑running Wuhan University library harassment case finally reached its first‑instance verdict: the male student Xiao was found not guilty—the court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove intentional sexual harassment. However, the female student, Yang, has vowed she will not let him go—her recent statements continue to fuel public controversy.

The incident began in July 2023, when economics student Yang alleged that a male student sitting opposite her in the university library repeatedly rubbed his groin area through his trousers, claiming this behavior was directed at her. She recorded several video segments on her phone and immediately posted them online, sharing the footage widely. The videos sparked intense online attention. The male student was swiftly targeted in a wave of online harassment; his identity was exposed, his academic reputation suffered, and his mental health deteriorated under pressure.

Subsequently, the male student’s mother made public a range of medical records and pharmacy receipts, explaining that her son suffers from chronic eczema and allergic dermatitis, which often cause sudden itchiness leading him to scratch—even through clothing. Over the past two years, both he and his family submitted these medical documents to demonstrate that his behavior was a harmless reaction to itching—not the sexual act Yang alleged.

The social media backlash had severe consequences: the university rescinded his eligibility for recommended graduate admission, and under immense stress he developed post‑traumatic stress disorder, receiving hospital treatment. He remains stigmatized and has endured years of emotional trauma online and offline.

In its ruling, the court noted that the alleged event occurred in an open reading room with many students present and that there was no evidence—no eyewitness, no surveillance footage, and no direct admission—proving the male student’s actions constituted sexual harassment. The apology note he wrote under pressure was interpreted as vague and likely coerced, not an admission of guilt. Combined with medical proof of eczema, the court concluded the actions were more consistent with scratching an itch, not intentional sexual misconduct. Consequently, the sexual harassment complaint was dismissed in its entirety and the male student was officially exonerated.    

Despite the judicial outcome, Yang’s reaction has reignited public outrage. After the court decision, she took to platforms such as Weibo and Bilibili proclaiming that she has graduated successfully and secured graduate placement, vowing to “destroy Xiao’s future” by continuing to report him through other channels. Her statements have been widely criticized as vindictive and morally condemnable. Netizens express deep concern that if she enters the judicial or governmental system, her behavior could set a dangerous precedent—accusations of malicious intent and potential abuse of power are now common in online discussions.  

Meanwhile, journalists and commentators have scrutinized Yang’s academic integrity. Reports emerged claiming her master’s thesis contained fabricated legal citations (for instance referencing a fictitious “Divorce Law of 2001”), and that she cited data sources without proper verification—such as referencing reports from institutions that either do not exist or published at different times than claimed. Concerned observers are calling on Wuhan University to investigate her academic conduct and consider revoking her admission offer or degree to uphold scholarly standards.  

This case has exposed significant shortcomings in how universities and the legal system handle sexual harassment accusations—especially in the absence of clear, verifiable evidence. The speed of initial disciplinary actions under public pressure, lack of procedural safeguards, and reliance on emotive allegations rather than objective proof have all drawn criticism. Many experts and commentators urge institutions to reform investigatory mechanisms—ensuring both protection for accusers and procedural fairness for the accused.   

The male student’s mother has publicly stated her intent to pursue legal action against online harassers. Meanwhile, broader public discourse now focuses on whether Wuhan University and judicial authorities will take accountability for both initial handling and follow-up actions. There is increasing pressure to reverse unjust sanctions, formally apologize, and re-evaluate Yang’s academic status—on behalf of justice, transparency, and institutional learning.

More than a local campus controversy, this three‑year saga has evolved into a national conversation about balancing the rights of alleged victims with those accused, the dangers of social media–driven moral judgments, and the fragility of personal reputation in the digital era.