网络媒体条件下公共言论的特殊保护:从身份到公共利益
|
摘要
在传统媒体时代,对公共言论的特殊保护,在诽谤法上形成了基于言者的公共身份和基于言论内容涉及公共利益减轻名誉权侵权责任的两种不同路径,其代表分别为美国公众人物理论及其真实恶意原则和英国的"公共利益抗辩"。在网络媒体时代,随着传统公众人物理论的正当性基础面临巨大挑战,美国理论界和实务界均对公众人物理论进行了反思及调整,开始依据言论内容是否涉及公共利益设定不同的诉讼规则,英国在2013年诽谤法改革中进一步明确了诽谤法上的公共利益原则,法国、日本也对涉公共利益言论给予特殊保护。公共言论特殊保护路径出现的融合趋势,对我国建立诽谤法上的公共利益原则具有一定启示。
In the era of traditional media,there are two different paths of special protection for public speech based either on the public identity of the speaker or on the public interest,with the aim to reduce the tort liability of the reputation right in the defamation law. The two paths are represented by the American public figure theory and its true malicious principle,as well as the British public interest defense. In the age of internet media,the legitimate foundation of the traditional public figure theory is facing great challenges. The American scholars and practitioners have reflected and adjusted the theory of public figures,and began to set different rules of litigation in accordance with the public interest involved in the content of the speech. In the United Kingdom,the defamation law of 2013 was reformed to further clarify the principle of public interest. In France and Japan,special protection is also given to speech of public interest. The paths of special protection of public speech are converging as a trend,which has certain enlightenment to the establishment of the principle of public interest in Chinese law of defamation.
In the era of traditional media,there are two different paths of special protection for public speech based either on the public identity of the speaker or on the public interest,with the aim to reduce the tort liability of the reputation right in the defamation law. The two paths are represented by the American public figure theory and its true malicious principle,as well as the British public interest defense. In the age of internet media,the legitimate foundation of the traditional public figure theory is facing great challenges. The American scholars and practitioners have reflected and adjusted the theory of public figures,and began to set different rules of litigation in accordance with the public interest involved in the content of the speech. In the United Kingdom,the defamation law of 2013 was reformed to further clarify the principle of public interest. In France and Japan,special protection is also given to speech of public interest. The paths of special protection of public speech are converging as a trend,which has certain enlightenment to the establishment of the principle of public interest in Chinese law of defamation.
引文
[1]靳羽.“公众人物”理论实证考察与名誉侵权过错判断路径检讨[J].政治与法律,2013,(8):132.
[2]高荣林.网络诽谤与网络匿名之间的平衡[J].重庆邮电大学学报·社会科学版,2017,(9):36、37.
[3]郭春镇.公共人物理论视角下网络谣言的规制[J].法学研究,2014,(4):164.
[4]岳业鹏.英国诽谤法的抗辩体系:传统构造与最新发展———以《2013年诽谤法案》为中心[J].求是学刊,2015,(5):106、100.
[5]蔡浩明.英国诽谤法改革对我国的启示[J].当代传播,2014,(3):66.
[6]姚泽金.公共批评与名誉保护[D].中国政法大学博士论文,2014. 83.
[7]李冠华.德国法上的言论自由[D].山东大学硕士学位论文,2015. 29.
[8]陈帅.试论德国宪政中的“间接影响”理论及其对我国的借鉴意义[J].法制与社会,2012,(5):149.
[9]陈新民.论宪法人民基本权利的限制·下[J].台湾《律师通讯》,1992,(158):51.
[10]邢璐.德国网络言论自由保护与立法规制及其对我国的启示[J].德国研究,2006,(3):36.
[11][日]松井茂记.肖淑芬译.媒体法[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2004. 37,98.
[12][日]加藤雅信.杨东译.日本人格权论的展开与最近的立法提案[J].华东政法大学学报,2011,(1):123、124.
[13]郭春镇.公共人物理论视角下网络谣言的规制[J].法学研究,2014,(4):163.
(1)Kyu Ho Youm.Actual Malice in U.S.Defamation Law:The Minority of One Doctrine in the World,4 J.Int'l Media&Ent.L.1,2011-2013,P.4-P.8.
(1)Columbia Ins.Co.v.Seescandy.com,185 F.R.D.573(N.D.Cal.1999).
(2)Dendrite Int'l.Inc.v.Doe,No.3,775 A.2d 756(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2001).
(3)Douglas B.McKechnie,The Death of the Public Figure Doctrine:How the Internet and the Westboro Baptist Church Spawned a Killer,64 Hastings L.J.469,2012,p.498.
(4)《乱编肯尼迪遇刺史美国男子登报道歉》,http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2005-12-14/04007700318s.shtml,最后访问时间:2018年3月20日。
(1)《网络“实名举报”背后是闹剧》,http://newspaper.jcrb.com/html/2014-10/15/content_170111.htm,最后访问时间:2018年3月20日。
(2)Gertz v.Robert Welch,Inc.,418 U.S.323,343(1974).
(3)Reno v.ACLU,521 U.S.844,885(1997).
(4)Katherine D.Gotelaere.“Defamation or Discourse:Rethinking the Public Figure Doctrine on the Internet”,2 Case W.Res.J.L.Tech.&Internet 1,Vol.36,2011,pp.30-33.
(1)Rosenbloom v.Metromedia 403 U.S.29(1971).
(2)Douglas B.McKechnie.“The Death of the Public Figure Doctrine:How the Internet and the Westboro BaptistC hurch Spawned a Killer”,64 Hastings L.J.469,2012,p.498.
(3)Katherine D.Gotelaere.“Defamation or Discourse:Rethinking the Public Figure Doctrine on the Internet”,2 Case W.Res.J.L.Tech.&Internet 1,2011,p.36.
(4)David Lat,Zach Shemtob.“Public Figurehood in the Digital Age”,9 J.Telecomm.&High Tech.L.403,2011,p.10.
(1)United States v.Stevens,559 U.S.460(2010).
(2)Brown v.Entertainment Merchants Association,564 U.S.786(2011).
(3)Snyder v.Phelps,562 U.S.443(2011).
(1)Douglas Maule,Zhongdong Niu.Law Essentials-media Law,Dundee:Dundee University Press,2010,p.83.
(2)Flood v.Times Newspapers Ltd[2012]UKSC 11.
(1)Low Kee Yang.“UK Defamation Act 2013:Key Changes”,26 Sac L J 98,2014,p.110.
[2]高荣林.网络诽谤与网络匿名之间的平衡[J].重庆邮电大学学报·社会科学版,2017,(9):36、37.
[3]郭春镇.公共人物理论视角下网络谣言的规制[J].法学研究,2014,(4):164.
[4]岳业鹏.英国诽谤法的抗辩体系:传统构造与最新发展———以《2013年诽谤法案》为中心[J].求是学刊,2015,(5):106、100.
[5]蔡浩明.英国诽谤法改革对我国的启示[J].当代传播,2014,(3):66.
[6]姚泽金.公共批评与名誉保护[D].中国政法大学博士论文,2014. 83.
[7]李冠华.德国法上的言论自由[D].山东大学硕士学位论文,2015. 29.
[8]陈帅.试论德国宪政中的“间接影响”理论及其对我国的借鉴意义[J].法制与社会,2012,(5):149.
[9]陈新民.论宪法人民基本权利的限制·下[J].台湾《律师通讯》,1992,(158):51.
[10]邢璐.德国网络言论自由保护与立法规制及其对我国的启示[J].德国研究,2006,(3):36.
[11][日]松井茂记.肖淑芬译.媒体法[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2004. 37,98.
[12][日]加藤雅信.杨东译.日本人格权论的展开与最近的立法提案[J].华东政法大学学报,2011,(1):123、124.
[13]郭春镇.公共人物理论视角下网络谣言的规制[J].法学研究,2014,(4):163.
(1)Kyu Ho Youm.Actual Malice in U.S.Defamation Law:The Minority of One Doctrine in the World,4 J.Int'l Media&Ent.L.1,2011-2013,P.4-P.8.
(1)Columbia Ins.Co.v.Seescandy.com,185 F.R.D.573(N.D.Cal.1999).
(2)Dendrite Int'l.Inc.v.Doe,No.3,775 A.2d 756(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2001).
(3)Douglas B.McKechnie,The Death of the Public Figure Doctrine:How the Internet and the Westboro Baptist Church Spawned a Killer,64 Hastings L.J.469,2012,p.498.
(4)《乱编肯尼迪遇刺史美国男子登报道歉》,http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2005-12-14/04007700318s.shtml,最后访问时间:2018年3月20日。
(1)《网络“实名举报”背后是闹剧》,http://newspaper.jcrb.com/html/2014-10/15/content_170111.htm,最后访问时间:2018年3月20日。
(2)Gertz v.Robert Welch,Inc.,418 U.S.323,343(1974).
(3)Reno v.ACLU,521 U.S.844,885(1997).
(4)Katherine D.Gotelaere.“Defamation or Discourse:Rethinking the Public Figure Doctrine on the Internet”,2 Case W.Res.J.L.Tech.&Internet 1,Vol.36,2011,pp.30-33.
(1)Rosenbloom v.Metromedia 403 U.S.29(1971).
(2)Douglas B.McKechnie.“The Death of the Public Figure Doctrine:How the Internet and the Westboro BaptistC hurch Spawned a Killer”,64 Hastings L.J.469,2012,p.498.
(3)Katherine D.Gotelaere.“Defamation or Discourse:Rethinking the Public Figure Doctrine on the Internet”,2 Case W.Res.J.L.Tech.&Internet 1,2011,p.36.
(4)David Lat,Zach Shemtob.“Public Figurehood in the Digital Age”,9 J.Telecomm.&High Tech.L.403,2011,p.10.
(1)United States v.Stevens,559 U.S.460(2010).
(2)Brown v.Entertainment Merchants Association,564 U.S.786(2011).
(3)Snyder v.Phelps,562 U.S.443(2011).
(1)Douglas Maule,Zhongdong Niu.Law Essentials-media Law,Dundee:Dundee University Press,2010,p.83.
(2)Flood v.Times Newspapers Ltd[2012]UKSC 11.
(1)Low Kee Yang.“UK Defamation Act 2013:Key Changes”,26 Sac L J 98,2014,p.110.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |