网络诽谤的争议问题探究

司法解释关于"明知是捏造的损害他人名誉的事实,在信息网络上散布,情节恶劣的,以‘捏造事实诽谤他人’论"的规定,属于平义解释而非类推解释。作为诽谤罪对象的"他人"并不排斥公众人物,但根据我国宪法的规定,刑法必须适当降低对公众人物名誉的保护规格。司法解释关于网络诽谤"情节严重"规定的缺陷,不在于客观归罪与扩大处罚范围,而在于不当缩小了网络诽谤的处罚范围。"告诉的才处理"并不意味着必须由被害人自诉,而是指不得违反被害人的意愿进入刑事诉讼程序。     

论美国的出版自由诽谤诉讼案及启示

本文梳理和总结了美国历史上颇具影响的四个有关出版自由与诽谤诉讼案例,分析了联邦最高法院在诽谤诉讼中区分政府官员、公众人物与普通民众的缘由和保护媒体生存空间的做法,并对媒体在诽谤诉讼中占上风的原因提出自己的见解,对我国的舆论监督和新闻改革具有一定的借鉴意义。     

论涉网诽谤案件中网络服务商的责任

近年来,涉网诽谤案件越来越多,而在涉网诽谤案件中,网络服务商作为网络服务的提供者,其应当承担怎样的责任？本文将通过分析美国与英国关于网络服务商责任承担的立法与司法实践,提出我国关于涉网诽谤案件中网络服务商立法建议.     

从伍皓放弃起诉看言论的自由和边界

从国际诽谤法通行的规则来看，官员、影视明星等“公众人物”的名誉权保护与普通公司保护标准并不相同，名誉权的保护程度呈阶梯状。     

网络诽谤的刑事责任问题研究

网络诽谤具有传播快、影响广、低成本等特点,导致这种犯罪容易实施,而由于网络诽谤的高匿名性,被害人往往难以自行起诉.要有效追究网络诽谤的刑事责任,首冼要正确认定网络诽谤,准确区别罪与非罪,并明确其犯罪主体、犯罪对象与犯罪客观方面的范围,再进一步研究采用公诉解决应符合的条件.     

网络诽谤罪立案管辖研究

融合传统大众传媒信息传播的单向性以及类似人际传播的双向交流特点的网络诽谤犯罪撼动了传统诽谤犯罪立案管辖的理论和规则。公诉案件的网络诽谤立案管辖存在对公安部解释的适用效力、标准、度的问题;自诉案件的网络诽谤案立案管辖涉及证据的收集、证明标准问题。由于网络空间具有的种种特殊性,现有法律法规远远不能满足遏制和惩处日益增长的网络诽谤犯罪立案管辖的需要,根据目前我国立案管辖的立法现状,结合网络犯罪的发展趋势,应明确公共言论与一般言论区别对待的基本原则和审慎运用刑罚原则。法律或司法解释对网络诽谤＂严重危害社会秩序和国家利益＂的情形应予以明确列举,增设网络诽谤不处罚的例外规定,建立网络诽谤自诉转公诉的合理机制等。     

网络诽谤行为的定性分析

网络诽谤行为与传统诽谤行为既有一致性又有新特性,对网络诽谤行为的认定应当谨慎对待。诽谤罪是刑法上少数几个亲告罪之一,厘清诽谤行为的罪与非罪、诽谤罪的自诉与公诉的界限,有利于进一步对网络诽谤行为准确的定罪量刑,从而保护公民言论自由,维护网络社会的和谐。     

网络诽谤的构成及认定中的疑难问题

网络诽谤与传统诽谤相比，有其更为鲜明的特性．对网络诽谤管制更容易产生公民言论自由和公民名誉权的价值冲突。实践中在认定上存在很大分歧，因此，如何通过具体情节确切认定，确定罪与非罪，乃至归责都至关重要。     

关于交通事故侵权损害赔偿标准的思考

交通事故侵权事件近年来频繁发生，虽然我国法律法规较详细地规定了交通事故侵权的责任形式，但对侵权损害赔偿范围的规定存在诸多问题，从保护生命权、保障被害人精神利益及合理实现责任分担出戈，需要对死亡赔偿金的标准进行重新审视，同时对精神损害赔偿和交通强制责任保险制度作适度调整。     

论隐私权的民法保护——试论公众人物隐私权的法律规制

公众人物并不是一个政治概念,而是一个为了保护言论自由、限制名誉权和隐私权而创设的概念,它更多的应用在诽谤法和隐私法中。我国法律没有明确的将隐私权确定为一项具体的人格权,但是宪法、刑法、民事诉讼法以及最高人民法院的有关司法解释都承认对隐私权的法律保护。基于社会公共利益和公众的合理兴趣的考量,公众人物的隐私权受到一定限制,但这并非意味着公众人物的隐私权就应被完全剥夺,与社会利益完全无关的私密生活信息、私人生活场所、私人通信秘密应受到法律保护。公众人物隐私权的侵权认定应从范围、违法行为、损害事实、主观方面和认定原则五个方面加以考虑,文章提出了完善公众人物隐私权法律保护的若干建议。     

网络诽谤犯罪立案管辖之困境与价值抉择

本文对网络诽谤犯罪案件载体与形式进行了重新评估,并解释了刑法扩张的合理性,试图从诽谤犯罪规制的价值选择出发,考察域外法制,平衡社会公益与公民权利,平衡言论自由与公民人格尊严,提出修正现行法律规范的建议,或加强公权力救济、强化现行法律框架下的侦查权合理运行。     

Re-Defining Defamation: Psychological Sense of Community in the Age of the Internet

In the era of traditional media, courts typically relied upon geographic constraints, including where a plaintiff lived or worked, to determine the appropriate community in defamation cases. The rise of the Internet has dramatically changed society – easily and immediately linking users across geography while allowing the rapid spread of information through a variety of channels that pose a challenge to the traditional media model centered around editorial judgment and professional ethics. Thanks in part to its global reach, the Internet has allowed users to engage in both business and social relationships around the world. Because of this, a person's need for a good reputation can no longer be confined solely to location. As a result, this article argues that courts must begin to evaluate other factors when determining relevant community in online defamation cases, positing that courts should utilize factors associated with psychological sense of community theory.     

The online defamation maze: are we finding a way out?

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy of the first decision that explored online defamation (as opposed to offline defamation) delivered by the Supreme Court of Japan. A discussion of the future implications of the case is then undertaken. The paper supports the First Instance (the Tokyo District Court) decision and its approach, and argues that such an approach might have provided greater implications for the future. The author also argues that the Tokyo District Court seems to have taken a more reflective view on the fluidity of online defamation and the nature of the online environment, and shows a degree of willingness to accept and incorporate such a nature. The author concludes that the Tokyo District Court's approach, although it could be seen as rather radical and extreme, seems to be more persuasive than that of the Supreme Court. It also submits that the court might have brought a more balanced and healthy outcome for the beneficiaries, including not only the claimants, the defendants, but also society as a whole. It is the case that innocent internet users can potentially be both the passive and active recipients of the information (i.e. comments posted on webpage). Before a detailed analysis and examination of the case is undertaken, a brief outline of how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the traditional form of defamation (i.e. offline defamation) is provided as background.     

The Failure of Defamation Law to Safeguard against SLAPPs in Ontario

The authors examine the failure of the law of defamation in Canada to reflect changed realities with respect to public participation in decision-making processes and the impact that this has had on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in the Ontario context. They examine the enhancement of the public's substantive and procedural rights to participate in environmental decision-making processes reflected in legislation at the international, federal and provincial levels. They argue that SLAPPs threaten to reverse these shifts in norms in the development of public policy. The authors review anti-SLAPP legislation as well as the evolution of defamation law in Canada and other jurisdictions and conclude by offering some law reform recommendations for Ontario.     

The Protection of Reputation in Japan: A Systematic Analysis of Defamation Cases

Although Japanese defamation law has been a subject of legal interest for scholars and judges, their main focus was the defamation rules that appeared in cases publicized by legal reporters. The following study coded 232 defamation cases against the media that were decided in district courts in Japan, according to the type of database that reported the cases. Statistical results reveal that newspapers are more likely to report defamation cases than other databases because stories about defamation cases may satisfy readers' interest or because the newspaper might have been informed by plaintiffs who won their cases. The results also show that the professional status of the plaintiff is a predictor of the case outcome. Politicians and officials are less likely to win in defamation cases than are executives and criminals, and they received lower damages than athletes and entertainers.     

论互联网时代诽谤罪的公诉范围

我国刑法对诽谤罪采取自诉为主、公诉为补充的双轨制模式。由于刑法但书“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉依据具有模糊性,同时司法解释本身缺乏解释力和可操作性,存在同义解释、近义解释等问题,加剧了公诉诽谤罪和其他罪名之间的冲突和竞合,特别是当被害人为地方领导干部时,诽谤罪的公诉权在实务中存在被滥用风险,部分限制公诉权的要件在实务中被淡化甚至忽略。从相对狭义的角度看,“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”只有在行为人对侵犯个体法益具备主观故意,但对侵犯社会法益或国家法益不具备主观故意(或无法证明其具备故意)的情形下,才有其独特的法律适用价值并不与刑法其他罪名相冲突。为妥善处理和平衡诽谤犯罪中惩治犯罪和保障人权的关系,适应互联网时代的内外部变化,建议通过修改我国刑法,将诽谤罪区分为情节不严重、情节严重、情节特别严重的三种形态,为充分保障宪法权利,情节不严重的不作为犯罪处罚;为充分保障自诉权,情节严重的为绝对告诉乃论;为依法惩治犯罪,对符合特定形式要件和实质要件,情节特别严重的诽谤犯罪可以依法公诉,以维护网络信息秩序。     

“Error But Without Malice” in Defamation of Public Officials: The Value of Free Expression in International Human Rights Law

Government officials in various parts of the world use defamation to silence critics, but defamation liability may curtail freedom of expression on topics of public interest and undermine human rights generally. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression unless a state can show need to protect individual reputation and acts proportionally. In its adjudication of complaints for violations of Article 19, and in its General Comment 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has crafted the principle that defamation liability may not be imposed if an erroneous statement about a public official was made in “error but without malice.” Although soft law, General Comment 34 represents the committee's most compelling articulation of the values animating freedom of expression in international human rights law, and chief among the values is the role played by free expression to promote realization of all human rights.     

Homosexuality as Defamation: A Proposal for the Use of the “Right-Thinking Minds” Approach in the Development of Modern Jurisprudence

False imputations of homosexuality have long been considered by courts to be defamatory per se, but many jurisdictions are beginning to revisit the issues surrounding homosexuality and defamation in the wake of a national debate over gay rights. This article examines whether courts should abandon false imputations of homosexuality as per se defamation and concludes that, at a minimum such statements should no longer be defamatory per se and further provides courts with a framework to go a step further and hold that such statements hold no defamatory meaning.     

Libel: Its Purpose and Reform

Discussion of libel often fails to define defamation law's purpose and thus properly to assess its value. This article argues that defamation's purpose relates to fundamental human interests in sociality, directly linked to important aspects of human health and well‐being. Protecting such interests is arguably required by the right to private life under ECHR article 8 and should not count as a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Some current reform proposals are criticised as failing to appreciate the importance of protecting sociality. ‘Business’ libel, however, often protects not sociality but purely economic interests. The article therefore argues that the protection of libel law, as opposed to that offered by malicious falsehood and the economic torts, should be withdrawn from purely economic reputation, starting with removing the rights of corporations to sue in defamation, a position compatible with the ECtHR's decision in Karako v Hungary.     

From gatekeepers to publishers: Liability of internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the ‘notice and notice plus’ approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation.