青少年网络犯罪的成因、特点和防控

青少年网络犯罪正随着互联网的发展而逐渐增多,而家庭和学校教育的缺失、不良网络文化的影响、网络法律体系的不健全,以及青少年自我约束能力不强等都是导致青少年网络犯罪的主要原因。青少年网络犯罪除具有一般网络犯罪的特点外,还有其自身的特殊性。为此,本文指出必须针对青少年网络犯罪的成因和特点,采取有效的防控措施,加强青少年的教育环境、网络道德规范和网络法律环境的建设。     

论不良网络文化对青少年犯罪的影响

青少年犯罪问题是社会普遍关注的问题,影响青少年犯罪的因素很多。本文从网络文化对青少年的影响入手,讨论网络不良文化对青少年犯罪的影响,探讨消除网络文化不良影响的对策,以达到预防与减少青少年犯罪的目的。     

浅析青少年网络犯罪原因

青少年网络犯罪增加和低龄化是当今社会的一个重要问题,预防和减少青少年网络犯罪,需要社会的关注和各方面的密切配合,采取切实可行的措施和办法。本文论述了青少年网络犯罪的特点,然后具体分析了心理原因、家庭问题、不良网络文化等因素对青少年网络犯罪的直接影响。     

青少年网络犯罪的特点、原因及预防对策

网络是一种非常便捷的信息化工具,但又是一把双刃剑,它既有助于青少年开阔视野,关注世界前沿问题,又会传播一些颓废、黄色下流甚至反动的垃圾信息,对青少年的健康成长造成严重的负面影响,由此引发青少年犯罪。本文试从青少年网络犯罪的特点、网络犯罪的原因及预防对策等方面来阐述重视青少年网络犯罪,已是刻不容缓的问题。     

青少年网络犯罪及其防控

本文以青少年网络犯罪为主题,结合犯罪学和法学相关的专业知识,在界定青少年网络犯罪定义的基础上,从青少年的自身、家庭、学校以及社会各个因素来分析青少年网络犯罪的成因,并针对这几方面的原因,有的放矢地提出相应的防控对策,科学系统地剖析青少年网络犯罪现象。     

家庭环境影响与青少年犯罪

青少年是祖国的未来民族的希望,分析、治理和预防青少年犯罪已经成为了迫在眉睫的课题.对于人的成长而言,家庭是第一个老师.在成长的过程中,家庭环境对于青少年的思维模式的塑造,行为方式的形成,都有着不可替代的作用.家庭环境对青少年的影响,在对其思维模式、行为方式,甚至社会交往方面,都有重要的影响.但是,一些不良的家庭环境对青少年的负面影响逐渐显现了出来,如冲突型的家庭环境、宠溺型的家庭环境、冷漠型的家庭环境、缺失型的家庭环境.不良的家庭环境能导致青少年人格的缺陷、行为方式的偏差和结交朋友的不慎,这些内因或外因完全能够成为导致青少年犯罪的原因,从而导致他们走向犯罪的歧途.鉴于此,此文在阐述青少年犯罪的现状和青少年犯罪的特点的基础上,在家庭环境对青少年成长的作用方面和家庭环境对青少年犯罪的影响方面进行探讨,并对青少年犯罪的治理和预防方面提出意见.     

青少年网络犯罪研究

青少年网络犯罪是青少年利用和针对网络实施的犯罪,它是网络犯罪的有机组成部分和主流。其严重地危害了网络及信息的安全与秩序,既影响了社会稳定,也不利于青少年的健康成长。造成这一现状的原因是多方面的,我们应针对这些情况从家庭、制度以及相关的管理入手,通过一系列立法、执法措施,建立一整套全面规范的防范体系,从根本上杜绝青少年网络犯罪的发生、扩大。     

“网络雾霾”对青少年的影响及对策分析

"网络雾霾"的形成是由于青少年自身缺乏判断力和自制力,网络运营商对商业利益的追求以及网络监管力度不大导致。"网络雾霾"对青少年的身体健康造成威胁,阻碍青少年正常的社会化进程,甚至诱发青少年犯罪。本文建议建立相应独立的机构,从立法执法、研发和升级网络管理技术、完善"三位一体"社会教育体制方面扫除"网络雾霾",为青少年成长提供一个清新的网络环境。     

青少年网络犯罪及其防控

随着网络在我国的逐渐推广,青少年网络犯罪也与之兴起.青少年网络犯罪由于其主体的特殊性,所以有着较坏的影响,有的青少年甚至是葬送了自己和家庭的前途,而且也给社会带来了较多的不稳定因素,严重影响着青少年的健康成长以及社会的和平稳定,严峻的社会形势要求我们要提出较为可行的解决措施对青少年网络犯罪进行防控.     

论青少年网络犯罪的成因及防范对策

网络对青少年的负面影响促使当前青少年网络犯罪的发生。青少年网络犯罪具有青少年网络犯罪者上网操作能力娴熟、网络犯罪几乎没有罪恶感以及网络犯罪强大的破坏性等特点。导致青少年进行网络犯罪的原因有青少年特殊年龄段的因素、自身的主观因素以及外界环境的不良影响。预防青少年网络犯罪应该强化网络道德教育、强化法制观念、丰富课外文化生活,加强课外指导和教育、切实加强技术手段,严格控制不良信息源头、完善网络管理,开辟青少年喜闻乐见的网站以及建立健全网络法律体系,使青少年网络犯罪有法可依。     

Analyzing approaches to internet jurisdiction based on a model of harbors and the high seas

The inherent cross-border nature of the internet has challenged the legal system for over two decades. In this paper we introduce a model in which the internet is approached as if it were the high seas, the harbor of origin, the harbor of destination, or a combination of these. This model is used to rephrase existing case law related to internet jurisdiction from an international law perspective, the US and the EU (in particular Germany and the Netherlands). The model helps to illuminate the positions taken by the parties and the judge, and to indicate possible alternative interpretations. In some cases a high seas approach would have made sense (Yahoo!), or more recently the Vacation Rental by Owner case about trademarks where registration in one country was deemed to have an effect everywhere a person had the trademark on his or her computer screen. In H&M v G-star the Dutch Supreme Court even established jurisdiction based on an infringing product that was not available in the city of the court but was to become available on the internet some time in the future. We do not take a position in this paper on what perspective, based on our model, is best, but make clear how to identify the possible arguments.     

SPACE AS PARADIGM OF INTERNET REGULATION

Right now internet regulation is standing at the crossroads. Its problem-driven evolution has led to a conglomerate of seemingly diverse rules, which can hardly be structured as one cohesive area of law. Nevertheless, a consolidation of these rules as one cross-sectional field of law is can be identified. The discussion about the terms “internet regulation” and “internet governance” as well as recent developments in this field indicate that a paradigm shift in internet regulation is ongoing. Whereas self-regulation has been the determining mode of internet governance for a long time, internet regulation in the sense of public regulation is currently gaining more influence. This transformation is accompanied by the rising importance of a traditional paradigm of law: the idea of space. Even though the idea of space finds itself challenged with regard to the internet, it can give substance to many different aspects of internet regulation.     

论当代大学生网络人格培养

网络人格是指人们在网络交往过程中表现出来的心理特征的总和.网络交往既有利于大学生人格独立性、平等性、个性化和开放性的形成与发展,同时又容易诱发产生大学生人格的虚伪性、变异性、封闭性和迷失性.应采取积极有效措施,构建规范的网络伦理,加强大学生"网德"教育,建立健全法规制度,强化网络的监督与管理,加强大学生心理健康教育,建立大学生健康人格教育网络系统,努力培养大学生健康的网络人格.     

MAPPING PARADIGMS OF EUROPEAN INTERNET REGULATION: THE EXAMPLE OF INTERNET CONTENT CONTROL

The article introduces three of the paradigms used to analyze internet regulation and applies them to the history of internet content control in Europe. It builds on Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigms and previous works on regulatory theory, defining regulatory paradigms as a “shared understanding of the purpose of regulation, of the way of thinking about how regulation works, and of the set of institutional arrangements and instruments through which regulation is conducted.” Building on this definition, the prevalent concepts of the paradigms of internet regulation refer to the intention, mechanisms, and the intensity of regulation. The article discusses these concepts with regard to the regulation of internet content control in Europe and analyzes three paradigm shifts that have taken place since the early days of the internet. These paradigm shifts concern the responsiveness, differentiation, and intensity of regulation.     

中国网络公共事件的议程互动模式——基于社会公平正义相关事件的经验研究

随着互联网技术的发展及网民队伍的不断壮大,"网络议政"和"网络倒逼决策"已然是当前我国互联网社会发展的重要特征。然而,透视近年来数十起网络公共事件可以发现,即便是在关乎社会公平正义的特定领域里,网络民意也不再局限于只对政府选定的政策议程进行讨论、监督和评价,而是不断借助网民集体行动和媒体的力量,在社会与政府的互动过程中确立新的政策议程,从而影响公共政策的制定。因此,客观且准确地描述并抽象出中国网络公共事件的议程互动模式以及理清该模式中主要环节的变化方式、作用及相互关系,对于提升网络时代中国政府决策的科学性、民主性和有效性以及维护社会稳定都具有积极意义。     

网络舆论危机的生成机制探析

网络舆论危机既是公共危机的一种具体表现,也是引发一系列社会危机的重要原因。其生成机制主要有:网络舆论危机的暴发是社会冲突理论的现实反映;网络与网民的自身特性容易导致非理性声音占领网络舆论的主阵地;民主意识的增强与社会诉求机制的短缺导致网络群体极化效应;政府信息公开机制不完善导致网络舆论的蝴蝶效应;社会信用和政府公信力的下降为网络舆论危机的形成埋下了伏笔;基层党委政府应对网络舆论的手段薄弱导致沉默的螺旋效应。     

论网络环境下期刊著作权的保护

实践和理论研究中期刊著作权常常被忽视,网络环境下期刊著作权的侵犯问题与此不无关系.期刊著作权人以期刊整体为客体享有人身性与财产性著作权.期刊著作权不是双重主体,期刊社或期刊的主办单位是期刊著作权主体.当前互联网的发展使侵犯期刊著作权更加容易,给期刊著作权保护提出了挑战.在网络环境下保护期刊著作权,要解决好取证问题与诉讼的地域管辖问题,并确定包括网络服务商在内的责任人以及赔偿数额的计算问题.     

网络色情及其控制研究

网络色情的泛滥成了近两年来网络上的一大现象,它的危害性也日渐显现,研究控制网络色情的手段已成为当务之急。网络色情的定义、种类、特征等都与传统色情有相当大的差异。网络色情的特殊生长环境使得单纯依靠传统的色情控制方式并不能对网络色情进行有效的控制。根据当前的实际情况,对控制网络色情的控制应当走技术与法律相结合的道路。     

Plagiarism litigation trends in the USA and Australia

In this article we explore the increasing complexity of plagiarism litigation in the USA and Australia. Plagiarism has always been a serious academic issue and academic staff and students have wrestled with its definition and appropriate penalties for some time. However, the advent of the Internet and more freely accessible information resources, along with busy lives and pressures to succeed, may be leading to more frequent incidents of plagiarism. Alternatively, the same information resources and software packages may mean that we are now more able to identify when plagiarism occurs. The following discussion explores not just the traditional issues that have arisen with respect to plagiarism, but also the extended contexts in which plagiarism discussion is taking place in courtrooms, not university staffrooms. We consider issues in common in the two nations, as well as the wider academic community, and distinctive areas of litigation that have arisen in the USA and Australia.     

INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, internet intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union (EU) and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities? Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended. Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points: Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.