论公众人物及其隐私权

公众人物是指在一定时间和空间范围内具有重要影响，并且与社会公众利益有关从而为该时空范围内的人们所广泛知晓和关注的人物。其判断标准有两个：一是社会知名度，二是与社会公共利益相关。由隐私权的基本权利性质决定，公众人物作为社会大众中的一员享有隐私权是无可争议的，公众人物的隐私权理应受到相应的法律保护。并且，基于公众人物隐私权不同于普通公民隐私权的特性，应当加大对公众人物的隐私权的保护力度。     

私权平等与身份限制——再审视“公众人物”的人格权

人格权是私人享有的权利,而私人权利又可分为公权利和私权利两个方面。"公众人物"的人格权主要涉及私法与其私权利的一面。"公众人物"的人格权与一般人的人格权并无不同,现有的限制理论均有缺憾。故我们仅需界定人格权本身而无需对其主体进行分类。不必建立"公众人物"法律概念,在人格平等的私法理念下各类主体不应被区别对待。     

公诉权与辩护权的比较思考

公诉权和辩护权的形成过程表现出不同的特征,二者都深深地根植于赖以存在的社会制度和诉讼文化之中。世界上公认的两大法系——大陆法系和英美法系的公诉制度和辩护制度的形成和表现形式存在着较大的差异。实现公诉权和辩护权的平等对抗是控辩式诉讼制度的初衷,为达到这一目标,我国还需要从完善诉讼制度方面加快刑事诉讼改革的步伐,努力使公诉权和辩护权由不平等走向平等。     

隐私权的经济分析

隐私本质上是私人信息,隐私权是个人控制其私人信息的权利。无论隐私是否涉及到个人名誉,从对隐私的成本——收益分析来看,在权利的初始配置的意义上,都应当将控制私人信息的权利配置给信息生产者而形成隐私权。隐私权不能仅仅囿于人格权的范畴,而应该向其财产权性质方面着力发挥。将私人信息的权利配置给个人,个人就能够控制其私人信息从而形成对其私人信息的财产权,进而实现对隐私权更为切实的保护之目的。     

Human Rights,Privacy and the Public Interest—Who Draws the Line and Where?

This lecture examines the protection of privacy in the United Kingdom (both at common law and after the incorporation of Human Rights Convention rights) as well as in other European countries and in the European Court of Human Rights. It considers the significance and extent of the margin of appreciation which that Court allows to individual states in respect of the protection of privacy and the balancing of privacy against other interests such as press freedom. It concludes that the margin allowed by the Strasbourg court may not be very large, that the balancing of interests apparently required by that Court is often delicate and difficult, that informal mechanisms of redress such as the Press Complaints Commissions have some benefits, but that further case-law development appears inevitably to be required if any certainty is to be achieved in at least some common situations.     

从公安资讯收集谈公民资讯隐私权和自决权的保护

当今,资讯快速流通和运用,一方面满足了公民知的权利,另一方面也有利于交易的安全,从而促进经济的发展。但缺乏有效法律规制,会造成资讯的误用和滥用,从而侵害公民的合法权益。我们在强调政府信息公开的同时,还要重视公民的资讯隐私权与自决权。法律赋予了公安机关广泛的个人资讯收集权,公安机关在行使该项权力时如何在公益与私利之间找到平衡点,值得我们反思。     

美国、德国隐私权宪法保护比较研究

美国和德国是世界上隐私权宪法保护比较成熟的国家,但是由于历史文化和法律传统的不同,两国隐私权的宪法保护在基本理念、具体含义、宪法保护方式和保护效力方面存在着很大的不同,比较研究两国隐私权的宪法保护对于我国隐私权的宪法保护的完善有借鉴意义。     

论技术侦查中的隐私权保护

在技术侦查中,传统权利系谱并不具备足够张力为个人隐私权提供有效保护.国家在追诉犯罪中采取技术侦查必然会侵犯、限制个人隐私权,个人需予以一定程度的容忍,但这并不意味着国家权力在技术侦查中可以不受限制或者制约.技术侦查中的隐私权保护在本质上属于隐私权的公法保护,它强调个人隐私权免受国家权力的不正当侵害,其运作是要实现对国家权力的正当程序控制.技术侦查需要受到法定主义、比例原则和司法审查等方面的限制.我国技术侦查中的隐私权保护还存在较大提升空间.     

公益诉权论

公益诉权是公民、社会团体等依法所享有的基于公共利益受到侵害或者处于这种侵害的危险中而得以请求法院行使审判权以保护公益不受侵害的权利.公益诉权至少在当事人适格、诉的利益和诉权功能三个方面对传统诉权进行了质的突破,公益诉权作为一种公民权,是一种特殊性的人权,是积极性权利,是行动性权利,或者更透彻地说,这种权利的行使毋宁是一种政治行动.公益诉权的主体是多元的,除公民个人外,社会团体亦可以团体诉讼的方式行使,当下中国的检察机关式公共利益的最佳代表者,赋予其公益诉权有着深厚的法理基础,但从长远来看,"还权于民"是必然趋势,检察机关将维护公共利益提起诉讼的范围限定在国有资产的保护、反垄断诉讼等方面是较为适宜的.     

Public Figures and Stalking in the European Context

The paper presents a brief overview of the international scientific research regarding stalking, threats and attacks on public figures. A special focus lies on European research and its tradition. Particular attention is directed towards the concept of pathological fixations on public figures which covers different forms of harassment and aggressive behaviour. A closer look at the history of scientific research and relevant case examples in this area reveals that pathological fixation on public figures is a phenomenon which was described by psychiatrists as early as 150 years ago. As stalking can affect various kinds of public figures, the research presented here covers stalking of celebrities, politicians, corporate figures and royals who become the victim of harassment or violent attacks. Finally, the state of the art regarding the management of public figure stalking and harassment and the prevention of assassinations by fixated persons in Europe is reviewed.     

隐私权与名誉权之法理比较分析

目前,<民法典>的全面编撰时机已经成熟,有几个版本的草案已经公开,各个版本中的人格权部分都或多或少地存在着对现行法律规范的修改与完善,其中一个共同点是将隐私权确定为一种独立的具体人格权.笔者从司法实践出发,试图以法理分析的方法对隐私权与名誉权进行比较,从中总结出二者之间共同点与区别,以澄清实践中的一些模糊认识.由于已经有一些文章对二者之间的区别论述得比较多,故本文的核心是二者之间的共同点,希望能对人身权法的修改与完善,实践中关于陷私权与名誉权的模糊认积起到一定的益处.     

Corporate Chaos: The Muddled Jurisprudence of Corporate Public Figures

Public-figure determinations in libel law are enormously consequential legal decisions. The divide between public and private status for a defamation plaintiff can be – and frequently is – determinative of whether that plaintiff can succeed. Lower court rulings on how corporate plaintiffs fit into this status determination are inconsistent. Meanwhile, corporations are taking increasingly active roles in political and social controversies. This article explores the sprawling and contradictory law of corporate public figures, analyzing and critiquing lower court jurisprudence on this vital issue. The article also provides a suggested direction for clarifying the state of the law and aligning it more closely with important First Amendment values.     

网络时代隐私权的法律保护

随着大众传媒的不断发展,侵害公民个人隐私的行为也不断发生,保护公民隐私权已成为我国法学界的共识。我国对公民隐私权的保护还需要在立法上加以完善,同时对隐私权的保护也需要进行一定的限制。