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.     

列宁的现代化思想及其当代价值

列宁在十月革命胜利后接手的是一个经济文化落后的俄国,他认为建设社会主义面临的第一个重大任务就是实现国家的现代化。列宁对社会主义现代化的构想主要包括以下几个方面：发展先进生产力是其物质基础,加强无产阶级的政权建设是其政治保障,文化革命是其重要内容,充分调动全社会的积极性是其重要动力,合理利用资本主义是其必要条件,其根本落脚点是人的现代化。     

百年中的中国民法华丽转身与曲折发展——中国民法一百年历史的回顾与展望

中国民法已经走过了一百年的历史,其中大清民律草案、民国民律草案和民国民法典在中华法系民法的基础上实现了一个华丽转身,走向了继受欧陆民法的不归路,适应了当时中国的社会政治、经济、文化生活的需要,实现了中国民法的现代化。1949年以来,当代中国民法经历了艰难曲折的发展,终于迎来了21世纪民法的繁荣和发展。总结经验教训,21世纪的中国民法应当在这条路上继续走下去,创造中国民法的辉煌,造福于21世纪的中国人民。     

外国法制史学科形成的历史基础与发展演进

外国法制史学科是一门研究世界上各种类型并具有代表性的法律制度及其法律体系的学科。其确立不足百年,20世纪30年代由苏联建立,在我国经历了60年发展变迁。但作为其研究对象和基础的外国法制史学,其在世界范围内的历史渊源却十分久远,最早可以追溯到古代的希腊和罗马。     

选人用人新模式:立体-民主选人系统——西安市未央区的实践探索

“一把手”体制是党内民主发展的主要制度障碍,西安市未央区通过推行人事制度改革,形成了系统的选人用人新模式——“立体-民主选人系统”,创设了将领导自上而下的行政命令和群众自下而上的民意表达相结合的制度安排,一定程度上破除了“一把手”体制的积弊.“立体-民主选人系统”通过透明化和责任化,使党内民主切实、有效运转起来,也实现...     

清末立宪的当代总结——纪念辛亥革命一百周年

清末立宪经历7年,其性质是专制改良,不是民主革命。清末立宪失败有经济发展、政治传统、文化变迁、派别较量、族群关系、人物作用6个层次的原因。清末立宪失败对清廷维新派、清廷顽固派、立宪派和革命派这四个政治派别各有不同的历史教训。     

论公众参与社会管理的方法论基础

公众参与社会管理是党和政府“以人为本”执政理念的充分彰显,是对公众作为社会实践主体地位的尊重和维护。党的群众路线的工作方法、人类“实践—认识—实践”的认识总图式以及作为西方管理科学发展最新成果的人本管理是其方法论基础。     

事实与价值难以二分的原因探究

休谟认为从对事实的描述是中是无法推演出规范性陈述应该的。休谟问题在西方哲学界引起了广泛的争论,但终究未能破解。社会科学研究的社会性事实毕竟不同于自然事实,它是由社会所规定。在社会性事实中语言、观察者的意向性本身就已成为事实的一部分,从而也导致事实与价值难以二分。在意识形态领域、学术研究、政府决策中区分事实与价值具有重要意义。     

古代书证制度的司法运行及制约因素——以司法案例为中心的制度考察

在中国古代的司法实践中,口供不是惟一的证据形式,书证这一带有浓厚客观色彩的证据在案件审理中受到了审判人员的重视,尤其在民事案件的审理中更成为具有关键意义的证据形态。本文旨在对古代社会的书证制度在司法领域的运行状况进行探讨,并依托于司法案例展开各项阐释,展现古代书证制度的原貌及特征,以期为今日社会之书证制度的完善提供历史借鉴。