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.     

言语训练结合电针治疗肝豆状核变性构音障碍30例

目的 观察言语训练结合电针治疗对肝豆状核变性（hepatolenticular degeneration,HLD）构音障碍的临床疗效。方法 将60例HLD构音障碍患者分为治疗组（言语训练结合电针治疗）和对照组（电针治疗）,每组30例。2个疗程后,采用改良Frenchay量表进行构音障碍评分,观察并比较两组临床疗效。结果 两组临床疗效比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组治疗后构音障碍评分均显著高于治疗前（P<0.01）,且治疗组治疗后构音障碍评分显著高于对照组（P<0.01）。结论 言语训练联合电针疗法能明显改善HLD构音障碍患者的言语功能。     

论《三国演义》赤壁之战的叙事节奏

节奏是作品内在的旋律.赤壁之战的节奏包括三个部分:一是言语与语言.赤壁之战的语言可分为叙述性言语和人物言语.这两个部分不但创造了赤壁之战的艺术审美情境,而且还?构 起到提升<三国演义>艺术质量的作用.二是时间与空间.作者用八回的篇幅写赤壁之战,将短时间内发生的事情拉长,多层面地强调空间在故事中的作用,形成了独特的时空节奏.三是情节与非情节.情节与非情节作为赤壁之战的叙事节奏,不但决定了故事的发展速度,而且创造了独特的审美情境.     

美国公开权研究

在美国,公开权是于20世纪中叶从隐私权演变而来的一项财产权利。根据这项权利,一个人(主要是知名人物)可以控制对其形象的商业开发并从中获益。目前公开权无论是在理论上,还是在立法与司法实践上,均充满争议。司法界与学术界尚没有为公开权寻找到一种科学的理论基础,因此公开权仍是一种“尚没有得到证明”的权利。赋予知名人物以公开权,会削弱社会大众根据联邦宪法第一修正案所享有的言论自由,因此应将公开权的适用范围限制在尽可能小的程度。     

The Law of Assembly in China

This paper is a comparative study of the law of assembly between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) vs. the Republic of China (ROC). The comparison is achieved by looking at how these two Chinese societies structure police powers during assembly, procession, and demonstration; textually and contextually. Particularly, it investigates into how the forces of history, constitution and politics converge to define and shape the law of assembly. This comparative project is conducted with a view to understand the relative development in police powers in the two Chinese societies, once linked by history and culture and now divided by geography and ideology. In a still larger context, this research rides the tide of comparative policing in exposing and explicating how police in two closed societies, ROC (Confucianism) and PRC (Socialism), come to terms with social protests and political challenges; more broadly how to balance the forces of reform and control with the use of law.

“媒体审判”负面效应批判——兼论构建传媒与司法间的和谐关系

"媒体审判"背后实际上是两种理念的冲突表达自由与司法独立.在我国现实语境中,这两种价值都有保护的必要,因此,我国应当采取有效手段对表达自由和司法独立之间的紧张关系进行平衡,从而建构司法和传媒间的和谐关系.     

美国网络色情言论管制的“空间”标准——从ACLU案到ALA案

在网络色情言论管制中，美国司法机关通过案例建立起“空间”标准，以及对“空间”标准的审查基准。“空间”标准是指在网络色情信息和成年人之间形成封闭空间，避免未成年人轻易接触网络色情信息。“空间”标准的建立，是保障特定人群免遭色情言论污染的一个重要运用。网络的虚拟性和开放性决定了这一封闭空间很难做到完美，而有可能侵害非色情信息发布者的言论自由。ACLU案和ALA案是美国最高法院建立和完善“空间”标准的两个里程碑式的案例。经过案例的积累和发展，美国最高法院逐渐形成了立体化的“空间”标准。为保障未成年人免遭色情言论侵扰提供了法制上的保障，也缓解了网络色情言论管制与言论自由之间的张力。     

基本权利的规范领域和保护程度对我国宪法第35条和第41条的规范比较

基本权利的规范领域和保护程度之间存在反比关系：规范领域愈宽，保护程度愈低；规范领域愈窄，保护程度愈高。我国宪法第35条规定的言论自由，其规范领域宽于宪法第41条规定的监督权，因此宪法对监督权的保护程度高于对言论自由的保护。基本权利对公权力裁量余地的限制，随着所涉及基本权利的不同而有所差异：公权力对言论自由的限制，需要提出充分的理由；对受保护程度更高的监督权的限制，需要提出更强有力的理由。宪法对监督权的高程度保护，体现了制宪者对民主监督的期盼和对民主建设的信心。     

网络围观的特点、问题及其完善

网络围观已经发展成为一股新兴的网络力量。因此网络围观的作用不容小觑,网络围观所引发的问题也应当重视。而抑制这些消极因素,引导网络围观对社会管理发挥正面效应,可采取的措施有：协调网络的公共空间和网络私人领域的关系;保障言论自由与禁止危害社会言论;正视网络围观民意积聚和意见表达;引导网络围观向＂绿色围观＂迈进等。     

舆情下的审判——法官对舆情压力的应对

我国宪法规定,人民法院依照法律规定独立行使审判权,不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉;同时还规定公民有言论自由。当一个案件通过媒体进入民众视野后,大部分民众对案件的关注,更多地是建立在已有的先见之上,而不管法律下的事实认定。由此,舆情给法官审判案件带来了一定的压力。在言论自由和舆论监督下,面对舆情,法官应当根据预期受众、社会共识度和社会效果,或侧重详尽事实、或加强说理论证,有选择地完善判决书,法院应当从舆情规律的把握出发,采取分阶段引导舆情和建立舆情危机应对机制等措施,帮助法官直面舆情、积极减压。