论言论自由与“诽谤政府”——兼议言论自由保护与规范

言论自由作为一种基本人权，历来受到各国的关注和重视，并受到积极保护。但近年来，中国部分地区发生以公民涉嫌诽谤政府为由侵犯公民言论自由权利的行为，并引发社会的广泛关注。本文结合相关案例从言论自由和诽谤罪的定位及两者之间的界限，探讨保护言论自由及言论自由权的界限问题。     

徒刑中自由内容与结构初探——从中国囚犯劳动报酬获取权利之实际状态切入

徒刑到底剥夺或限制着罪犯哪些自由目前并不清楚。以囚犯劳动报酬获取权利之实践来论述徒刑中被依法剥夺的自由类型和结构，就是一种很好的尝试。刑法除了规定囚犯必须参加劳动外，并未提及劳动报酬获取权，但规定只要罪犯劳动表现和贡献符合法定标准，就可获得减刑、假释，以劳动成果换取自由是一项制度实践；但此做法目前实际上还只专用于少数人而不普遍适用于一般服刑者，这表明从学理上揭示徒刑被剥夺的自由类型与结构有重大的实践意义。     

赌博犯罪若干实务问题研究

赌博,是指拿财物下注比输赢的活动。赌博罪与非罪、此罪彼罪的界限应该严格区分、把握。赌博犯罪情报信息的收集渠道包括群众举报、拉出逆用和技术手段。拉出逆用利用了犯罪嫌疑人案发前或案发后的矛盾。技术手段包括资金监控、通讯监控和行踪监控。赌博犯罪证据材料的固定重点在于厘清证据锁链的要求,注重依据不同类型的电子数据进行针对性的提取与固定。     

言论自由能否成为刑法所禁止的危害行为

现代的社会是法制的社会,人们的一切行为都受到法律的调整以及约束,自由只是相对的,没有绝对的自由;因此,在某些情况下,人们发表言论的自由势必要受法律的制约,当言论的内容或者方式触犯了法律的强制性规定时,也势必会产生相应的法律责任。从危害行为的特征和基本形式来看,发表言论这个行为是能够成为刑法所禁止的危害行为的,这意味着言论自由也要受法律制约。在认定发表言论是否构成刑法禁止的危害行为时,应该具体问题具体分析,把握危害行为的实质以及发表的言论中所可能构成的犯罪的实质,具体分析其可能产生的行为后果,结合行为人的主观目的,动机,再进行具体区分。     

毒品案件侦查中控制下交付和诱惑侦查之解析

控制下交付和诱惑侦查作为司法实践中最常用而有效的特殊侦查措施,在遏制、惩处毒品、走私等犯罪方面发挥着重要作用。新刑事诉讼法对控制下交付进行了明确的规定,但对诱惑侦查仅进行了概括的授权。对于控制下交付,应当在适用主体、前提、目的以及审批方面进行规制;对于诱惑侦查合法性的判定标准,应坚持主观标准为主、客观标准为辅的原则。     

信息自由的保护与限制

信息自由的＂保护与限制＂是一对孪生子女,这是许多国家的信息自由法或信息公开法上的一个现实或必然。在人类对信息自由理念的追求中,＂保护与限制＂形成对立和统一的局面。欧盟、美国和日本的信息自由法或信息公开法在信息自由的保护与限制方面各具特色,同时也面临着一些新问题。我国在行政法规层面对信息自由的保护与限制作出了许多与国际接轨和创新的规定,但是在立法上还没有制定出类似国外的信息自由法或信息公开法。在信息自由的保护与限制方面,我国完全能够与世界各国求同存异,并对存异部分展开交流讨论,以缩小差异和分歧。     

Freedom,Equality and Fraternity in Kant’s Critique of Judgement*

At least during his critical period, all of Kant’s philosophical works have a secret political dimension. Among other things, following the analysis of Hannah Arendt, the Critique of Judgment – paragraph 40 in particular – became a main text of political philosophy. In looking at the Critique of Judgement from a political perspective, I shall refer not to paragraph 40 but to the Kantian discussion of pure aesthetic judgement. In my opinion, one can understand Kant’s remarks on aesthetic judgement, and especially transcendental anthropology, as meaning that Kant philosophically attributes the three political ideas of the French Revolution (liberty, fraternity and equality) to the whole human being as such, and not just to the intelligible man.     

Counter-mythologising “media freedom”: including the audience in media freedom discourses and a new normative position for the global south

This article argues for a conscious counter-mythologisation of the popularly utilised term “media freedom” within media political and policy discourses. It further argues for a diversion from understanding this term to refer exclusively to the sphere of media production involving the ability or freedoms of media producers to do their work without hindrances to their independence – whether these stem from state actors, media owners or other external forces. The article contends that a free media should theoretically, and in addition, be considered from the perspective of the audience(s) and its respective prospects of access and accessibility to the entirety of the media landscape. Since challenges of meaningful access and accessibility to media communications persist in much of the Global South, the article concludes by suggesting a newly theorised normative approach to the role of the media in a democracy, which is in keeping with socio-political conditions in historically “Othered” regions of the world. Utilising the example of a counter-mythologisation of media freedom, and adopting an audience-centred approach, the article additionally contends that any attempt at formulating new media theory ought to be contextualised within the global crisis of inequality in order for it to be relevant to the majority audience.     

“Academics for Peace” in Turkey: a case of criminalising dissent and critical thought via counterterrorism policy

ABSTRACT

On 11 January 2016, 1128 academics in Turkey and abroad signed a petition calling on Turkish authorities to cease state violence in mainly Kurdish populated areas of the country, which had been under curfew and an extended state of emergency. The petition received an immediate reaction from President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, who accused the signatories of treason and terrorist propaganda. He subsequently demanded that public prosecuters launch an investigation. Criminalisation of the petition has been exacerbated by disciplinary action by universities against many of the signatories. Many have suffered insults, arrest, detention or suspension as a result of the ensuing smear campaign. This massive crackdown on academic freedom has been masked by discourses of counterterrorism, which have also been deployed to criminalise dissent more generally in Turkey as a part of a process of rapid “democratic retrenchment” since 2013. This article is an attempt to put the criminalisation of academics within the larger framework of human rights violations, increasing curtailments of academic freedom and rising authoritarianism in Turkey. It argues that the prosecution of the signatories of the petition is an extension of an established tradition of targeting academic freedom in times of political crisis in Turkey but is also a product of growing authoritarianism under the ruling party and President Erdo?an. It shows that counterterrorism laws can be extended far beyond eliminating security threats by instrumentalising them to suppress dissent in a declining democracy.     

Criminalising Academia: The Protection of State Information Bill and Academic Freedom

This article assesses the implications of the controversial Protection of State Information Bill for academic freedom in South Africa, specifically for communications, media and journalism studies. The Bill requires the security cluster to classify sensitive documents on national security grounds. Academic teaching and research can help citizens to understand whether the security cluster is acting in the universal interest, rather than the interest of a political elite; it can also be used to assess media performance in reporting on national security matters. Using a critical approach to the concept of national security, I argue that the Bill favours secrecy over openness, and South Africa’s embrace of the human security definition of national security has contributed to the problem. This overemphasis on secrecy is likely to reduce the few spaces that exist in academia for critical, emancipatory work on security issues, which could hobble the sector’s attempts to understand the deeper processes at work in the security cluster. If such enquiry is marginalised, then the higher education system risks becoming an instrument for continuity rather than change in South Africa’s existing, highly unequal power relations: relations that are being maintained increasingly by force.