网络谣言扰乱公共秩序的认定——以我国《治安管理处罚法》第25条第1项的适用为中心

我国《治安管理处罚法》第25条第1项确立了网络谣言扰乱公共秩序的违法构成"三要件",即网络散布谣言的客观行为、扰乱公共秩序的危害后果和主观故意。司法实践中,有些法院秉持"秩序至上主义"的逻辑,存在对违法构成"三要件"的背离,在部分案件中对网络谣言和公共秩序的扩大解释构成对公民言论自由的过度限制。面向未来,法院可通过对上述违法构成要件的合宪性解释,合理平衡公共秩序与言论自由价值的冲突。在客观行为的司法认定方面,应区分"公共言论"与"私人言论",涉及"公共言论"的网络谣言以"捏造或者歪曲事实"作为认定标准,涉及"私人言论"的网络谣言可扩大解释为包括"未经证实"的消息。在危害后果的司法认定方面,应将"公共秩序"解释为以"公众生活的平稳与安宁"为核心内容的现实公共场所秩序,并引入比例原则的审查。在主观故意的司法认定方面,对于涉及公共言论的"故意"的认定,可采用"实质恶意"原则,即只有在行为人明知其将做出虚假言论或者对于信息的真假辨认存在严重的过错时,才能认定其为"故意";对于涉及私人言论的故意的认定,可参照刑法上"故意"的认定标准。

Judicial Determination of Disrupting Public Order through the Online Rumor--Centered on Judicatory Application of Item 1 of Article 25 of the Law on Public Security Administration and Punishments

Item 1 of Article 25 of the Law on Public Security Administration and Punishments establishes three essential constituents of the illegality for an act of disrupting public order through online rumors,namely the objective behavior of spreading rumors on internet, the harmful consequence and subjective intention of disturbing public order. In judicial trials, the court upholds the logic of " order supremacy" and doesn’t stick to the three essential constituents of illegality. In some cases, the expanded interpretation of online rumors and public order constitutes an excessive restriction on citizens’ freedom of speech. Looking into the future, the court may reasonably make a balance between the public order and the freedom of speech through the constitutional interpretation of the above-mentioned essential constituents of illegality.Regarding the judicial determination of the objective behavior, distinction should be made between "public speech" and "private speech". The "fabrication or distortion of the fact" is the standard for determining an online rumor involving "public speech", and the online rumor involving "private speech" may be expansively interpreted to include "unconfirmed" messages. Regarding the judicial determination of the harmful consequence, the "public order" should be interpreted as an order in the realistic public place with the core content of "stability and tranquility of public life" and the review through the principle of proportionality should be introduced. Regarding the judicial determination of subjective intention, the principle of "substantial malice" may be adopted to determine the intention involving public speech, that is, the perpetrator can be regarded as "intentional" only if he knows that he will make false speech or he has a serious fault in authenticating the information;For the determination of subjective intention involving private speech, reference may be made to the criteria for the determination of "intention" in the criminal law.