【作者】 李盛之；

【导师】 屈广清；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 美国大众传播法律规制的演进过程正是现代大众传播媒介首先在美国加速发展的历史阶段,随着印刷、电子和网络传播媒介的依次出现和融合新生,逐渐形成了以宪法《第一修正案》为前提、核心和原点的法律规制体系,形成了规范大众传播媒介的传播活动、传播内容、传播渠道、传播产业和传播效果等各方面的法律原则、规制和架构。这其中的最显著变化,一是大众传播媒介形态由单一的出版物向电子传播媒介加速发展与融合。二是言论自由由公民的基本人权向媒介的传播权延展。三是言论自由向表达自由拓展与延伸。四是伴随着大众传播日益强大的传播效果,表达自由已经由公民和媒介的基本权利转变为现代宪政民主制度的组成部分。关于媒介表达自由在面对政府管理时的合理界限,即表达自由与规制约束的平衡,在长期的司法实践中,联邦最高法院提出了“明显和即刻危险”(the clear and present danger)的标准,定义平衡的标准(definitional balance)和特别权衡的标准(the balancing doctrine)。其本质是试图在法理、公共利益和传播效果三者的权衡中找到现实的平衡点。由于网络传播等新技术和新型传播技术的出现,技术手段开始审慎的在表达自由的保护与约束中小心翼翼但却越来越多地发挥更大的作用。在儿童电视内容规制和网络传播中不良信息的管理中正是如此。宪法《第一修正案》保障的出版自由和言论自由包括了新闻自由和广播自由,包括了电子传媒在内的各种大众传媒的表达自由。这既是传统言论自由和出版的法理性拓展,也是大众传媒权利的技术性延伸。但是,不同形态的大众传媒由于不同的资源属性和传播特点,又有着并不相同的表达自由的呈现方式,因而,形成了针对不同大众传媒的具体法律规制。由于广播电视等电子传媒的资源特性和传播特性,美国形成了一整套有关电子传媒的法律规制体系、运行方式和规制机构。其中,围绕保护表达自由,服务公共利益,防止媒介垄断的广播电视电子媒介所有权规制由联邦通信委员会制定并经国会、媒体和法院的检视与判断,既促成了超级商业大众传媒集团的形成,也保证了公共电视和地方社区电视的运转,维护了公众的媒体近用。值得中国广播电视立法和行政管理深入借鉴。商业言论曾经被排斥在宪法保护之外,完全由政府管理。这既有普通法的历史渊源,也有对宪法《第一修正案》的不同理解。但是,大众传播的发达与商业与公益边界的模糊使得商业言论具有了公益或推进公益的特点,由此,商业言论开始进入宪法保护的一般言论的领域。但是,政府仍然可以以政府利益与商业利益的冲突程度为由限制商业言论,四步分析法为是否和如何保护与约束商业言论提供了有效的规制模式,其实质是对政府限制商业言论的制约。美国在保护与约束的平衡中实现了商业言论的广泛传播。大众传播与知识产权关系密切,作品的媒介呈现本身就是大众传播的信源及其表达方式。不同的媒介形态和传播方式充实着知识产权的内涵,衍生了媒介知识产权的诸多权利。网络传播的兴起对传统版权法提出了全新的挑战。时事新闻表达和电视节目模板的版权保护、网络服务提供商对传播不良内容的责任、网络传播时代合理使用原则等问题的争议与讨论建构了更加完善的媒介知识产权法律制度和法律保护机制。网络传播是大众传播的全新形态和全新阶段,融合了以往任何传播形式,也对现行的大众传播法律规制提出了全方位的挑战。表达自由、对象保护、侵权援引、技术监控和行业自律构成了美国网络传播规制和基本模式特点。中国大众传播法律规制面临着自身发展、国际传播和新技术变革的多重内在冲突,最重要的是将大众传媒的体制机制改革法制化和规制化。美国广播电视等电子传媒规制建构的起点之一是对其资源性质有限性的判断。中国的大众传媒、特别是广播电视资源与其组织性质的政治、经济双重属性,决定了其体制、机制与规制改革的复杂性。要改变中国广播电视国有性质、公益实质和商业运营的内在矛盾与冲突,通过体制机制改革,重新布局所有权规制,形成国有、公有和商业三种所有权性质并存的所有权规制结构,从而形成新的广播电视法律规制的体制基础。卫视体制存在诸多诸如行政化上星,市场化覆盖等内在冲突,要从改变上星资质开始,重构卫视体制与规制。同时,从以表达自由的宪法保护为原点,以言论保护、内容规制、所有权规制、媒介知识产权保护和网络传播管理等重大立法为主干,建设与完善中国的大众传播法律规制体系。更多还原

【Abstract】 The evolution of the US laws governing mass communication began with modern media’s accelerated development in the US. In accordance with the emergence and integration of printing, electronic and Internet media, a package of laws and regulations, grounded on the First Amendment of the Constitution, have gradually been enacted to regulate mass media in terms of their activities, contents, channels, industrial development, effects, etc. Among others, the most significant changes are manifested in the following four areas:the accelerated development of the media industry from print media to electronic media, an extension of speech freedom to dissemination right of media, the expansion and extension of speech freedom to expression freedom, and due to the great influence of mass media expression freedom turning from the fundamental rights of citizens and media into an integral part of modern constitutional democracy.Regarding confrontations between mass media’s expression freedom and government regulation, namely, the balance between expression freedom and regulatory constraint, the US Supreme Court, in its long-term judicial practice, has proposed the standards of "the clear and present danger", "definitional balance", and "the balancing doctrine".Its essence is to try to find, in realistic terms, a balance in legality, public interest, and communicating effects. Due to the emergence of Internet communication and new transmission technology, technological means have been applied prudently but substantially in the protection and regulation of expression freedom. The regulation of children’s television programs and information filter management are a case in point.The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of press and speech as well as the expression freedom of mass media, including electronic media. This is the logical extension of traditional freedom of speech and press and the technical extension of mass media’s rights. However, different forms of mass media, due to their different resource properties and communication characteristics, have different ways of expression freedom. Therefore, specific laws and regulations are formed for different mass media.Due to the resource and transmission characteristics of radio and television and other electronic media, the United States has established a whole set of legal regulation system and operational and regulatory agencies to regulate electronic media. In order to protect freedom of expression, serve the public interest, and prevent monopoly on radio and television ownership, a series of media regulations have been enacted by the Federal Communications Commission, approved by the Congress, and reviewed by the media and the courts. As a result, it not only promotes the formation of the super commercial mass media group, but also ensures smooth operation of public and local television services. This has deep implications for legislation and administration governing radio and television media in China.Commercial speech was excluded from constitutional protection, and was fully administered by the government. This practice had its historical origins in the common law and different understandings of the First Amendment. However, the development of mass media and the blurring boundaries between commerce and public interest render commercial speech some characteristics of the public interest or promotion of the public welfare. Thus, commercial speech has begun to be protected by the Constitution. However, the government still restricts commercial speech because of the possible conflicts between government and commercial interests. The four-step analysis provides an effective mode in regards to whether or not, and, if so, how to protect and restrict commercial speech. The main reason behind this is to constrain government’s restrictions on commercial speech. In this regard, the United States ensures wide dissemination of commercial speech in the balance of protection and restraint.Mass communication and intellectual property are closely related, and the media presentation of products per se is the information source and expression mode of mass media. Various media forms and transmission modes have enriched the contents of intellectual property rights, and have given rise to intellectual property rights of the media. Network communication has posed new challenges to traditional copyright law. The controversy and discussion concerning copyright protection of current events coverage and television program formats, the network service provider’s responsibility for the dissemination of inappropriate content, and the rational use principle in the era of network communication all have helped to construct a more perfect legal system and protection mechanism for intellectual property right. Network communication, as a new form and a new stage of mass communication, has integrated the previous forms of communication, and posed a full range of challenges to the existing legal regulation of mass communication. Expression freedom, target protection, infringement quoted, technical monitoring, and industrial self-regulation all constitute the regulation and the basic mode of network communication in USA.The legal regulation of mass communication in China is faced with the multiple internal conflicts in its own development, international communication, new technological revolution, and, most importantly, the legalization and regulation of institution and mechanism reforms of the mass media. One basis of the American regulation of radio and television and other electronic media is the judgment of the limited resources. Reforming Chinese mass media, especially radio and television, in terms of institution, mechanism and regulation, is going to be a complex undertaking. This complexity is due to their economic and political attributes. We should handle the conflict between the state-owned and public interest-oriented nature of China’s radio and television media and their commercial operating mode, re-layout the ownership of the media through the reform of institutional mechanism, constrict coexistence of state-owned, public and commercial ownership of the media, and thus form the institutional basis of the new legal regulation of radio and television media. There are many internal conflicts, such as administration of satellite programs and the marketization coverage, in the current satellite TV system. The reform should begin with the change in the satellite access qualification to reconstruct the satellite TV system and regulation. At the same time, from the standpoint of constitutional protection of expression freedom, the construction and improvement of the Chinese legal regulatory system of mass media have to be grounded on speech protection, content regulation, ownership regulation, media intellectual property rights protection, and Internet communication management.更多还原