【作者】 朱文雁；

【导师】 齐延平；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 英国是世界上最古老的对诽谤加以系统规制的国家。当代美国、爱尔兰和原英联邦国家的诽谤法包括口头诽谤和书面诽谤法都源于英国诽谤法,可见其应用及其影响之广。其诽谤领域的法律研究已经相当深入和细致。一方面,作为诽谤法出现最早的国家,英国具有保守主义传统,与中国尊重传统的作风颇为相似。另一方面,从其诽谤法案诞生以来,司法实践中已经表现出一定程度的改革,对涉及损害名誉权的诽谤言论进行制度化和技术化的合理宽容；其诽谤法立法也相应发展,以适应现代言论表达、传播方式以及诽谤诉讼的变化趋势。英国的诽谤法律规制体系以普通法(判例法)为主体,成文法则是对一段时期内司法判例中确立的规则的总结和固定；但是成文法在适用上优于判例法。在英国,诽谤诉讼大约于13世纪成为较为普遍的诉讼,在后在侵权与刑事领域均有涉及,从14世纪末15世纪初到本世纪初,刑事领域中的诽谤罪名如煽动诽谤罪经历了除罪化的历程；英国最早的诽谤案汇编及修正颁布于14世纪,《1843年诽谤法案》作为单行诽谤法案成为现代英国诽谤法的蓝本。19世纪以来,大量可用于诽谤的法律规制出现在普通法的判例之中；议会也对成文法进行了一系列修改,主要体现在1952年和1996年两次修订的《诽谤法案》的实施,以及2011年改革和修正《诽谤法案》的动议。但是由于英国并没有一个具体确认言论自由基本权利的书面宪法性文件,英国成文法律对言论自由也从未有过明确的规定,历史上英国议会也并没有把言论自由放置于重要的绝对优先地位。英国1998年加入《欧洲人权公约》后,言论自由在英国法律中的地位有机会得以提升,在英国法律体系中的准宪法权利地位得以确认。2000年该公约在英国生效之后,权利主体可以此制衡可能有碍于他们发表言论的英国法律和判例法。英国法律一直以来维持了对诽谤言论传统的两种类型划分,即书面诽谤与口头诽谤两种,并在具体规制上对其要素进一步改革和完善。如在损害后果方面,要求由损害结果的推定发展为实际损害的原则；在政治性意见为内容的言论规制方面,需要进一步考察引起不满的情绪和叛乱、煽动大众、蔑视司法的动机的判断,判例法中结合了发表言论者的具体行为以及言论整体涵义来确定,而不是仅仅看其思想片段而导致因言获罪；在言论所针对的对象方面,英国普通法上并未区分国家工作人员、大众媒体与一般公民或法人在诽谤诉讼主体和责任承担上的不同,而是认为他们应当遵循统一的诽谤认定原则、法律规责准则以及抗辩事由,因为其认为言论自由的宽严限度不应当以言论主体的身份作为区别标准,而是应当给予平等保护。英国诽谤诉讼中最基本的一个环节是,判定被控言论的内涵是否具有诽谤性质,这就涉及到被控言论诽谤含义的识别依据及其原则。较之历史,当代尤其是21世纪以来,英国人似乎早已从大量的诽谤诉讼中汲取到足够的经验和教训,无论媒体还是试图诽谤他人的个体在发表涉嫌诽谤的言论时往往采取许多巧妙的规避手段,使被控言论的诽谤含义越来越巧妙,难以识别,或难以作出令人信服的判决。因此,了解当代英国法庭在审理诽谤案中如何识别被控言论的诽谤含义,如何运用有效的法律规制作出合理判决,对于了解英国诽谤法的具体实施以及诽谤诉讼的司法实践的确很有必要。英国近十多年来的诽谤判例对于被控言论诽谤含意的识别发展出了合理解释标准、温和含义标准、单一词义标准等多项标准,并在判决中阐述了对于言论的语境因素和修辞意义的考量。英国普通法和成文法律几个世纪以来实际上都规定由被告承担严格责任,现代英国对诽谤的归责原则经历了由严格责任到过失责任的渐进过程；虽然英国法对于媒体等法人机构未规定与一般主体相异的归责原则,但是普通法的司法实践中演生出了处理媒体诽谤的更为细致的责任承担规制来应对更为多样复杂的情形,尤其是在通过网络媒体进行诽谤的案例当中。由言论主体对其言论真实性负责,避免一些言论主体将媒体作为发泄私愤的工具而对他人进行诽谤,使媒体摆脱言论真实性审查的困扰,对言论侵权责任构成的认定采取以专业注意义务为基础的过失责任,并确立对重复发表不责任的原则；另一方面,为避免言论主体惧于言论侵权责任而不敢说话,使言论自由受到实质限制,使人们的言论能够得以在媒体更充分的表达,规定了媒体需要向言论相对人提供平等的传播机会。针对网络媒体言论传播特殊性,如在普通法和在英国《保护电子商务(欧共体指令)条例》中对托管、参与出版、帮助出版行为中网络服务商与言论主体的责任分担详加阐释,将为注册用户提供信息传输的网络服务供应商视作出版方,判定经由网络信息传输而导致被控信息在网络注册用户之间传播也是一种出版路径应承担出版者的责任。进一步确认不知情的网络服务商没有像知情者一样参与具体言论表达的意图,使网络服务提供商是否应当作为出版方承担诽谤归责的原则体现得更加全面。同时也应看到,将清除网络出版材料的责任归于网络服务方或第二出版方的规定给互联网服务供应商以极大的压力,对于网络媒体相对严格的做法容易造成诽谤案件的烂诉和司法成本的浪费。英国司法语境中的抗辩事由并非像大陆法框架下需要由被告一方主动提出才被法院纳入考量,而是不仅可以由被告方提出,同时也可以由法院在当事人双方的对抗辩论过程以及诉状和答辩书中主动探寻,作为考量是否足以对抗原告的起诉理由或支持原告起诉的依据。因此,此处的抗辩事由是作为帮助当事人以及法官衡平言论自由与名誉权之权利关系的法律技术的统称。在立法与普通法中,存在多种特殊抗辩事由而给予发表言论者充分的自我权利保护的空间,有助于减少那些浪费社会成本而又数量日益庞大的诽谤诉讼。英国对诽谤诉讼双重诉讼规制具有一定的灵活性。英国法庭受理诽谤诉讼时在针对出版地的认定行使自由裁量权方面会考虑到一个主要因素：当事人关心的名誉问题与英国是否存在足够密切的关系,否则的话则受理的可能性较小。此外,实质性侵权规制不是管辖确定的绝对原则。英国法院另外强调的是,要在英国对该案管辖的有利因素和国外对其管辖的有利因素之间进行权衡。英国诽谤法对诽谤合理宽容的理论基础表现在两个方面,保障言论自由与实现民主政治。诽谤言论作为言论的一种形式,分为事实陈述与观点两种,固然真实的事实陈述有助于人们达至真理,然在诽谤诉讼中,多项抗辩事由的规定更多是对于对观点的保护,而非将所有不实陈述都作为应当归责的言论,正是为了建立思想的自由市场已达到自我净化,并适应民主的需要。从理论上来说,国限制诽谤则主要是对名誉权的保障,法律对名誉权加以保护,实质上是为了维护其背后的的价值,这些价值除了个人荣誉与尊严的实现,还包含了名誉权中体现公共利益。总之,言论自由并非是一项绝对自由,个人自由的行使若与他人的利害无关,则社会无权干涉,若滥用自由而有害于他人利益,个人则应当负责交代,并且还应当承受或是社会的或是法律的惩罚。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the modern society, the importance of reputation, public interest and freedom of speech which is often undermined by defamation is self-evident. China is now in the process of building a democratic country under the rule of law. Defamation law is an inevitable part of the legal construction of rule by law. While judicial practice of defamation lawsuit is exploring an increasing number of issues, libel law construction is one of the vital link. The UK as the country where defamation law was formed much more earlier than in China is similar to China in sticking to traditions. Moreover, the British libellaw research has been profound and meticulous. Therefore, this study attempts to research on English libel law by elaborating on its exquisite regulation modes and by analyzing the theory behind the existing legal regulations and its solutions to issues involving defamation.Then it relates the present libel laws system in England to the present situations so as to offer suggestions for defamation law construction in the Chinese legal system.Firstly, paper deals mainly with the libel cases in the past decade or so in England to clarify definitions, meanings and connotations in relation to defamation lawsuit. It extracts from many defamation cases various principles regarding the abstract rational recognition of accused speech meanings doubted as slander, libel and defamation. The purpose is to provide reference for three issues Firstly, under what context can speech be considered as a legal significance of libel. Secondly, for the meaning of a diversity of expressions, under what circumstances can the hidden meaning of the accused speech of defamation can be interpreted as defamation. Thirdly, for publications accused of defamation, how can the interpretation about the accused speech of defamation is considered reasonable.Secondly, the thesis mainly analyzes the theories behind English Laws on defamation in terms of tolerance and restrictions with different values. In the law of libel tolerance levels, in addition to the value of freedom of speech, the balance between social power and state power should be taken into consideration when law is resorted to punish defamation,. This is because the supervision of citizens by public opinion and by news media is not only a political right, but also an important social power due to its powerful influence. On the other hand, human rights to freedom of speech stipulates a deadline, and libel as a violation of the line threatens the right of reputation and law of defamation is a guarantee of reputation. Thus, freedom of speech and the right of reputation embodies the value of libel regulations.Thirdly, the thesis focuses on the legal regulations of specific system. First, an analysis of libel law texts is made about the British libel regulation effect including UK’s "bill of rights" and "law of defamation" in recent trends, and an analysis is also made about the conflict between the UK "bill of rights" and EU Charter of human rights" It points out that in this framework on the freedom of speech, restrictions on freedom of speech should have a legitimate line; at the same time, it clarifies and analyzes the "defamation law" under the new background. Secondly, regarding the action for defamation defenses, the balance between the British libel law and free speech with respect to the honorary legal technology are introduced and explained. Finally, libel special imputation principles under the network era is introduced in detail.Fourthly, thesis explores what is called as "libel tourism" phenomenon related to the British libel suit and the special jurisdiction which has a global influence. It points out that in the contemporary with global network growing, a country’s libel regulation may cause the effects of globalization. The tilt protection of reputation and open principles of jurisdiction in the UK in libel proceedings presents their own characteristics. In the last, the thesis and points out that our country in the defamation law regulation should adopt and the system innovations which should be adopted too with the British libel law enlightenment.更多还原