【作者】 陈小彪；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 言论自由是民主社会极为重要的品格和价值,基于言论自由在发展个人才智、增强民主参与、制衡权力滥用等方面有着极为重要的作用,世界上绝大多数国家都将言论自由作为一项公民基本权利载入宪法,同时,国际上几个重要的国际人权公约也在显要的位置规定了公民的言论自由。我国宪法也不例外,第35条明确规定了公民享有言论自由并给予了法律保障。正因为言论自由对于民主国家和法治国之极度重要性,因而,言论自由成为了学界探讨的热门话题,提出了诸多真知灼见。但是,言论自由这一公民基本权利又极易与其他基本权利发生冲突,因为公民在行使言论自由的同时,容易侵犯其他公民、社会和国家的其他重要法益,近些年来,国内发生多起“因言获罪”的案件,引起了国人尤其是学界诸多关注并引发了众多争议：言论究竟能否成为刑法规制的对象?言论是行为还是思想的范畴?如果区分属于思想范畴的言论和属于行为范畴的言论?言论自由的刑法边界何在?面对各种言论刑罚圈应该如何划定?如何建构刑法规制言论的具体规则?如何平衡言论自由和其他权利如名誉权、隐私权、公共安全、社会秩序、国家安全等重要法益之间的关系?如何化解自由价值与秩序价值之间的冲突?论文从言论及言论自由的概念和构成要素入手,针对言论的物理构成因素、人文构成因素和辅助性构成因素,法律可以进行不同类型的限制；根据控制行为理论,主张言论属于刑法调整的对象,并认为言论自由的保护程度并不取决于将言论划归行为的范畴还是划归思想的范畴,并在此基础上提出刑法干预言论的三个基本原则：利益衡量原则、比例原则和分类治理原则,在处理言论自由与其他重要法益冲突的案件中,言论自由并非任何时候都处于绝对优先的价值位阶,通常需要通过个案衡量：个案衡量中需要具体考量言者的主观构成、听者的不同类型及其心理反应、言论内容、发表言论的具体情境及相关法益。为了廓清言论自由与刑法、犯罪之间的复杂关系,论文选取了煽动性言论、恐吓性言论和毁誉性言论等几类在实践中容易入罪的特殊言论类型进行重点剖析,着重分析煽动性言论的社会危害性及其判断标准,对煽动性言论的宽严规制在一定程度上反映着一个国家和政府的政治成熟与自信,故在和平时期通常应以政治宽容之心对之；对于恐吓性言论需要根据其法益和侵害对象决定其是否值得启动刑法,提出司法需要审慎对待刑法修正案(八)中寻衅滋事罪中的“恐吓”并认为我国并不需要独立的恐吓罪。对于毁誉性言论,应根据言论针对的不同类型的对象谨慎入刑,并提倡尽量以民事诽谤代替刑事诽谤,尤其是对于政府官员的批评性议政言论,须特别严控公权力的随意启动,以利于疏通民意表达之渠道,保障国民正确、充分享有言论自由和对政府官员的批评、监督权。文章内容除引言外,由五章组成,全文共约11万字。第一章言论自由之概说,主要探讨言论自由之概念、价值基础、法律限制,本部分属于全文的基础界定。本章首先深入分析了言论的定义和构成因素,阐述了言论本身的构成因素(包括物理因素和人文因素)和言论的辅助性(支持性)因素。论文考察了言论自由的国际法和国内法的立法表述和理论定义,阐述了言论自由的权利属性,在此基础上,简要叙述了言论自由的价值基础。在本章的最后,根据国际人权公约和国内法的规定,较为深入地归纳了言论自由的法律限制具体条款及理由,并提出了法律限制言论自由的具体类型。第二章,言论自由的刑法规制,作为最后保障手段的刑法当然也是言论自由法律限制的重要手段,但是基于刑法的法律性质,刑法规制言论需要极为审慎,本章主要讨论言论能否成为刑法规制的对象、刑法规制言论的基本规则以及确定言论自由刑法边界的具体因素。鉴于刑法规制的对象只能是行为,那么言论究竟是属于行为的范畴还是属于思想的范畴就显得尤为重要,本章以行为与思想的界分标准作为逻辑起点,反思美国法中的言论与行动二分法之缺陷,根据控制行为理论认为言论即为行为的特殊类型,但同时认为,将言论认定为行为并不必然导致言论自由会限缩,言论自由的程度并不取决于言论与行为、思想的界分。文章在前述基础上,深入研究刑法规制言论自由的基本立场和具体规则,提倡刑法规制言论之法益平衡原则、比例原则和分类处理原则,并提出刑法规制言论以及言论犯罪的刑罚裁量时需要具体考量的诸种因素。第三章煽动性言论及其刑事责任,煽动性言论是否是受保护的言论自由,应否对其进行严格管制,被称为“言论自由理论的最后一个战场”,煽动性言论往往与主流价值相悖,是极易入罪的一种言论,但又是最容易引起争议的言论,本章通过考察煽动性言论的通常语义、刑法涵义及其特点,根据近些年来发生的典型案例探析煽动性言论与言论自由的紧张关系,结合现行刑法的规定,探讨煽动性言论的刑法性质,重点分析了煽动性言论的社会危害性的判断标准,理论剖析煽动性言论相关犯罪的主观构成和客观构成特征及司法认定标准。在前文基础上,提出需要高度关注群体事件中的煽动性言论以及政治宽容应该成为刑法规制煽动性言论之基本刑事政策。第四章恐吓性言论及其刑事责任,在言语交往过程中,经常会出现交往其中一方放出狠话而致使另一方产生较为严重的心理影响或者感受到极度紧张,此类狠话中多包含有对另一方实施恶害的内容。本章将对恐吓性言论及其入罪的理论争鸣、行为样态、司法认定及其刑罚裁量略作探讨。文章首先界定了恐吓与恐吓性言论,对恐吓性言论进行了较为深入的类型分析,在此基础上,探讨了恐吓入刑的利弊,认为不宜设立独立的恐吓罪。论文对恐吓性言论的主客观构成特征做了较为深入的分析,提出恐吓性言论造成的恐惧心理通常应该以社会上一般人是否会产生恐惧心理为标准,同时兼顾被害人本人的心理承受能力,并对恐吓性言论常见的辩解意见做了理论回应。第五章毁誉性言论及其刑事责任,毁誉性言论就是造成他人名誉受损的言论,该类言论的司法认定需要平衡言论自由和公民名誉权这两项公民基本权利。文章首先分析名誉及其范围,在此基础上界定毁誉性言论,认为该类言论具有方式的公开性、对象的确定性、内容的贬义性和主观的故意性等四个特征,探析毁誉性言论与言论自由的关系,认为名誉权和言论自由皆为公民的宪法基本权,二者的紧张关系需个案审查,通过价值衡量妥善处理,二者均未取得绝对优先的价值位阶。文章从行为对象、行为要件、责任形式和抗辩事由等方面分析了毁誉性言论的刑法性质,并在此基础上阐述了毁誉性言论的刑罚限度,主张通过个案衡量言论自由与名誉权的基本权利冲突,认为刑法应谨慎干预批评性议政,尤其需要严格掌握毁誉性言论的公诉条件,任何人不得滥用公权力侵害公民的言论自由以及对监督权、批评权和建议权。更多还原

【Abstract】 Freedom of speech is an extremely important character and value of democratic society. In consideration of the important role it plays in the development of individual talents, the strengthening democratic participation, and the balance of the power abuse, freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution as one of basic civil rights in most of the countries all of the world, at the same time, several key international conventions provide for the freedom of speech in prominent positions., not excepting our Constitution in which article thirty-fifth stipulates that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and gives the freedom a legal guarantee.Because of its extreme importance for democracy and the rule of law, the freedom of speech has become such a popular topic in the academia that lots of deep insights are put forward about it.However, it’s vulnerable to conflict between this basic right and other citizens’ rights, which easily leads to violations of the other important legal interest of other citizens, the society or even the state when someone enjoys his freedom of speech.Recently many cases of being jailed for freedom of speech has aroused widespread concern especially in academic circles and stirred controversies among people of all fields.Whether the speech should become the object of criminal law and regulations or not? Whether speech is a kind of behavior or it belongs to the category of thought? How to distinguish the speech of thought to that of behavior? What is the boundary of freedom of speech in the criminal law? How to delineate various criminal penalty circles on speech? How to construct specific rules of criminal restriction on speech? How to balance the freedom of speech and other rights such as the right of reputation, privacy, public safety, public order, national security and other important legal rights and interests? How to resolve the conflict between values of freedom and order?The significance of this paper is mainly reflected in the following aspects:Firstly, to make it clear the types of speech and the scope of the freedom, be helpful for citizens to exercise the freedom correctly, and to a certain degree, make the freedom of speech be able to guarantee the right of freedom of speech provided by the Constitution and avoid the overuse of it.Secondly, to clarify the relationship among freedom of speech, criminal law and crime, provide for the law enforcement agencies, especially public security departments and judicial organs a theoretical guidance which can be helpful for them to correctly differentiate the legal use of rights, infringement and crime.Thirdly, to explain the difference between critical remarks and libel, ensure the proper use of rights of criticism, suggestion, and surveillance and reporting, dredge the channels of expression of public opinion in order to make it become the important foundation of democracy and rule of law.This paper starts with the brief introduction of freedom of speech and the nature of speech, then compares the legal security with the legal boundary of the freedom, analyzes different types of speech in detail, deeply discusses the basic position and specific rules of criminal law interfering with speech, in order to clarify the complex relationship among freedom of speech, criminal law and crime in favor of expression of citizens’ opinions, ensure the correct and full use of freedom of speech, provide guidance for the public security departments and judicial organs to understand and grasp the boundary between freedom and crime, which will be expensed and deeply explained by comparative research method. The article is composed of five chapters not including the introduction and conclusion, and there are about110,000words in this paper.Chapter One on the Freedom of SpeechThis part mainly introduces the concept, value basis and legal restriction of freedom of speech, which is the foundation of the paper. It firstly analyzes the definition and components of speech, elaborates the form factors (including physical factors and human factors) and speech auxiliary (support) factors of the speech itself. The article explores the legal expression and theoretical definition of freedom of speech in both national law and international law, and explains the nature of it, on the basis of which, the article introduces briefly the value basis of freedom of speech. At the end of the chapter, according to the international conventions and domestic laws, it thoroughly summarizes the legal restrictions on freedom of speech in specific terms and the reason, and puts forward the specific types of legal restriction on freedom of speech.Chapter Two Regulation of Criminal LawAs the last means of protection of rights, criminal law is no doubt an exactly important way to restrict the freedom of speech. Nevertheless, in terms of the legal character of criminal law, it should be quite prudent to use it. This chapter mainly discusses whether speech could be the object of criminal law, the basic rules of the regulation of criminal law and determine the specific factors which decide the legal boundary of speech within criminal law. In view of criminal object can only be behavior, it is important to get straight whether the speech is behavior or thought. In this part academic standard differentiating behavior and speech is logical starting point to reflect the defects of speech and action dichotomy in United States law which admits that speech is a special kind of behavior on the basis of control theory, but denies that behavior does necessarily narrow the freedom of speech down and that the degree of the freedom of speech decided by the boundary among speech, behavior and thought. Based on what abovementioned, this part deeply explains the basic foundation and specific rules of regulations of criminal law on freedom of speech, advocates principles of legal interests balance, proportion and the classified processing, and puts forward that various factors should be taken into consideration on the criminal regulation of speech and the discretion of penalties of speech crimes.Chapter Three Sedition and Its Criminal LiabilityIt is known as the "the last battlefield for free speech theories" whether inflammatory speech should be protected as freedom of speech and be controlled strictly. Inflammatory speech often goes far away from the common value, which easily causes crime and stirs up controversies. This chapter explores the nature of inflammatory speech in criminal law, selectively analyzes the judgment standard of its social harm and theoretically explains subjective and objective characteristics and judicial cognizance standard of related crimes, according to the typical cases of sedition and freedom of expression of tensions, in combination with the current criminal law. On the basis of above mentioned, it puts forward that paying more attention on the inflammatory speech in group events and its and political tolerance should be the basic criminal policy of regulation on inflammatory speech of criminal law.Chapter Four Threatening Remarks and Its Criminal ResponsibilityWhen people communicate with speech, the situation often happens that one side emits ruthless words which usually contain evil intent causing the other one serious psychological effects or extreme nervousness. This chapter discusses slightly about the threatening speech, theoretical arguments on its conviction of crime, behavior, judicial cognizance and punishment. This part firstly defines the intimidation and threatening remarks, undertakes relatively thorough analysis on threatening remarks, on basis of which, this chapter discusses the advantages and disadvantages of consider intimidation as crime, which ends up with the opinion that it is inappropriate to set up an independent crime of intimidation. The paper makes thorough analysis on the objective and subjective characteristics of threatening remarks, then puts forward that fear caused by threatening comments should be judged on the standard of ordinary people in society and the victim’s psychological bearing capacity should be considered. Moreover the paper makes theoretical response to common arguing comments on threatening remarks.Chapter Five Reputation-damaging Speech and Its Criminal LiabilityReputation-damaging speech is a kind of speech causing damage to others’ reputation, and the judicial cognizance of it should base on the balance of freedom of speech and citizens’ rights of reputation. Herein analyzes the reputation and its scope firstly. Then defines the reputation-damaging speech which contains four features:publicity, certainty of object, negativity and intention. It also analyzes the relationship between reputation-damaging speech and freedom of speech, and concludes that both right of reputation and freedom of speech are basic constitutional rights and that the relations between them should be handled carefully and properly by balance of value and neither of them is in priority. The criminal nature of reputation-damaging speech is analyzed from the behavior of objects, behavior factor, form of liability and plea and on this basis limitation of criminal penalty on reputation-damaging speech is herein explained. And the author suggests that conflicts between freedom of speech and basic rights of reputation should be balanced though each case, and the criminal law should be considered prudent when it is used to intervene critical remarks, especially the need for strict control of praise or blame speech prosecution conditions, no one shall make misuse of public power encroaching on citizen’s freedom of speech and the right of supervision, the right to criticize and suggestion.更多还原