【作者】 姚泽金；

【导师】 刘斌；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 公共批评与公共主体名誉权冲突,既体现为一种权利冲突,本质上更体现为一种权利与权力之间的冲突。二者公共属性和私人属性兼具、公共利益和私人利益合一,价值和利益之权衡取舍,体现出不同政治伦理观和法律价值观。规范二者之冲突,实质上既是给公民和媒体批评国家机关、官员和公共人物的权利划定边界,也是为公共主体的名誉权保护确定范围,制度建构集中体现在名誉权法之中,西方称之为公共诽谤法。政治伦理的变迁和名誉权观念的演进决定着调整二者冲突的法律规范的性质,西方公共诽谤法制经历了从刑法规制,到民法规制,逐步走向宪法规制的过程,走出的是一条公共批评权利不断扩张、公共主体名誉保护不断弱化的道路。各国通过不同的制度建构实现了对公共批评优先保护、对公共主体名誉权适度抑制的冲突平衡机制。我国宪法对二者提供同等保护,并在言论自由条款的基础上特别规定了公民批评建议权条款,体现了宪法对于批评建议权的特别关照,但是名誉权法并未发展出平衡二者冲突的明确规范,依然按照普通公民、法人这种平等主体之间的名誉侵权和刑事诽谤诉讼进行调整。宪法不能直接适用,现行规范模糊、缺失,由此造成了针对公共批评与公共主体名誉权冲突这类“例外情形”法律规制的困难。本人认为要解决二者之间的冲突,必须立足我国政治和社会转型现实,遵循我国现行成文法体制和基本规范,在规范主义的路径下和现有法律体制和机制框架内,探索一条与我国政治民主化进程相适应的冲突解决之道,逐步扩大公共批评空间、适度限制公共主体的名誉权保护,实现公共批评与公共主体名誉权冲突的平衡。平衡二者冲突的价值目标是实现公共主体名誉权法律规制的合宪性控制。它面临双重任务,一是如何通过现行司法制度的能动性司法实践,创设规则,实现对不断上演的公共诽谤案件司法裁判的合宪性控制,二是如何通过修补实体法规范中的立法漏洞实现名誉权保护立法规范的合宪性控制。前者属于司法能动主义的规范建构,即在现行司法制度框架内,在名誉权诉讼中充分运用“构成要件”思考模式,法官通过对违法性要件和过错要件的合宪性解释,不断扩充“构成要件”的规范性容量,通过发现具有普遍适用价值的抗辩理由,阻却名誉侵权和诽谤犯罪的成立,并通过司法解释或批复形式,确立此类“例外情形”案件的司法认定标准,以指导各级人民法院,减少个案裁判的自由裁量空间,确立“舆论监督”、“公共利益”和“公正评论”等抗辩规则,为公共批评中的不实、错误言论设置侵权诉讼的“重大过失”标准和刑事指控的“主观故意”标准,逐步扩张公共批评的权利空间,压缩公共主体名誉权的保护范围,实现二者之间的平衡。后者则是通过对名誉权法的民法规范和刑法规范的立法漏洞和缺陷的修补,排除可能给公共批评权利的正当行使所带来的不合理限制和约束,防止公共主体对于名誉权诉讼的滥用。一要废除“国家机关”享有名誉权之规定；二改变名誉侵权“被告就原告”管辖现状；三要将“诽谤罪”的适用范围严格限制在自然人,并严格适用“主观故意”标准。通过压缩现行规范的适用范围,减轻公共批评的法律负担和诉讼压力,逐步实现名誉权立法规范的合宪性控制。通过司法和立法的一扩一控,适度限制公共主体名誉保护的范围,逐步扩大公共批评的言论空间,建立以激励真实的事实披露、鼓励诚实的批评意见、宽容善意不失表达为机制的公共诽谤法律制度,为人民批评政府、监督政府创造条件。更多还原

【Abstract】 The conflict between public criticism and reputation of public figures is not only a type of right conflicts, but also by nature, a conflict between right and power. The two items have both public and private nature, which can be interpreted as a combination of public and private interests, the weighing of which reflects different political-ethical and legal values. The attempt to address the conflict between the two is to draw a clear boundary for citizens and media organisations to properly criticize government, governmental officials and other public figures, and to define the scope of reputation for public subjects. And the protection mechanism are mostly established in legal systems relating to the right to reputation, which is commonly called "public defamation law" in western countries.The approach to regulate the value conflict is decided by the evolution of political ethics and the idea of reputation rights. In western legal system, the public defamation law was evolved in a process that started from criminal regulations to civil rules, and gradually to constitutional assessment in the end. This approach reflects that the right to publicly criticize is increasingly expanding and the reputation protection turns to be diminished. Most countries has already established different versions of conflict-balancing system which privileges the public criticism and in the meantime weakens the protection of reputation rights.Public criticism and reputation protection is equally protected in Chinese constitution, which also specify the.right to criticism and advice, demonstrating the special consideration within its context. However, the balancing system has not been developed in legal systems relating to reputation rights. In practice, the reputation tort as well as criminal defamation action is predominantly in play, without any constitutional involvement. Therefore, the lack of necessary norms results in the difficulty in the conflict-resolving. In addressing the conflict, a balance between public criticism and reputation of public figures shall be stricken. Specifically, the resolution, from my perspective, is to explore a normativism approach that expand the room for public criticize and properly narrow the reputation protection within current written-law system In achieving this, the facts of political and societal transformation need to be taken into account, and the process of political democratization shall be respected. The value goal of conflict-resolving is to achieve the constitutional control on reputation action against public figures. Two tasks needs to be accomplished:first, it is required to motivate the judicial practices by means of creating new rules, and the second, to amend substantial legal norms so as to close legal loopholes. The former can be categorized as a judicial-activism construction of norms, which means to efficiently employ the "component" model of thinking in reputation suit within the current judicial system. Besides, judges are required to constantly expand the normative volume of "components", by constitutional interpretation on the component of illegality and fault, in which process may explore some commonly applicable defenses against reputation tort or defamation crimes. The standard of judicial determination which shall be directive for lower courts of different levels, for the purpose of narrowing the discretion in judicial reasoning, shall be created in the form of judicial interpretation or official reply. For a better balance between two conflicting values, several defenses require to be ascertained, which relates to "supervision by public opinion","public interest" and "fair comment". Several standards are also required, including the "gross negligence" standard, which is created for false comments from public criticism in the tort suit, as well as the "subjective intention" standard in the criminal charges. All these reforms are aiming at the shifting balance that expands the room for public criticism and narrows the scope of protection for public figures on their reputation. The latter precludes the possible restrictions or limitations on the exercise of right to criticism against the abuse of reputation litigation by public figures, by means of developing both civil and criminal rules, aiming at eliminating the legal loopholes and flaws, relating to legal protection of reputation. First, it is required to abolish the mechanism that "national authorities" have the right of reputation. Second, the jurisdiction layout that favors the plaintiff has to be shifted. Third, the application scope of the defamation crime shall be strictly restricted to natural persons, and the standard of "subjective intention" precisely applied. In conclusion, the constitutional control on reputation protection can be achieved by narrowing the scope of application and relieve the legal burdens or pressures from legal suits. Through the expansion of judicial and legislative control, Limit the scope of subject to protect the reputation of public figures, gradually expand the public criticism space. To establish incentive true disclosure,encourage honestcriticism in good faith, tolerance does not lose the expression for the mechanism of the public defamation law system. To create conditions for the people to criticize the government, government supervision.更多还原