试论新闻自由与司法独立

【作者】 丁必勇；

【导师】 尹春丽；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 新闻自由和司法独立是现代法治国家的两大支柱。在某些情况下，新闻自由与司法独立两者隐涵的权利、利益和价值是并无冲突的，甚至是相得益彰的。但在另一些情况下，两者之间则可能存在一定的张力以至矛盾。如何处理好两者之间的关系或者说平衡两者的利益，是现代法治国家一个需要深思熟虑的课题，也是我国必须面对和解决好的一个重大的理论和实践问题。本文首先从一般理论角度分析论证了新闻自由和司法独立两者的价值及相互关系；其次，以比较的眼光，先后考量了实施陪审制度的英国及美国和不实施陪审制度的德国及日本在这个课题上积累的一些司法判例，从中我们可以看到他们的高层法院就有关问题的法理和司法思维是怎样发展的，他们在互相冲突的人权、利益和价值之间是如何作出权衡、取舍和协调的；最后，文章结合我国目前的实际状况，就我国未来在这方面的立法以及司法工作提出了自己的建议。 文章认为新闻自由与司法独立是两种同样重要的价值，犹如车之两轮，不可偏废，亦不可相互替代。传媒与司法作为现代社会两个重要结构，它们在价值层面有着高度的一致性，但是在共同价值的实现方式与途径上，它们又各有其特点。为了使传媒与司法在以各自的独特方式追求共同价值目标的过程中实现功能最大化，在制度安排上，新闻自由与司法独立似乎都是不可避免的。新闻自由是言论自由、表达自由的延伸，或者说是言论自言、表达自由借助于媒体的实现。一般来说，新闻自由有助于人们增进知识，获致真理；有助于维持和健全民主政治；有助于维护和促进个人价值。司法独立一词通常在两种意义上使用，一是结构意义上，即指司法机关独立于其他机关团体和个人；二是程序意义上，司法独立的总旨是在司法程序中保障法官司法权以维护程序公正性和结果正确性。司法独立的实现要求社会对司法不侵权、不介入、不施压、不妄评。在现代法治社会里，司法和传媒一方面相互支持，使得它们共同价值目标的实现获得了充分的现实性；另一方面二者相互监督，任何一方偏离价值的倾向，都可能带来另一方进行矫正的努力。传媒与司法的纠葛主要表现在媒体有积极报道评论司法活动的要求；媒体有侵蚀司法独立的倾向；司法机关对媒体的防范和抵制。传媒与司法发生冲突的实质或者说新闻自由原则为什么会与司法独立原则发生冲突，其根本就在于传媒欲使支撑其背后言论自由与表达自由权利的最大化，而司法欲使支撑其背后公民获得公平审判权利最大化。因此这种冲突带有一定的必然性。但是，新闻自由与司法独立的价值取向和目标是一致的，都是为了促进社会公正和保障人权，这是实现两者可以共处的平衡的基础。从域外的经验来看，英美两国由于实行陪审团制，传媒对案件的过分、倾向性的报道及未审先断的评论主要是通过对陪审团判断力影响而损害公平审判的，并因此形成了以保护陪审团不受外界影响为主要内容的一系列调和方法和策略，以求最大程度地维护新闻自由和保障被告权利。德国和日本不像英美法国家实行陪审团制，对法官“自主性”精神的信任根深蒂固，并不担心受过良好训练的法官会受到舆论太多的影响并且认为司法独立并非指向新闻媒体。但日本国在战后受美国宪政精神影响较大，故对舆论裁判采“实体不批评，程序可批评”制度。需特别指出的是上述西方各国缓和、平衡媒体与司法之间的紧张关系所做的各种努力是建立在一定基础上的，即媒体与司法的权力都是在稳定的宪政背景下被具体化的;媒体是相对独立的;司法机关也是相对超脱于其他机关独立运行的。在这样的基础上，各国结合自己的司法传统对相关宪法性权利进行具体界定，既可能，亦可行。我国目前并没有真正意义上的新闻自由和司法独立，或者说十分有限。因此，我们目前首要任务是大力建设自由的传媒和独立的司法。在现行制度下，平衡新闻自由与司法独立的矛盾应遵循首先确立新闻媒体对案情报道和评论的自由;在确定上述原则的前提下新闻自由原则也应受相应的限制，传媒应尊重司法特性;第三，媒体自身要自律;第四，要坚持个案平衡的原则。本文还对目前较为热点的材料披露及电视报道这两个具体问题提出了自己的观点和建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Right to free press and independent jurisdiction are the two bases for a modernized country ruled with laws. Sometimes, they are compatible and complimented. But on the other hand, there may be some conflictions between them. So, it is a thoughtful topic how to well treat their relations or to balance them. It is also an essential problem between theory and practice. In this essay, the author first analyzes theoretically the value of right to free press and independent jurisdiction and their inter-relationship; then, some cases from the jury system in England and in America, and the non-jury system in Germany and in Japan are comparatively discussed. Upon the comparison, we can judge the development of how the high courts shape their rules and judicial orders on some problems and we can see how they balance the conflicts between the human rights, interests and values, and how they make their choices; finally, some suggestions are put forward for the legislations and jurisdictions in China with regards to the present conditions.Right to free press and independent jurisdiction both are important and cannot be interchanged. Media and jurisdiction are two structures of a modern society, which are consistent in value but each has its way to realize the values. To maximally enlarge their functions for the media and for the jurisdiction in pursuing their value in their own way, systematically speaking, right to free press and independent jurisdiction are inevitable. Right to free press is the extension of free speech and free expression, or the realized free speech and free expression embodied in media. Generally speaking, free press helps people pursue the rule and enlarge their horizon; it helps the democracy be maintained and unproved; it also helps the individual vale be sustained and promoted. Independent jurisdiction has two meanings: it means the judicial organizations are independent to the other organizations and individuals; on the other hand, in judicial procedures, it means the rights empowered to the judges can be maintained and their fair and right decisions can be protected. It demands that the judicial right should not be influenced, interfered or forced in order to realize its independence. In a modernized country ruled with laws, the jurisdiction and the press should support each other to realize their common value; on the other hand, they should prevent each from diverting from the designed valued and help each make efforts to change. The inter-relationship between the media and the jurisdiction is complicated in two aspects: the media is active in commenting the judicial activities and probably interferes in the independence of jurisdiction; meanwhile, the judicial organizations will be on alert to the press. Why the principles of right to freepress and independent jurisdiction are conflicting has become an essential problem between the media and the jurisdiction, which in fact inflects that the media intends to maximum the right to free speech and to free expression. However, the jurisdiction hopes to have the civil rights maximally deprived from the independent right of fair judgment. Therefore, the conflicts are inevitable. However, the free press and independent jurisdiction are common in value and in targets, which intend to protect the human rights and the social righteousness. This is the very balancing base for them to harmonize with each other. Judging from the international experience, the media put impacts on the jurisdiction mainly through their influence on the juror when jury system is implemented in England and in America. The jury has independent right, which cannot be interfered by the outer powers. Thus, it maximally protect the free press and the right of the defendant. In Germany and in Japan, there is no such jury system in England and in America, they believe in the judge and in their discretional judgments. So they do not worry that the media will influence the judges. However, in Japan, they insist with Constitutional concept from USA that the media should "com更多还原