【作者】 贾卓威；

【导师】 齐延平；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 言论自由是公民的一项基本权利,是宪法为了保护个人自我表现、自我实现和自我决断的一种基本权利,是民主和法治的基石。随着互联网的兴起,网络媒体打破了传统媒体在言论自由中的局限性和垄断地位,公民在表达观点和传播信息方面享有的自由度得到了前所未有的扩展,这为进一步推动文明发展和社会进步创造了条件。但是,就像一部分人在网络新技术面前不知所措一样,许多人在网络“空前的自由”面前也无所适从,开始滥用网络技术的进步与信息传播的便利,在网上披露、宣扬他人的隐私,肆意攻击侵犯他人的权利,并把这种对技术进步与传播便利的滥用,理解为真正的自由,这其实是自由的滥用,违背了公民在行使个人权利的同时不得侵犯他人合法权利的准则。与此同时,更加不知所措的正是肩负网络治理之责任的政府。从国家监管的角度来考察网络环境的特征,一方面在网络环境下,国家所保护的各种利益相互交织在一起,日趋复杂；另一方面,面对“先有网络,后有监管”这一互联网监管无法回避的现实状况,国家权力呈现出不可逆转地“弱化”之特征。如是,面对网络环境下各种权利冲突更加明显或剧烈的现实,如何进行权利的配置、权衡与取舍就成为解决问题的关键。与此同时,面对在网络环境中产生并因网络这一特殊环境而变得愈加复杂的由众多网络环境中之各类言论所引发的种种纷争,无论是司法者(法官)、执法者(行政机关)还是立法者都不能听之任之、熟视无睹。如是,在解决前述问题的时候,我们又会不得不面临这样的问题：传统环境下所确立的那些言论自由的界限,在网络环境下是否还依然能够发挥既有的效用呢?或者说,网络环境下言论自由的界限究竟是什么?笔者认为,依据传统环境之特征所确立的言论自由之界限在网络环境下是否依然适用,这需要根据网络环境的特征而分别进行具体的考量,而除了前述已经确立的言论自由之界限以外,还必须依据客观环境的发展去摸索、去确定新的更为适宜的“言论自由之界限”。在这一思路的基础上,笔者提出了关于网络环境下言论自由之界限的三点设想：第一,因应网络自身特性,理性正视法律功能；第二,合理使用技术手段,尊重用户个人选择；第三,鼓励公民主张权利,实行逐案利益权衡。更多还原

【Abstract】 Citizens are free to express themselves, which is the fundamental right of self-behavior, self-realization and self-determination protected by the Constitution. It is also the foundation of democracy and legal administration. However, the emergence of the Internet has broken the limitation and monopoly of traditional medias regarding the freedom of expression. Citizens have, therefore, enjoyed unprecedented right to express their ideas and spread information. This has created more opportunities for further civilization development and social progress. On the other hand, many people turn out to be at a total loss in face of the Unprecedented Complete Freedom, just like they are in face of the new technology of network. Some people come to be engaged in some activities, which have negative impact, such as disclosing privacy of others on internet and infringing others’ legal rights on purpose by taking advantage of advanced network technology and freedom of information publication. They thought it true freedom. In fact, these activities have breached the law that one person must not infringe other people’s rights when he/she is performing his/her rights. At the same time, the government who is shouldering the responsibility of Internet Governance is still without resource now. From the perspective of national regulation to examine the characteristics of the network environment, on one hand, the various interests protected by the government are intertwined with each other and becoming more complex in the environment of the network; on the other hand, in the face of First There Is A Network, And Later Supervision, an Internet monitoring can not avoid the realities of state power has shown irreversible "weakening" of the feature. If so, in the face of the more obvious and dramatic conflict of the reality in the network environment, how to do the right configuration and trade-offs has become the key to solving the problem. Meanwhile, in the face of the disputes generated from the internet circumstance, whether it is the judiciary (judges), law enforcement officers (executive authority), or lawmakers can not turn a blind eye. Therefore, in addressing the aforementioned issues, we will have to face this problem:Are those boundaries of free speech established in the network environment still able to play the effectiveness of it’s? Or, what is the new boundary in the circumstance of the internet? In my opinion, whether the traditional limits based on the reality is still applicable or not depends on the characteristics of the network environment. And we need to explore, to identify new and more appropriate limits of freedom of speech in according with the characteristics of the network. On the basis of this line of thought, the author presented on the network environment of the boundaries of freedom of expression under the three assumptions:Firstly, responding to the characteristics of the network itself and address the legal function rationally; Secondly, using the technical means in a rational way and respect the personal choice of the users; Thirdly, encouraging citizens to operate their legal rights and carry out the ad hoc balancing test in trial.更多还原