仇恨言论的法律规制研究

发布时间：2018-09-13 13:28

【摘要】：所谓仇恨言论,是指在仇恨意图的指引下,基于民族、种族、国籍、性别和宗教等身份特征所为的引发群体间歧视和仇恨的一种言论类型。仇恨言论不仅容易对其目标造成心理和生理上的伤害,而且对整个社会也具有极大的危害,实质上违背了言论自由的核心价值。对仇恨言论进行法律规制的困难主要源于其理论和实践中的悖反困境：一方面民众应享有言论自由,对仇恨言论进行限制有可能会对民众的这项基本权利造成伤害。另一方面,仇恨言论所表达和传递的是仇恨而非有益信息,而且这种仇恨既有损于社会的整体利益,容易引发社会中不同群体间的矛盾和冲突,又亵渎了个人的尊严,是对个人人格和名誉的侵犯。本文对仇恨言论法律规制理论基础的探讨主要从两个方面展开：一是从言论入手,考察仇恨言论所可能具有的价值。仇恨言论之所以可能具有一定的价值,在于其作为一种言论形式可能具有言论自由的相关价值,因而我们需要对其保持一定的宽容。二是从仇恨入手,考察仇恨言论对社会和个人的危害。借助密尔的伤害原则对仇恨言论的消极价值进行分析,我们发现限制仇恨言论并不会损害言论自由的价值。以仇恨言论的自由性和伤害性为基础,仇恨言论的法律规制就出现了两种不同的进路：一是基于自由的仇恨言论法律规制进路,即在仇恨言论的法律规制中主要看重仇恨言论的自由属性,对其进行的法律规制不管是理念还是措施都以保证其自由表达和交流为目的。该进路以美国为代表,主张宽容仇恨言论,为了保护言论自由由,他们宁愿忍受仇恨言论带来的伤害。二是基于尊严的仇恨言论法律规制进路,即在仇恨言论的法律规制中主要着眼于仇恨言论的伤害属性,对其进行的法律规制不管是理念还是手段均以保证人的尊严和平等为目的。该进路以德国为代表,主张限制仇恨言论,为了保障人的尊严,他们愿意在言论自由方面作出必要的牺牲。对于这两种进路,本文选取了较具代表性的美国和德国进行考察。美国秉持言论自由为立国之本,主张对言论自由予以高度保护,其言论自由观以“思想的自由市场”和“自由讨论公共事务论”为核心价值理念,以内容中立原则为核心规制准则。通过对美国司法实践的梳理,我们可以发现仇恨言论案件自1940年走入美国法院大门至今的70余年中,美国法院对仇恨言论的态度总体来说比较宽容。虽然在早期的案件中,美国法院曾允许对仇恨言论进行限制,但自60年代民权运动兴起后,美国法院对仇恨言论的处理基本上就持相对宽容的态度。只是近年来逐渐出现对宽容态度的微调,但在本质上美国法院对仇恨言论的态度并没有发生根本改变。也正是在宽容仇恨言论——限制仇恨言论——宽容仇恨言论这样的变迁中,美国的法院系统发展出丰富的司法技术和理论以应对仇恨言论的法律规制问题。对于仇恨言论,美国联邦最高法院在早期的博阿尔内案中,主要是以“群体诽谤”进行规制的；到1969年布兰登堡案,是按照“煽动违法言论”进行处理的；至1992年维克托拉案,则是把其归于“挑衅言论”进行规制的；到2003年布莱克案,是按照“真实威胁”原则进行处理的。布莱克案虽然走出了“真实威胁”的新路,但在很大程度上其仍受维克托拉案容忍仇恨言论的判决所支配。德国深受纳粹历史的影响,对仇恨言论尤其是关涉犹太人群体的仇恨言论深恶痛绝。在这一历史背景下,德国高度重视人的尊严的价值,认为言论自由不仅是一项消极权利,还是一项积极权利。政府在促进和鼓励那些有益于发现真理和实现民主的言论和对那些非真理和反民主的言论进行限制方面均负有不可推卸的责任。德国认为仇恨言论并不存在任何价值,“禁止谎言并不妨碍对真理的追求”,其目的是防止社会和个人在仇恨言论的煽动下发生异化,重蹈历史覆辙再生反人类的悲剧。德国法律明确规定,只要种族主义信息对公共安全和人的生命及尊严造成广义上的威胁,就足以对其进行法律制裁。德国宪法法院在仇恨言论问题上确立了相对成熟的指导原则：与表达思想无关的针对客观事实的错误陈述不应受到言论自由的保护；思想和价值判断的表达若是以亵渎和贬损人的尊严为目的,那也无法得到保护。在具体的司法判决中,德国宪法法院逐渐发展出对言论自由与其他宪法权利进行比较的衡量原则。虽然美国进路强调自由,德国进路重视尊严,但近年来二者也出现了某种程度的趋同倾向。这表明在对仇恨言论的法律规制中,我们需要调和自由价值和尊严价值之间的矛盾,将自由价值和尊严价值有机融合于一体,从而在美国进路和德国进路之间走出一条融合性进路,即保障言论自由但允许对仇恨言论进行有限限制。融合性进路的提出是符合言论自由这一基本权利实现的最低限度的规制进路,也是可供各国借鉴的处理仇恨言论这一棘手问题的现实选择。
[Abstract]:The so-called hate speech refers to a kind of speech which, under the guidance of hate intent, causes discrimination and hatred among groups on the basis of national, racial, nationality, gender and religious identity characteristics. Hate speech is not only easy to cause psychological and physical harm to its target, but also has great harm to the whole society and is in fact contrary to it. Back to the core value of freedom of speech.
The difficulty of legal regulation of hate speech stems mainly from the paradox in its theory and practice: on the one hand, people should enjoy freedom of speech, and restricting hate speech may harm this basic right of the people; on the other hand, hate speech expresses and transmits hatred rather than useful information, and this kind of information. Hatred is not only harmful to the overall interests of society, but also prone to contradictions and conflicts among different groups in society. It also violates the dignity of individuals. It is a violation of personal personality and reputation. The reason why hate speech may have a certain value is that it may have the relevant value of freedom of speech as a form of speech, so we need to maintain a certain tolerance of it. Second, starting from hatred, we should examine the harm of hate speech to society and individuals. Value analysis shows that restricting hate speech does not damage the value of freedom of speech.
On the basis of the freedom and harmfulness of hate speech, there are two different ways to regulate hate speech: one is the way of legal regulation of hate speech based on freedom, that is, in the legal regulation of hate speech, the free nature of hate speech is emphasized, and the legal regulation of hate speech is based on both ideas and measures. This approach, represented by the United States, advocates tolerance of hate speech and prefers to tolerate the harm caused by hate speech in order to protect freedom of speech. The second approach is the legal regulation of hate speech based on dignity, that is, the legal regulation of hate speech focuses mainly on the harm caused by hate speech. In order to protect human dignity, they are willing to make the necessary sacrifices in freedom of speech. For these two approaches, this paper selects the representative of the United States and Germany. Germany conducted an investigation.
The United States upholds freedom of speech as the foundation of the nation and advocates a high degree of protection of freedom of speech. Its view of freedom of speech takes "free market of thought" and "theory of free discussion of public affairs" as its core values and regards the principle of content neutrality as its core regulatory norm. In more than 70 years since it entered the United States courts in 1940, the attitude of American courts to hate speech has generally been more tolerant. Although in early cases, the United States courts allowed restrictions on hate speech, since the rise of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the United States courts have generally been relatively tolerant in the treatment of hate speech. Attitudes. It is only in recent years that there has been a gradual fine-tuning of tolerance, but in essence the attitude of American courts towards hate speech has not changed fundamentally. In the early Boarney case, the U.S. Supreme Court mainly regulated hate speech by "group defamation"; in the Brandenburg case in 1969, it was dealt with by "inciting illegal speech"; in the Victora case in 1992, it was attributed to "provocative speech." By 2003, the Black case was dealt with in accordance with the "real threat" principle. Although it was a new way out of the "real threat", it was still largely dominated by Victora's decision to tolerate hate speech.
Deeply influenced by the Nazi history, Germany abhors hate speech, especially those involving Jewish groups. Against this historical background, Germany attaches great importance to the value of human dignity and believes that freedom of speech is not only a negative right, but also a positive right. The government promotes and encourages those who are beneficial to discovering the truth and to the Jewish community. Germany holds that hate speech has no value and that "prohibition of lies does not hinder the pursuit of truth" is aimed at preventing alienation of society and individuals under the instigation of hate speech and repeating historical repetition. German law clearly stipulates that as long as racist information poses a broad threat to public security and human life and dignity, it is sufficient to impose legal sanctions on it. Misrepresentation should not be protected by freedom of speech; the expression of ideas and value judgments can not be protected if they are aimed at blasphemy and derogation of human dignity. In specific judicial decisions, the German Constitutional Court has gradually developed the principle of comparing freedom of speech with other constitutional rights.
Although the American approach emphasizes freedom and the German approach emphasizes dignity, there has been a certain convergence between the two in recent years. This shows that in the legal regulation of hate speech, we need to reconcile the contradiction between the value of freedom and the value of dignity, and integrate the value of freedom and the value of dignity into an organic whole. There is a convergence approach between the German approaches, which guarantees freedom of speech but permits limited restrictions on hate speech. The convergence approach is a minimal regulatory approach that conforms to the realization of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and a realistic choice for countries to use for reference in dealing with the thorny issue of hate speech.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】