“实际恶意”原则论纲

发布时间：2018-05-21 20:18

本文选题：实际恶意 + 公众人物　；参考：《吉林大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：由于我国现行法律很难实现媒体言论与公众人物名誉权之间的平衡，存在过度限制媒体的现象，基于美国适用“实际恶意”原则达到的实际效果，在很多学者的呼吁下，我国司法实践引入了美国诽谤法中“实际恶意”原则。但是因为我国与美国的文化传统、理论基础、基本国情和社会观念诸多方面的不同，导致该原则在我国司法适用中出现了种种问题，也反映出各种矛盾，比如法律名词概念模糊、归责原则的规定和实践存在矛盾、适用范围界定不清等。所以根据“实际恶意”原则适用时的问题，在理论界和实务界出现了反对的声音，有一部分学者提出我国并不适合适用“实际恶意”原则，认为在该原则的适用过程中体现出的文化内涵和世界观与我国传统观念不符，同时适用该原则会与我国现有的法律规定产生矛盾。虽然有些学者提出了反对观点，但笔者依然认为引入“实际恶意”原则并适用于我国司法实践中是有必要的。本文通过总结“实际恶意”原则在美国和我国的发展轨迹，对反对在我国适用该原则观点的提出进行了厘清，归纳出悖论的理论根据，并对此加以批判，从传统文化基础到现阶段的法律规定，从理论价值到现实意义，对“实际恶意”原则适用的模糊问题进行了正本清源。笔者采用了逻辑思维论证法和实证分析法，同时结合我国的司法现状，，得出“实际恶意”原则的本质其实是媒体侵害公众人物名誉权的侵权构成要件的严格化，而构成要件收缩是为了鼓励媒体主动报道，是对主动监督公众人物行为的媒体的保护，最终是通过对公众人物私德的监督达到社会利益最大化的目的；而我国引入“实际恶意”原则的宗旨应该是《宪法》第41条中规定的监督权，媒体作为公民监督权实现的途径，当其报道自由与公众人物的名誉权保护发生冲突时，应当把这种冲突看作是公权力和私权利的冲突，是实现公共利益最大化的必要手段和必然要求，不应该把其当作是简单的公民言论自由与私人名誉权保护之间的，私权利与私权利的冲突。本文的目的是为了使“实际恶意”原则符合我国的现有法律法规，适用于我国的司法实践，使其不论与法学理论还是司法实务都能更好的结合。希望通过对“实际恶意”原则发展轨迹的分析和现有矛盾的解决，可以更好的满足公民的监督权和知情权，在实现社会公共利益最大化的同时，平衡新闻真实性和时效性的共同要求。也希望可以为未来民法典正式确立“实际恶意”原则做出贡献。
[Abstract]:Because the current law of our country is very difficult to realize the balance between the media speech and the reputation right of public figures, there exists the phenomenon of excessive restriction of the media. Based on the practical effect achieved by the application of the "actual malice" principle in the United States, many scholars have called for it. Our judicial practice introduces the principle of "actual malice" in American libel law. However, because of the differences in cultural traditions, theoretical foundations, basic national conditions and social concepts between China and the United States, various problems have arisen in the judicial application of this principle, which also reflects various contradictions. For example, the concept of legal noun is vague, the stipulation and practice of imputation principle are contradictory, and the scope of application is unclear. Therefore, according to the problem when the principle of "actual malice" applies, there are voices of opposition in the theoretical and practical circles. Some scholars have suggested that our country is not suitable for the application of the principle of "actual malice". It is considered that the cultural connotation and world outlook embodied in the application of the principle are not consistent with the traditional concept of our country, and that the application of the principle will produce contradictions with the existing laws and regulations of our country. Although some scholars have put forward opposing views, the author still thinks that it is necessary to introduce the principle of "actual malice" and apply it to the judicial practice of our country. This paper summarizes the development of the "actual malice" principle in the United States and China, clarifies the viewpoint of opposing the application of the principle in China, sums up the theoretical basis of the paradox, and criticizes it. From the foundation of traditional culture to the legal provisions of the present stage, from the theoretical value to the practical significance, the fuzzy problem of the application of the principle of "actual malice" has been thoroughly cleared up. The author adopts the method of logical thinking argumentation and empirical analysis, and at the same time, combining with the judicial situation of our country, draws the conclusion that the essence of the principle of "actual malice" is actually the strictness of the constitutive elements of media infringement of public figures' reputation right. The contraction of constitutive elements is to encourage the media to report actively, is to actively monitor the behavior of public figures of the media protection, and ultimately through the supervision of the private morality of public figures to achieve the purpose of maximizing social interests; The purpose of introducing the principle of "actual malice" in our country should be the supervisory power stipulated in Article 41 of the Constitution. The media, as a way to realize the right of supervision of citizens, should have a conflict between the freedom of reporting and the protection of the reputation rights of public figures. Such conflicts should be regarded as conflicts between public and private rights, as necessary means and necessary requirements for maximizing the public interest, and not as a simple link between the freedom of expression of citizens and the protection of private reputation rights, The conflict between private rights and private rights. The purpose of this paper is to make the principle of "actual malice" conform to the existing laws and regulations of our country and apply to the judicial practice of our country, so that it can be better combined with the theory of law and judicial practice. It is hoped that through the analysis of the development track of the "actual malice" principle and the solution of the existing contradictions, it can better satisfy the citizens' right to supervise and know, and at the same time realize the maximization of the social public interest. Balance news authenticity and timeliness of the common requirements. It also hopes to contribute to the establishment of the principle of "actual malice" in the future civil code.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】