“网络造谣型”寻衅滋事罪的认定研究

发布时间：2018-03-30 05:13

本文选题：网络造谣　切入点：公共秩序　出处：《南京师范大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：寻衅滋事罪属于典型的侵犯公共管理规则和社会秩序的犯罪,就传统意义而言,它发生在现实社会场域。然而,随着新兴媒介的发展,网络空间的造谣行为愈加严重,尤其在中国的“人言可畏”文化背景下,谣言杀人事件屡见不鲜,舆论对于中国人民的影响力是西方发达国家难以理解的。因而,对网络谣言进行规制很有必要。2013年颁布的《关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(下文统一简称《解释》)将寻衅滋事罪的打击范围扩大到信息网络领域,这似乎能将网络造谣行为一网打尽,但实际上有将刑法概念的外延不当扩张、类推解释之嫌。本文从《解释》的条文出发,对司法实践有争议的概念一一进行辨析。“信息网络”属于公共空间,但不是公共场所,对信息网络的解释,不能仅仅考虑打击犯罪的需要,还要考虑刑法条文的体系性及在罪刑法定原则下,对刑法用语的解释不能超出一般国民的预测可能性范围。“虚假信息”的内容应该是毫无根据的,行为人对信息的虚假性主观上应该为“明确知道”,司法机关对涉及政府和官员的“虚假信息”应当予以包容。《解释》规定“造成公共秩序严重混乱”中的“公共秩序”应当被界定为“公共场所秩序”,“严重混乱”的认定标准不应简单的量化为点击数、转发数、跟帖数,应该综合考量现实社会中公共场所的秩序混乱程度来认定。“网络造谣型”寻衅滋事罪的实质是“以信息网络为工具”实施的传统寻衅滋事犯罪,编造、散布虚假信息的行为不能等同于起哄闹事,它只是起哄闹事的一种手段。司法实践中适用《解释》应该遵循宪法精神,不能妨碍公民的言论自由权。同时司法机关应该秉持禁止类推解释的立场,在《刑法修正案(九)》已经对相关网络虚假信息做出规定的前提下,要优先适用《刑法修正案(九)》。
[Abstract]:The crime of provoking trouble is a typical crime of violating the rules of public administration and social order. In the traditional sense, it takes place in the field of real society. However, with the development of new media, the disinformation activities in cyberspace become more and more serious. Especially in the context of China's culture of "people's words can be feared", rumor killings are common, and the influence of public opinion on the Chinese people is difficult to understand in western developed countries. It is necessary to regulate online rumors. In 2013, the explanation on some issues of applicable Law in Criminal cases such as Defamation by using Information Network (hereinafter referred to as "explanation") will attack the crime of provoking trouble. To expand into the field of information networks, This seems to be able to catch up with the Internet rumour, but in fact, it is a suspicion of improper extension of the concept of criminal law and analogies of interpretation. The concept of "information network" belongs to public space, but it is not a public place. The interpretation of information network cannot only consider the need to combat crime. Considering also the systematic nature of the provisions of the criminal law and the fact that, under the principle of legality, the interpretation of the terms of criminal law should not exceed the range of the predicted possibilities of ordinary citizens... the content of "false information" should be groundless, The actor's falsehood of information should be "clearly known" subjectively, and the judiciary should be tolerant of "false information" involving the government and officials. Order "should be defined as" order in public places ", and the criterion of" serious disorder "should not be simply quantified as the number of hits. The number of retweets, the number of posts, should be considered synthetically to determine the degree of disorder in public places in the real society. The essence of the crime of "online rumour-making" is a traditional crime of provoking trouble and causing trouble "with the information network as a tool," and it is fabricated. The act of spreading false information cannot be equated with hooting. It is only a means of hooting. The application of interpretation in judicial practice should follow the spirit of the Constitution. At the same time, the judiciary should hold the position of prohibiting analogous interpretation and, on the premise that the Criminal Law Amendment (9) has already stipulated the relevant network false information, should give priority to the application of the Criminal Law Amendment (9).
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】