中、英名誉权侵权特殊抗辩事由评价、比较与中国法的完善——兼评英国《诽谤法案2013》对名誉权侵权特殊抗辩事由的改革

A Comparison of Defences in Infringement to Reputation Right between Chinese and English Law and Some Suggestions to the Amendment of Chinese Law:Beginning with a Comment on the Reform of Defences by the Defamation Act 2013 of UK

名誉权侵权特殊抗辩事由实质上发挥划定言论自由和名誉权保护边界的作用。英国《诽谤法案2013》基本完成了名誉权侵权特殊抗辩事由的法典化,形成了包括"真实"、"诚实意见"、"公共利益事务的负责任发布"、"科学或学术期刊上同行评价陈述"以及更为完善的特权抗辩在内的分工明确、体系完整、设计科学的抗辩事由体系。中国法通过司法解释,事实上确立了"事实基本真实"、"公正评论"、"权威消息来源"三个抗辩事由,但与英国法比较,在立法模式、体系化程度和具体抗辩事由设计上存在明显不足。建议未来中国法在借鉴英国法的基础上,通过完善《侵权责任法》,确立包括"事实基本真实"、"诚实意见"、"基于公共利益的负责任发布"、"权威消息来源"和"正当学术批评"的具体特殊抗辩事由体系。

The defences in infringement to reputation right draw a border line between freedom of expression and protection of reputation right in substance. In English law, the Defamation Act 2013 fulfill the codification of defences in general and promulgate a scientific defences system including Truth, Honest Opinion, Responsible Publication on Matter of Public Interest, Peer-reviewed Statement in Scientific or Academic Journal, Absolute Privilege and Qualified Privilege. In Chinese Law, three defences, Substantially True, Fair Comment and Authoritative Information Resources, are established by judicial interpretation of Supreme Court. Comparing with English law, however, Chinese law has insufficiency in three aspects： the promulgation mode, the degree of systematisation and the design of specific defenees. What are suggested to Chinese law are to establish systematized defences, which including Substantially True, Honest Opinion, Responsible Publication on Matter of Public Interest, Authoritative Information Resources, Honest Comment on Scientific and Academic Matter.