网络暴力刑法规制问题的目的解释:立场定位与实践选择

Purpose Interpretation in the Regulation of Cyber Violence:Positioning and Practical Choices

互联网给人们带来技术与利益的同时,也给网络时代的法治带来挑战。近年来,网络暴力事件层出不穷,暴露出网络暴力的概念不明、行为主体责任模糊、立法不完善等问题。面对日益复杂的外部环境,目的解释以灵活性、规范性等优势,在网络时代背景下逐渐凸显其必要性。在不得不运用刑法手段对网络暴力规制的情况下,目的解释能够弥补立法缺陷,注重社会现实、法秩序统一与社会伦理,能够对网络暴力事件做出合乎社会发展变化的解释,并发挥一般预防作用。在网络暴力刑法规制的实践中,应以目的解释为先导,在与刑事政策相互融合的基础上,对侮辱、诽谤、人肉搜索类的网络暴力行为进行归罪。但同时应当警惕目的解释潜在的危险因素,特别对于遭受网络暴力的受害人自杀身亡案件,应始终坚持罪刑法定原则底线和维护法的安定性,在出现专门立法之前,谨慎将其认定为故意伤害罪或故意杀人罪,避免矫枉过正与侵犯国民自由的风险。

The advent of the internet has brought both technological advancements and challenges to the rule of law in the digital age.In recent years,numerous social incidents related to cyber violence have surfaced,revealing issues such as the unclear definition of cyber violence,ambiguous accountability of perpetrators,and incomplete legislation.Faced with an increasingly complex external environment,purpose interpretation has gradually emerged as necessary in the context of the digital age,given its flexibility and normativity advantages.When resorting to criminal law measures for regulating cyber violence due to legislative deficiencies,purpose interpretation can help fill the gaps.By considering social realities,the unity of legal orders,and societal ethics,purpose interpretation can provide explanations for cyber violence incidents that align with societal developments and play a preventive role.In the practice of regulating cyber violence through criminal law,purpose interpretation should serve as a guide.It should be integrated with criminal policies to attribute offenses such as insult,defamation,and doxxing to cyber violence behaviors.However,caution must be exercised regarding the potential dangers of purpose interpretation,especially in cases where victims of cyber violence commit suicide.Upholding the principles of legality and maintaining legal stability,it is prudent to refrain from categorizing such cases as intentional injury or homicide until specific legislation is enacted,to avoid overreaction and infringement on citizens’freedoms.