《民法典》视域下新闻报道、舆论监督者的“合理核实义务”

The“Obligation of Reasonable Verification”of News Reporters and Public Opinion Supervisors From the Perspective of The Civil Code

《民法典》第1025条、第1026条所构建之规则体系,给予新闻报道、舆论监督者抗辩保护的同时,要求行为人在言论严重失实的情况下承担合理核实义务以作平衡。解释论上,确定承担合理核实义务之主体时,应注意将无新闻资质的社会公众纳入“舆论监督”者、对“等”采狭义理解、降低“为公共利益”的证明门槛。行为人应承担尽到合理核实义务的证明责任,但前提是权利人证明被诉言论有“质”的失实。第1026条实为确定合理核实义务强度的因素列举,其逻辑理据可整合为实质信源原则、“具体人”原则、利益衡平原则。具体运用各因素时宜采光谱化的思考模式,在利益衡量基础上吸纳比例原则思想。尽到合理核实义务之判断属独立问题,可类型化出征询权利人、客观报道、行业惯例、基本的形式审查义务等典型情形便利裁判。

The rule system constructed by article 1025 and article 1026 of The Civil Code provides defense protection for news reporting and public opinion supervision,and at the same time it requires the actor to fulfill the obligation of reasonable verification in cases of serious misinformation.When determining the subject responsible for fulfilling the obligation of reasonable verification,we should regard the general public without news qualifications as“public opinion supervisors”,interprete“etc.”narrowly,and lower the threshold of proof“for the public interest”.The actor should prove that they have fulfilled the obligation of reasonable verification,but the prerequisite is that the rights holder can prove the statement in question as“qualitatively”untrue.Article 1026 is in fact a list of factors to determine the intensity of the reasonable verification obligation,and its logical rationale can be integrated into the substantive source principle,the“specific person”principle and the principle of interest balance.When applying each factor,it is advisable to adopt a spectrum-based thinking model,and on the basis of interest balancing,incorporate the idea of proportionality.To determine whether the obligation of reasonable verification has been fulfilled is an independent issue,and can be classified into typical situations such as inquiry rights holders,objective reporting,industry practices,basic formal review obligations,etc.for convenience in adjudication.