Demarcating the boundary between the constitutional right to freedom of speech and online speech crime is a major task before Chinese judiciary.In defining speech crime,we need to draw distinctions between facts and o...Demarcating the boundary between the constitutional right to freedom of speech and online speech crime is a major task before Chinese judiciary.In defining speech crime,we need to draw distinctions between facts and opinions;public and private affairs;and subjective and objective reality.Under the reasonable belief rule,“subjective reality”must be treated as justifiable cause.Given the technological applications and social nature of online media,internet service providers are only obliged to be neutral;they must not indiscriminately be deemed to be guilty of being accomplices or of the crime of nonperformance.In litigation involving speech crime,criminal proceedings must,in principle,be launched on the basis of the actual or presumed wishes of the victim.When a speech act seriously jeopardizes social order and the national interest but the victim is unable to determine whether to lay a charge,a direct public prosecution may be carried out.Finding someone guilty of“seriously jeopardizing law and order and the national interest”must be based on real,material disruption of order and on the fact that the suspect acted deliberately with no legitimate purpose.Minor speech crimes must not be indiscriminately subjected to fixed-term imprisonment,and social media tools serve routine purposes and should not be confiscated without good reason.展开更多
基金phased result of“Research on Core Issues concerning the Internet as the‘Largest Variable,’”a major project funded by the Jiangsu Province Social Science Foundation(14ZD003)“Research on the Criminal Conviction Mechanism,”a general project on the humanities and social sciences funded by the Chinese Ministry of Education(15YJA820015)
文摘Demarcating the boundary between the constitutional right to freedom of speech and online speech crime is a major task before Chinese judiciary.In defining speech crime,we need to draw distinctions between facts and opinions;public and private affairs;and subjective and objective reality.Under the reasonable belief rule,“subjective reality”must be treated as justifiable cause.Given the technological applications and social nature of online media,internet service providers are only obliged to be neutral;they must not indiscriminately be deemed to be guilty of being accomplices or of the crime of nonperformance.In litigation involving speech crime,criminal proceedings must,in principle,be launched on the basis of the actual or presumed wishes of the victim.When a speech act seriously jeopardizes social order and the national interest but the victim is unable to determine whether to lay a charge,a direct public prosecution may be carried out.Finding someone guilty of“seriously jeopardizing law and order and the national interest”must be based on real,material disruption of order and on the fact that the suspect acted deliberately with no legitimate purpose.Minor speech crimes must not be indiscriminately subjected to fixed-term imprisonment,and social media tools serve routine purposes and should not be confiscated without good reason.
