雷诺兹特权、新闻自由与英国诽谤法改革

发布时间：2018-04-21 23:37

本文选题：英国诽谤法 + 雷诺兹特权　；参考：《汕头大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：英国诽谤法被指责过于保护名誉权,对新闻工作施加了寒蝉效应。因此,适当地平衡名誉权与新闻自由两种利益,是21世纪英国诽谤法改革的目标。在1999年的“雷诺兹诉泰晤士报”案中,英国上议院为诽谤法确立一项重要抗辩——“雷诺兹特权”,以保护媒体的新闻自由。藉此抗辩,被告媒体只要证明其报道关乎公众利益,且采编工作是负责任的,即可免于诽谤责任。然而,雷诺兹特权的现状令人不满。在政府的支持下,英国新一轮诽谤法改革于2010年6月启动。改革涉及多方面,包括如何完善雷诺兹特权。本论文包含两部分。第一部分研究1999-2010年间雷诺兹特权在普通法中的发展,考察上议院对雷诺兹特权的法理学构架,及其在下级法院中的发展和存在的问题,讨论雷诺兹特权在多大程度上为新闻自由带来实质保护。该部分采用判例分析法,分析10个关于雷诺兹特权的媒体诽谤案件,案件的裁决书均出自英格兰和威尔士地区高等法院、上诉法院或英国上议院,共计19份。第二部分研究英国新一轮诽谤法改革中关于雷诺兹特权的改革建议,讨论英国司法部如何针对发展中存在的问题修改雷诺兹特权并纳入成文法。该部分主要分析英国国会和英国政府2009年初分别发布的两份诽谤法改革调查报告、2010年5月莱斯特勋爵向上议院提交的诽谤法个人法案、2011年3月英国司法部出台的诽谤法草案及其咨询文件。本论文的研究结论是:1)理论上,虽然上议院试图运用雷诺兹特权保护新闻自由,尤其希望使从事调查报道的媒体免于诽谤诉讼威胁,但却将雷诺兹特权的法理学定调为:要求媒体采编工作的负责任程度达到法官的把关标准;2)实践中,虽然上议院列出仅供参考的10项因素,以检测媒体采编工作的负责任程度,但下级法院法官在运用时缺乏应有的灵活性和务实性,甚至将其视为媒体使用雷诺兹特权必须越过的十重障碍;3)这些问题导致雷诺兹特权存在很大的不确定性和不可预期性,媒体难以依靠雷诺兹特权在诽谤诉讼中胜诉;4)雷诺兹特权的复杂性还导致媒体的举证责任繁重,以及高昂的诉讼费用;5)作为雷诺兹特权的特殊发展,中立报道原则在一定程度上为媒体提供了一项有效抗辩,但其适用范围狭窄,仅保护媒体全面而中立地报道冲突双方间正在进行的争论;6)尽管英国司法部支持以成文法的形式将经典雷诺兹特权和中立报道原则固定下来,但其出台的诽谤法草案中的有关条文,实质上仅是编纂雷诺兹特权在普通法中的发展。唯一的亮点是试图将经典雷诺兹特权的适用范围延伸至观点的表达,但与草案中“诚实的观点”抗辩的重叠问题尚未解决。
[Abstract]:British libel laws have been accused of being too protective of reputation and a chilling effect on journalism. Therefore, a proper balance between reputation and press freedom is the goal of the reform of British libel law in the 21st century. In Reynolds v. the Times in 1999, the House of Lords established an important defence to libel law, the Reynolds privilege, to protect press freedom. In this defense, the defendant's media are exempt from libel if they prove that their coverage is in the public interest and that the editorial work is responsible. However, the status quo of Reynolds' privilege is unsatisfactory. With the support of the government, a new reform of Britain's libel law was launched in June 2010. The reforms involved many aspects, including how to improve the Reynolds privilege. This thesis consists of two parts. The first part studies the development of Reynolds privilege in common law from 1999 to 2010, examines the legal framework of the House of Lords on Reynolds privilege, and its development and problems in lower courts. Discuss the extent to which Reynolds privileges provide substantial protection for press freedom. This section uses the case analysis method to analyze 10 media libel cases concerning Reynolds' privilege, all of which were handed down by the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, with a total of 19. The second part studies the reform proposals on Reynolds privilege in the new reform of British libel law, and discusses how to modify Reynolds privilege and incorporate it into statute law in the light of the problems existing in the development of the British Department of Justice. This section mainly analyzes the two investigation reports on defamation law reform published by the British parliament and the British government in early 2009, the personal bill on defamation law submitted by lord Lester to the upper house in may 2010, and the introduction by the UK department of justice in march 2011 Draft libel law and its advisory documents In theory, though the House of Lords tried to use Reynolds's privilege to protect freedom of the press and, in particular, to protect the investigative media from the threat of libel suits, But the jurisprudence of Reynolds's privilege has been adjusted to require the responsible degree of media editing to be up to the judge's standard. (2) in practice, although the House of Lords lists 10 factors for reference only in order to test the degree of responsibility of media editing, However, the lower court judges lack the flexibility and pragmatism to use it, and even regard it as the ten obstacles that must be crossed by the media in the use of Reynolds's privilege. (3) these problems lead to great uncertainty and unpredictability in the use of Reynolds's privilege. It is difficult for the media to rely on the Reynolds privilege to win in libel litigation) the complexity of the Reynolds privilege also leads to a heavy burden of proof for the media, as well as the high cost of litigation as a special development of the Reynolds privilege. To some extent, the principle of neutral reporting provides an effective defense for the media, but its scope of application is narrow. (6) although the British Department of Justice supports the establishment of the classic Reynolds privilege and the principle of neutral reporting in the form of statutory law, But the relevant provisions of its draft libel law are in essence a codification of Reynolds' privilege in the common law. The only bright spot is the attempt to extend the scope of application of the classic Reynolds privilege to the expression of views, but the overlap with the defence of "honest opinion" in the draft has not yet been resolved.
【学位授予单位】：汕头大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D956.1;DD913;G210

【参考文献】