| There are two legal means of freedomof press, one is censorship beforehand, and another is investigation and punishment afterward. When censorship beforehand has been losing its justice in most of countries, the investigation and punishment afterward has become a major legal way to restrict the journalistic freedom in our modern society. To file a defamation accusation (it is also called the reputation-infraction in China) against the news media is the typical form of the investigation and punishment afterward. Since 1960s, a set of legal system for protecting "public figures" had been built up in western countries, especially in USA. The core of the system is that when a public figure accuses the news media on defamation, the lawsuit should adopt a set of completely different trial criterions from the civilian. The public figure should be responsible on providing enough evidences to prove not only the report is inconsistent, but also the news media " malice ". This legal system, designed to prevent the public figures especially the government officials from succeeding in the lawsuit against media and protect the media from the lawsuit trouble of defamation charge, is the second major achievement since the First Amendment Act of Constitution.Based on the relation between the reputation right and freedom of speech, that the essential of the freedom of speech is the freedom of the political speeches and the public figures reputation problems is exactly the most important problem related to freedom of speech has been indicated in this paper. By thoroughly analyzing the cause and effect of the New York Times Co.v. Sullivan in the United States in 1964 and from that the reputation system derived, summing up the Times Case's principle, legal and philosophical source and its implication, and hackling more than 30-year's evolvement process of public figures reputation legal system in America, the paper points out that the "malice" application established in the New York Times Case, been extremely expanded and over-corrected, and had been adjusted back through proper amendments in Gertz v. Robert Welch Case in 1974.The paper believes that the primary principle of public figures reputation legal system has not been changed during thirty years, while the changed is the definition of "public figures". The paper concludes that American judicial practice and tries have painted a better and clear picture of "public figures" and the public figures reputation legalsystem has achieved positive effect for the society in spite of some controversies after being introduced.reputation legal system, the paper thinks that China is experiencing a high frequency of public figures' accusation against the media for reputation damage. These "public figures" include entertainment or sports stars, government officials, and enterprise corporations, even government organization, judges and public listed companies. Through the settlement of Chinese reputation legal system, the paper points out that currently China does not have a suitable legal regulations for public figures' reputation cases. In dealing with public figures reputation cases, the law which the courts adopt is still identical to the law for civilian. The main reason of the media usually loses the lawsuit case in media vs. public figures is the freedom of speech defined in Chinese Constitution could not be easily applied in actual practice. The trials of public figures reputation cases are just on the reputation or right-infraction level indicated in civil law; instead, that should be part of Constitution. Moreover, in defendant cause, our current laws have some regulations which are disadvantages to the media's success of lawsuits in evidence-offering and judicial procedures. The losing of the media in the lawsuits against public figures leads to the "Chilling Effect", that is, the media should be silent to the public figures(just like cicadas could not utter in winter).The results eventually will hurt the development of marketing economy and the construction of a good democracy and legal system.On setting up the public figures reputation legal system in our country, this paper thinks, without the premise of constitutional litigation system, the construction of the public figures reputation legal system can't be accomplished immediately. What can be done now is to modify the existing judicatory explanations, in which the specific regulations can be made to judge the public figures reputation cases. In practice, however, some excellent judges have used their own free handling right and made several satisfactory sentences, which is a good progress in Chinese public figures reputation legal system. |
