| The internet not only brings convenience to people’s daily life, but also creates a platform for an emerging form of cyber-based crime-the internet defamation. As the internet and social sites speed up the information circulation, the control of the internet defamation is sometimes beyond the scope of the traditional law of defamation. To more effectively monitor and manage the online defamation, in 2013 the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate have issued the interpretations on the criminal case of the internet defamation (2013 interpretations). To better understand the theoretical realm as well as the unsolved practical needs of this field, this paper aims to accurately define the behavioral boundary of the online defamation and to provide a framework to better balance the conflicting rights in the internet slander and libel cases. In addition, based on the 2013 interpretations, it analyzes and explains the constitution and criminal patterns of the online defamation.The internet defamation refers to the spreading of either verbal or written unprivileged false statement of fact tending to harm the reputation of a person or an entity in the cyberspace. Compared to the traditional defamation, the defamation information gets spread in a higher speed through the internet and is able to reach out to a broader range of potential readers. In addition, it is more difficult to eliminate the negative effects from the online defamation. Furthermore, the victims of the online defamation are not only limited to individuals but corporates and agents. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately define the behavioral boundary of the internet defamation by distinguish among the online defamation crimes, the online defamation illegality, and the online defamation tort.The paper then discusses the conflicting rights of free speech, reputation and supervision when drafting the internet defamation laws. To balance the conflicting forces among those rights, it is helpful to adopt the applications of the principles of rank of rights, proportionality and interest balance in the online defamation criminal cases.In conjunction with the new rules in the 2013 interpretations, the paper discusses the constitutive elements of the internet defamation. Firstly, to elaborate on the cases of the convict with indirect intent, the 2013 interpretations explain the necessary subjective condition to incriminate the suspect in an online defamation. In particular, the criminal must have shown "the intention to disseminate the defamation messages in the public". Secondly, it is the act of "spreading the defamation information" that gets defined as the criminal behavior of the internet defamation criminal cases. These two aspects summarize that both the criminal’s subjective intention and the harmful consequences to the victim’s reputation are the necessary conditions to secure a conviction of an online defamation. Lastly, the government organizations should not be the targets in the internet defamation criminal cases. On the other hand, the possible adoption of the "substantial malicious principle" from American justice should be carefully reviewed in order to properly protect the rights of the mess media.The last part of the paper explains in depth about the corresponding responsibilities of the four major parties in the internet defamation criminal cases:the "Online Water Army’ and its clients, the network public relations firms, and the network administrators. Based on the 2013 interpretations, the paper finds that the Article Four does not apply to the continuing offence in the internet defamation criminal cases as it covers the consolidated treatment of crimes.In addition, the online defamation and Defiance and Affray do not share the common essential characteristics of "statues joinder of offenses" but "imaginative joinder of offenses". Lastly, from either the subjective or the objective perspective, it is hard to prove that the internet defamation can imply racketeering and vice versa. |
PDF Full Text Request