Reflection On The Constitutionality Of The Juridical Interpretation On Network Rumors

The judicial interpretation of reducing rumors on the internet is a legal restriction to freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, the objective of this paper is to examine whether the criminal restriction is within the reasonable arrange of constitution or not.This paper are divided into three parts. It involves criminal libel and affray. Specifically speaking, two articles of judicial interpretation are selected as the research objectives under the background of the whole judicial interpretation.The first part introduces the emergence of the core problem with a case. In this case, a Zhangjiachuan boy was arrested for his improper comments on the internet, there is a thorough analysis on this case, which leads us to find out that the criminal judicial interpretation here does cause potential harm to the freedom of speech. This paper analysises the backgrounds and the reason of this criminal judicial interpretation’s publication by combing the whole criminal law on regulating the freedom of network speech. And also, it puts forward the problems and solutions of the boundary of freedom of network speech.As the second part, it mainly focuses on the freedom of speech on the internet. Its concept, related conceptions and legislative definition are introduced first. After that, it discusses about the reason that speech on the internet falls into the circle of the protection of speech freedom.The third part introduces value and disadvantages of the freedom of network speech.Speech on the internet is characterized by its dispersibility, interactivity, anonymity and diversity with the development of the era of the self-media. There are advantages and disadvantages of the network speech which can at the same time justify the admit and necessary restriction of the network speech.The forth part is about the constitutionality of the criminal judicial interpretation. The two articles mentioned above put a restriction on the freedom of speech and personal liberty. So they must be reviewed by the principle of legal reservation and proportionality. After a series of analysis, it is concluded that the two articles are not only breaching the principle of legal reservation but also conflicting the principle of necessity and the narrow principle of proportionality. At last, this paper leads to the conclusion that the criminal judicial interpretation has crossed the line where the freedom of speech should be protected, the judicial department should deal with it carefully.