Research On The Regulation Of The Right Of Mass Expression In The Age Of Self-Media

The advent of mass media era will directly change the way of life of each of us.Compared with traditional media,self-Media has changed the one-way mode of communication between communicators and audiences in the past,replaced by the "personal-network-individual" mode of communication.Self-media is based on the development of Internet technology.From the most primitive web 1.0 to the modern web 3.0,self-Media has undergone a radical change,which also shows the characteristics of universality,timeliness and scale of dissemination,personalization of dissemination subject and content.The audience and publisher of self-Media can be arbitrary individuals,and exist between the audience and the publisher.In a role that links the two,i.e.from the media platform,although cyberspace belongs to the virtual space,its communication and dialogue can not be separated from the real society.Even in most cases,the two can be transformed into each other.We can say that cyberspace is only the natural extension of the real society,so it is necessary for the legal regulation of the self-media.Therefore,the self-Media platform is public and social in nature.The development of China's self-Media started relatively late,and the relevant laws and regulations will naturally lag behind the social reality of the late start.By sorting out the laws and regulations of the United States,Germany and Britain on self-media,we can find that the United States relies on industry self-regulation,Germany pays attention to legislative regulation,and Britain's rule-based legislative regulation is parallel with industry self-regulation.These experiences are of great significance to the legal regulation of China's self-media.Big.In the process of using self-Media to exercise the right of expression,the public will also encounter many problems,and conflicts with privacy,reputation and intellectual property rights.In reality,there will also be some people exercising the right of expression through the media for private relief.Whether this kind of private relief will infringe on the basic human rights of other people,we see different nature of the identification and judgment results in real cases.There is a duty of care between the provider and the expressor of the self-Media platform,which is the conclusion drawn by the provisions of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Act.However,the drawback of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law,which is a safe haven principle,lies in the lack of objective judgment of the facts in the process of determining the duty of care of the providers of self-Media platforms.After the determination of the tort,the providers of self-Media platforms should assumesupplementary liability for compensation.If the provider of self-Media platform directly assumes the tort liability,it will violate the original intention of setting the duty of care,and will also make the scope of responsibility of the provider of self-Media platform too heavy,which is not conducive to the development of self-Media industry.By referring to the current situation of domestic and foreign self-Media laws and regulations,the public should adhere to the principle of balance of rights and values,the principle of good faith in civil law,the principle of non-abuse of rights,and the principle of obvious and immediate danger when using self-Media to exercise the right of expression.In view of the above problems,the author believes that we should distinguish public cyberspace from private cyberspace in legislation,at the same time,improve the level of legislation,and constantly improve and refine the legislative content.In view of self-Media infringement,the system of evidence preservation should be constantly improved in the direction of civil litigation,so as to reduce the discretion of judges.The implementation of these measures must also rely on the improvement of the real-name network system and law enforcement measures.