论隐私权与新闻自由的冲突与平衡

【作者】 储洵；

【导师】 吕斌；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 人类自古以来就有隐私的观念，但现代意义的隐私权的概念起源与1890年由萨缪尔D·沃伦和路易斯D·布兰戴斯在《哈佛法学评论》上发表的《隐私权》一文。由于人们对隐私权理解的角度不同，隐私权的概念也不完全一致。本文认为，隐私权的主体是自然人，法人等社会组织和死者不是隐私权的主体；隐私权的权利内容从“隐”和“私”两个角度考虑，即权利人不愿公开的私人事务；隐私权的权利属性属于基本权利。因此，隐私权的概念应当是——隐私权是属于宪法所保护的基本权利之一，它是自然人所享有的不愿公开一切有关个人私领域事务的免受干扰和侵扰的权利。当然，任何权利的行使都有法律的界限，不得侵犯其他的权利和自由。 新闻自由是人们在新闻媒体上发表自己的见解的自由，它是言论自由的延伸，是人民对政府进行监督的手段之一，是宪法所保护的公民的基本权利，其权利内容包括新闻采访自由和新闻报道自由。但是随着社会的发展，新闻媒体不仅肩负着监督的功能，而且还具有为人们提供娱乐的功能。新闻媒体为获得商业利益，争取更多的受众，可能在主动地行使新闻自由权时，对他人的消极的隐私权构成侵犯，因此需要在法律中明确新闻自由的界限。但不论是绝对主义原则、明显而即刻的危险原则和挑战性言词原则，都不能科学地为新闻自由划定一个令人满意的界限。本文认为，新闻自由与隐私权之间的权利冲突实质上也就是不同利益之间的冲突，可以通过适用特别权衡原则，在具体个案中对冲突的权利进行分析比较，找出其各自的意义与合理性，然后作出孰轻孰重，谁是谁非的价值判断。 隐私权与新闻自由是一对天生的冤家对头，二者的冲突从来就没有停止过。其原因既有社会的原因，也有法律的原因，更主要的是二者在本质上具有对对抗性。二者冲突的表现形式主要集中于新闻采访阶段和新闻报道阶段。在新闻采访阶段，媒体侵权的形式主要有：(1)运用窃听、偷录等方式进行暗中采访；(2)监视跟踪、强行拍录采访；(3)侵入住宅等私人区域；(4)隐瞒记者身份探知他人隐私；(5)私自调查、偷窥他人个人文件资料。新闻报道的侵权形式主要是向社会公开披露他人与社会公共生活无关的个人隐私。 为了达成隐私权与新闻自由之间的平衡，首要的任务是应当确定新闻侵权的论隐私权与新闻自由的冲突与平衡构成要件。本文认为，新闻侵权的构成要件包括:(l)新闻媒体实施了侵犯隐私权的侵害行为;(2)产生了隐私权被侵犯的损害后果;‘(3)新闻侵害行为与损害后果之间存在因果关系;(4)新闻媒体具有主观上的过错。如果新闻媒体的行为不符合以上要件，则不构成侵权，无须承担相应的侵权责任。但是，新闻媒体从社会公共利益需要出发，在实现其对社会进行监督和为大众提供娱乐的功能的同时，侵犯隐私权的现象是不可避免的。为保障新闻媒体能充分地行使其自由，必须为新闻媒体设立抗辩事由。如果新闻媒体具有抗辩事由，则其不构成侵权。这正是平衡新闻自由和隐私权的重点所在。 由于新闻侵权纠纷在我国的兴起还只是近十几年的事，因而对于新闻自由的抗辩事由仍是众说纷纭，不一而足。外国法院，尤其是美国法院在这方面的实践经验较多，可以拿来借鉴。总的来说，这些抗辩规则包括新闻价值、公众人物、当事人同意、公开场合和使不可辨认。 本文认为，新闻价值是新闻媒体在抗辩时使用的一项一般性规则。因为新闻采访和新闻报道的主要原因，就是被采访和报道的对象具有新闻价值。即使这种采访和报道有时是不合理的，甚至是令人不快的，只要具有新闻价值，涉及到公共利益，媒体也不构成侵权。 对于公众人物而言，由于他们深入地介入到公共的领域，他们的言行对社会发生一定的作用，因而他们的隐私权要受到相应的限制。本文在对公众人物进行讨论时，考虑到政府官员相对于其他公众人物的特殊性，因而将政府官员与其他公众人物分而述之。 对于官员和自愿型公众人物而言，由于他们都是积极主动地介入社会生活，并且都从社会获得了超出普通人所能得到的利益，因而他们就要为自己的隐私受到过多的社会关注付出代价，新闻媒体在对他们进行采访和报道时具有较大的自由度。而非自愿型公众人物是在被动的情况下卷入了某一项为人们所关注的新闻事件，其本人并不想主动地介入社会，且未从社会中获得任何利益，因而其隐私的受保护范围较官员和自愿型公众人物为大。 当事人同意是当事人主动地放弃了其隐私权，新闻媒体自然可以加以利用，所以该规则也是新闻媒体可以行使的一项重要的抗辩事由。公开场合在传统理论上是新闻媒体的绝对的抗辩事由，但随着现代科技的发展，这项规则的行使也就论隐私权与新闻自由的冲突与平衡有了相应的限制，新闻媒体只有在为了公共利益的需要时，才可以在公开场所对他人进行采访和报道。而使不可辨认是新闻媒体主动地对当事人予以保护的方式，当然地成为新闻媒体的抗辩事由。 总之，本文认为，法院在对二者进行平衡时，应以新闻价值作为媒体抗辩的一般性规则，结合其他规则来判断新闻自由是否享有抗辩理由，是否构成对隐私权的合理限制。而平衡的结果?更多还原

【Abstract】 Human beings have the concept of privacy primitively. However, the privacy right concept of modern times originated from the article "the Privacy Right" published in "Harvard Law Comment" which was written by Samuel · D · Vernon and Louis · D · Prudence in 1980.People have different viewpoints on the concept. As a result, it isn’t completely consistent. In my opinion, the main body of the privacy rights consists of natural persons, artificial persons and so on. It doesn’t include any social organization or the decedent. Its content involves something "concealed" and "private". That is the private business which the person having the rights is not willing to open to the public. It belongs to the basic rights. So its concept should be like this-one of the basic rights under the protection of the Constitution. It is the right with which a natural person is allowed to conceal all that concerns private affairs and prevent them from disturbing or invading. For sure the performance of any right is limited by law. It can’t infringe others.Freedom of press is the freedom that people can take to publish ideas of their own. It is not only the extension ofspeech freedom, but also one of the supervision methods--peopleto government. In addition, it is the basic right protected by the Constitution. This basic right includes news gathering and news reporting freedom. With the development of society, however, news media undertakes not only the task of supervision but the one of entertainment. Media always tends to obtain commercial profits and becomes more popular. As a result, it may infringeother’s passive privacy rights when it takes the rights of freedom of press positively. That is why the limit of freedom of press is pinpointed in law. Whatever it is, the absolute principle, obvious and imminent danger principle, 01 challenging speech principle, nothing can scientifically pinpoint a satisfactory limit for freedom of press. In my opinion, the nature of the conflict between freedom of press and privacy rights is that of different profits. We shall compare and analyze them, find importance and reasonableness respectively. Then a value judgement can be made.Privacy right and freedom of press are born conflictively. The conflict between them has never been ceased. The cause of that comes from both the society and the law. The conflict mainly happens in news gathering and news reporting. The former includes: 1. intercept and tapping 2. monitoring and tracking, taking photos or videos without permission 3. breaking into private area 4. exploring others’ privacy without revealing his reporter’s identity 5. investigating others’ personal information or peeping without permission. The latter refers to revealing personal privacy to the public which has nothing to do with public life.In order to balance privacy rights with freedom of press, the most important thing is to make sure what are the essential items of news infringement. In my opinion, these items include the following things: 1.Media has performed the behavior of privacy rights infringement. 2.It has caused damage of privacy rights infringement. 3.There is the cause and effect relation between the infringement behavior and the damage result. 4.Media has subjective fault. Without such essential items as those listed, infringement can’t come into being. Thus no relevant infringementresponsibility shall be taken. However, when media performs for the sake of the public profits to realize the function of society supervision and public entertainment, it is inevitable for media to infringe privacy rights. In order to ensure media to perform its freedom thoroughly, refutation sake must be set up for media. If it has refutation sake, media does not form infringement. This is the key to balance freedom of press and privacy rights.Because news infringement dispute began in our country 10 years ago, people have different viewpoints in refutation items of freedom of press. Foreign c更多还原