【禁闻】刑法修正案 言论收紧维权难

FacebookPrintFont Size繁体

【新唐人2014年11月01日讯】11月1号结束的中共第十二届全国人大常委会第十一次会议,审议了《刑法修正案(九)草案》,草案增加了网络犯罪的条款,不仅“编造和传播虚假信息”被正式纳入刑事罪范围,相关网站也可能被波及刑事责任,显示网络言论空间被进一步压缩。另外,对于保障法院审判权的相关修改,也使人权律师担心,维权案件的辩护将更加艰难。

大陆民众在网上的言论,一旦被官方认定是“编造、传播虚假信息”,就可能构成刑事犯罪。而相关的网站,如果没能及时管控删贴,或者没能保留好相关证据,也可能受到刑事处罚。这是中共人大常委会27号开始审议的《刑法修正案(九)草案》的修改重点之一。

之前当局控制所谓的“网络谣言”,行政处罚手段一般是警告和罚款。在2000年中共人大常委关于维护互联网安全的决定中,第五条提到,利用互联网的行为构成犯罪的,“依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任”。不过,实际上在《刑法》中很难找到与之相衔接的条款,也没有定罪量刑的规定。

而这次的《刑法修正案(九)》增加了“编造和传播虚假信息犯罪”,声称是针对在信息网络或者其他媒体上恶意编造、传播虚假信息,严重扰乱社会秩序的情况。

另外,《草案》还增加了网站的责任,规定网络服务商如果不履行网络安全管理义务,经提醒拒绝执行措施,致使违法信息大量传播、用户信息泄漏,造成严重后果的,或者致使刑事犯罪证据灭失,严重妨害司法机关追究犯罪的,都可追究刑事责任。

其中,对“证据灭失”要追责也是第一次写入刑法,以前这类情况一般只会受到行政处罚,现在涉及刑事处罚。

原河北人民广播电台编辑朱欣欣:“现在等于说又把网站的责任进一步加大了。如果网站负有这个责任的话,那它就可以以违法的名义来处理网站的有关负责人,或者是封网啊、暂停啦。等于说进一步收紧了网络的环境。”

原河北人民广播电台编辑,自由撰稿人朱欣欣认为,持续严格打压网络言论,对于国家文化、民间社会发展不利。

朱欣欣:“压制了真实的声音,人们很多的精力、注意力,就会不得不转向追求物质,对精神、文化的追求就会降低。同时,权力也就更加不受监督了。没有舆论的监督,不可能真正做到依法治国。”

除此之外,《草案》的另一个修改重点,是在所谓劳教废除后,加强社会治理的方面,其中为保障法院审判权做出的修改,也遭到法律界批评。

《草案》扩大了“扰乱法庭秩序罪”的范围,如“侮辱、诽谤、威胁司法工作人员或者诉讼参与人,不听法庭制止”等行为,也将构成刑事犯罪。

广东律师隋牧青:“很明显是刻意的针对人权律师,对法庭的非法行为的抗争而来的,一种出台的规定。因为尤其‘扰乱法庭秩序’这样一个说法,从立法技术上,它就非常模糊和抽像。它适合于法庭随意的解释,随意的给律师入罪。”

代理丁家喜律师案的广东律师隋牧青,今年4月在一审庭审时,他指出案件程序多处重大违法,退庭抗议,被法官处以罚款,剥夺一审辩护资格。因此他表示,如果《刑法修正案(九)草案》通过,法官的处理可能就更随意。

隋牧青:“这个都是很明显的法治倒退。那么如果按照这种标准,我在‘丁家喜案’当中,他们就完全可以以这个罪名来抓我。”

《草案》还规定,辩护人、诉讼代理人或者其他诉讼参与人,泄露依法不公开审理的案件中不应当公开的信息,造成信息公开传播或者其它严重后果的,也构成犯罪。

隋牧青律师说,人权律师已经发现,目前在法庭进行专业辩护起不到作用,诉诸社会大众的支持才是唯一的利器,而当局的这项修改就是要剪除人权律师的利器。

代理维吾尔族学者伊力哈木案的律师刘晓原,也向香港媒体指出,在庭审辩护时,法院不停提醒他,案件涉及分裂国家,不能向外披露证据,但另一方面,中央电视台却播出对伊力哈木不利的证据,他认为这是“双重标准”。

采访/朱智善 编辑/尚燕 后制/萧宇

China Criminal Law Amendment Tightens Internet Censorship
and Defeats Human Rights Lawyers

The ninth draft amendment to criminal law was discussed
in the eleventh National People’s Congress (NPC) meeting.
The cybercrime, “fabricate and spread false information"
was formally introduced as a criminal offense;
Websites may also be held criminally responsible.

The freedom of expression on the Internet
is being further supressed.

Changes to protect juridical power of the court
have also been introduced.

It imposes tough procedure for human rights lawyers.

Once the online remarks are officially recognized
as “fabricating, spreading false information", it may
constitute a criminal offense.

The corresponding websites’ failure to monitor the content
or withhold relevant information as evidence may also be
subject to criminal penalties.

These are the major changes in the ninth draft amendment
to criminal law submitted to the NPC.

An administrative penalty such as warnings and fines was
used to be the measure for the so-called Internet rumors.
In the NPC ‘s decision on Internet security article five,
those who commit crimes via the Internet will be held
“criminally responsible in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the criminal law."

However, provisions on conviction and sentencing
or relevant articles were not defined.

The crimes of “fabricating and spreading false information"
in the ninth amendment draft claimed to target
fabricating and spreading of malicious and false information
that cause disruption of social order.

The responsibility of websites is also added in the draft.
Network service providers are in charge of cyberspace
security and maintenance.
Damages caused by massive spreading of illegal information
and leakage of personal information or loss of criminal
evidence which could complicate the judicial investigation
will be held accountable for criminal offense.

Holding the website accountable for “loss of evidence"
has been written into the criminal law for the first time.
Similar situations were subject to administrative penalties.
But, now it is involved in criminal penalties.

Former Hebei People’s Radio Editor Zhu Xinxin:
“It increased the responsibility of the Websites.
With such a responsibility, service providers can be regulated
in the name of the law and the sites can be blocked or closed.
The Internet is further tightened."

Zhu Xinxin does not believe the tightened online censorship
is beneficial to developments of the culture or society.

Zhu Xinxin: “When the true voice is suppressed, people will
divert their energy and attention to the pursuit of material.
The standard of spiritual and cultural pursuit will be reduced
and the power will be further unsupervised.
Without supervision, the rule of law will never be achieved."

Another change adopted by the draft is the modification
that secures the court jurisdiction in order to strengthen
social governance after the abolition of the labor camp.

The scope of the “disrupt court order" crime was extended
to include the activities that “insult, slander, threaten judicial
officers or participants in the proceedings, refuse to stop
as demanded by the court" as criminal offense.

Guangdong lawyer Sui Muqing: “It is obviously
and deliberately targeting the human rights lawyers’
opposing the illegal acts of the court.
Technically, ‘disrupt court order’ is a very vague
and abstract description.
It provides free will to the court
to arbitrarily incriminate lawyer."

Lawyer Sui Muqing once protested the major illegal
procedure during a first instance trial this April
and retired from the court.
He was later fined by the judge
and deprived the qualification to defense.
He indicates the passing of the draft
could grant judges more free will.

Sui Muqing: “This is obviously backwards of law and order.
With such standard, they could arrest me during my defense
for Ding Jiaxi’s case this April."

The draft also provides that should counsel, litigation or other
litigation participants disclose information of cases that go
through closed-door trial or if the disclosed information
lead to serious consequences also constitute a crime.

Sui Muqing says that human rights lawyers have realized
that professional defense severs no effect in court.
Resorting to social support is the only weapon.
But, this modification of court authority is to cut off
a human rights lawyer’s weapon.

The Uygur scholar Ilham Tohti’s defending attorney
Liu Xiaoyuan also pointed out to the Hong Kong media that
the court repetitively reminded him that the case involves
splitting the state, and no evidence can be disclosed.
But, the regime mouthpiece CCTV aired evidences
unfavorable to Ilham Tohti.
He believes that this is a double standard.

Interview/Zhu Zhishan Edit/ShangYan Post-Production/XiaoYu

相关文章
评论