介绍:
China's Supreme Court has issued a new regulation outlawing the so-called "human flesh search engine", an activity that involves Internet users banding together to expose an individual to public humiliation. It states that local courts will support plaintiffs suffering damages from having their personal information published online. This includes their medical history, criminal records, home addresses and any other private activities. Information that has already been legally made public, or if it was done so to "promote social and public benefits", is exempt from the new regualtion.
(QD) Wang Yaqin, a law professor, expresses her support to this new regulation on china.com.cn,
In China, in recent years, human flesh search engines have been used in some pretty vile ways, similar to cyber bullying. There're a large number of criminal cases resulting from human flesh search engines. The Supreme Court's new judicial interpretation will no doubt purify the internet environment, which is the reason why it wins my full support.
(JA) But Justiam Yigu disagrees on cnii.com.cn,
The human flesh searches in recent years have shed a light on government corruption and incompetence, with Internet users outing officials for flaunting their wealth. It's definitely a double-edged sword. But this judicial explanation makes no difference from outlawing such activities. The authorities shouldn't have dealt with it in so simplistic a way.
(LY) And Bai Xun points out on epaper.qingdaonews.com,
The Supreme Court issued this judicial interpretation without adequate details. Therefore local courts as well as governments at all levels can make their own interpretations towards it. As such, it may be abused by the authority. There's no question that in effect this judicial interpretation is meant to punish online speech.
-----------------------------------
(QD) Lei Lifan points out on blog.sina.com.cn,
The new judicial explanation has already made it clear that exceptions will be made if individuals' privacy is revealed to promote social and public benefits. So the Chinese authorities are actually protecting such online activities as revealing corrupt officials or evil behavior of some individuals.
(LY) Jiongshen 977 expresses his opinion on weibo.com,
I think the Supreme Court is playing on words. There's too much blur in this judicial explanation. It should have differentiated the privacy of public figures from that of common citizens. Public figures, such as government officials, should be monitored by the whole society and sacrifice part of their privacy for that purpose.
(JA) And on blog.ifeng.com, Yun Juan Yun Shu adds his point of view,
I agree that civil servants should contribute part of their privacy to the public for better surveillance. But there should also be a limit on it. For example, addresses of the houses illegally owned by a corrupt official and the amounts of money he took as bribes should be made public, but the details of his family members should be well-protected. The Supreme Court should really release more clear details on this judicial explanation in the future.
大家还在听
