about “Gravestone for Rumour Mongers”

对于刘鼎而言，文化视野的拓展与个人思考的深度无疑是导致其作品的语调或色彩产生变化的最主要的原因，不过，使得他的自我认识变得严峻起来的，恐怕包含了发生在2008年的一桩事件，在一家艺术网站上的自由论坛上，他成为了被攻击的对象，有人历数出他的作品所“抄袭”的西方艺术家的图片，将之一一并列，由此引起了不小的回响，以致有关中国艺术家们的所受的西方“影响的焦虑”成为了当时的焦点话题。

作为这一事件的应对，刘鼎创作了《献给情绪性舆论制造者的墓碑》（2008年），一座墙面悬挂黑色塑料乌云的房间，地面上堆积着带有尖利的锐角的墓碑，网络上所出现的那些帖子以小报的形式被翻印出来，用报夹盛放，陈列在现场；气氛显得低沉而压抑。他也给出了文字注释：

“互联网的匿名性让人们能更轻松地说出自己的想法。然而一旦被心术不正者利用，互联网就可能成为致命的武器。这些以破坏他人的职业生涯和个人生活为目的的，充满怨恨且极具破坏力的攻击和指责已经不仅仅是个人的问题。公平的舆论无疑是重要的，其价值也理应受到重视。然而这些能够保证民意和舆论的机制和平台，同样也可能被人操纵，用于不可告人的目的。这些源自职业竞争，个人情感宣泄和不为人知的自卑感的舆论应产生怎样的作用呢？如何对其加以抑制？我希望通过这个项目引发公众对这些问题的探讨。”

刘鼎在此实际上触及了一个自由与民主之间的悖论，处于长期压抑状态之中的民众在获取了某种形式和某种程度的自由之后，其行为很可能是以宣泄、破坏和攻击为特征的，换句话说，即使在极权制度被取消之后，民主仍旧意味着一个艰难而漫长的过程。这令人联想起在这些年来的东欧或者未来的中国可能发生的事情。

在这件作品中他并没有直接对“剽窃”作出回答，而是声讨了“情绪”，即缺少真正的理智、思辩和宽容精神的行径，而我们可以设想，尽管他以这样一件既带有蔑视又显得自我克制的作品表达了个人态度，但这个事件无疑留下了心理焦虑，其产生的影响并不可能迅速地抹去.

文：朱朱

For Liu Ding, the broadening of cultural horizons and the depth of personal thought were doubtless the primary reasons leading to changes in the tone and character of his work. However, the cause of his increasingly severe self-consciousness perhaps includes an incident that occurred in 2008. On an open forum on an art website, he came under attack by people listing pictures by western artists that his works “plagiarized” and side-by-side comparisons were posted. The reverberations were considerable, and led to “influence anxiety”about the effect that the west had on Chinese artists a central topic of discussion.

As a response to this incident, Liu Ding created “Gravestone for Rumour Mongers” (2008), a room with black plastic acrylic clouds hung on one wall and a pile of sharp, jagged gravestones on the floor. The internet postings were reproduced as tabloid newspapers and placed open on newspaper files arranged around the site; the atmosphere was one of gloom and depression. He also provided an annotation:

“The anonymity of the Internet has made it easy for people to pronounce their thoughts, but when fallen into the hands of someone with a vicious intent, it could become a deadly weapon. I also realize that the fact that such hateful and destructive attacks and accusations have been launched to jeopardize someone’s professional and personal life is no longer a personal matter.  The existence of fair-minded public opinions is important and should be valued but the same mechanisms and platforms that guarantee the possibility of public opinions can also be manipulated and used by those with dark agendas. What should be the function of such public opinions that originate from professional rivalry, release of personal emotions and private feelings of inferiority? How should they be contained? Through this project I would like to open the discussion to the public.”

What Liu Ding touches upon here is in fact a paradox between freedom and democracy. After people who have lived under long-term repression gain some form and degree of freedom, their behavior may be marked by catharsis, destruction, and attacks; in other words, even after a totalitarian system is done away with, the path to democracy is still long and arduous. This brings to mind what has happened in Eastern Europe in these years or what may happen in China in the future.

This piece does not directly respond to the charges of “plagiarism,” but condemns “emotional” behavior- that is, lacking rationality, reason, and tolerance- and we may assume that although he expressed his attitude in a piece that shows both contempt and self-restraint, the incident has no doubt left him emotionally anxious, the effects of which cannot be quickly wiped away.

text: Zhuzhu

解放──及其相对的意义

Brendan Fan是一位住在伦敦的艺术家。他将使用Facebook和Flicker的发布功能在展览期间发起一系列的活动。他将邀请公众通过网络对这些活动进行回应。他希望检验网络沟通的边界，使我们有机会参与改变我们接受信息的方式。在曼城展览开幕的当天，他同时在伦敦举办一场Party，在Party中安排了一些人以Brendan Fan的身份在Party中与他人相识，结交朋友。

Brendan Fan is an artist based in London. He will be using the publicity tool of Facebook and Flicker in order to create a series of actions that will be initiated through-out the exhibition period. The public will be invited to respond to them via the internet. Brendan is hoping to test the boundaries of on-line communication and provide us a chance to meditate about the way we receive information. On the opening day, Brendan Fan is hosting a party in London simultaneously where he arranges a number of people to introduce themselves as Brendan Fan to strangers and befriend them.

鄢醒是一位住在北京的年轻艺术家。他的创作试 图挑战日常生活中现存的系统，使观众反思物理和思想在场的差异性。网络世界本身也常常脱离现实的互动，他的参展作品审视的正是社会如何改变在物理存在的边界之外并存的方式。

Yan Xing is an emerging Beijing based artist. Yan Xing’s work focuses on trying to challenge existing systems in our everyday lives. His works push the audience to question the difference between physical and mental participation in daily activities. As the internet world itself is something that often transcends physical interaction, his work is a poignant look into the changing way society deals with communicating outside the boundaries of physical constraint.

这是一个持续进行的项目。艺术家在宾馆里预定了一个房间,房门上贴着此件作品的标签── 《他们不在这里》。房间内是鄢醒正在为“解放——及其 相对的意义”展览制作作品的现场。该现场不允许任何参观 者进入。但它作为一个整体抑或局部参与了一个介入项目。现场中7个衣着普通的男人,他 们在这个封闭的房间内各自活动,在这个空间内交流是不被允许的。三台固定机位的摄像机以及一台安置在房间内的DV摄像机将在不同的角度记录下艺术家作为 “布局者”拍摄这7个年轻人的过程。过程结束后,房门上的标签将移至房内的某处。所有物品和人将离开这个空间。 鄢醒希望通过这一新的系列作 品,探讨那些在日常活动中的精神体系,作为作品权利主宰的创造者权利的边界,以及那些在身体之外的不在场证明。

“They Are Not Here” is an ongoing project of Yan Xing, who booked a hotel room and put up a sign on the door that read, “They Are Not Here”. Inside the room, Yan Xing would be making a work for the exhibition of “Liberation and its Relative Meaning” and allowed no visitor to enter the room during this course. What was happening in the room was a project Yan Xing carried out for another exhibition about intervention. In the room, there were seven normally dressed men. They were occupied with different activities behind closed doors. No communications were allowed among them. Three fixed video cameras and a DV camera were documenting the process of the artist as the director of the scene filming these seven young men. After the end of this process, the sign on the door was placed somewhere in the room and all the objects and people for the filming were removed from the room. This is a new work in which the artist tries to address the psychological system operating within our everyday domain, the limits of the rights of the creator of a work over the artwork and evidences of absence external to a body.

林一林的作品“大家 庭，是兄弟，不是同志”使用录像、图片和文字来记述一群在海外的中国艺术家（他们在某种意义上是一个家庭）的经历和事件，他们的身影遍布了不同的国家和大陆，连 结他们的是90年代从中国移民海外的共同经历。追溯这些偶然的历史如何彼此互相重合与交织，而且被编织在毛泽 东、马克思和恩格斯等重要的政治人物的事件之中，更加突出了这些个人的历史和位置的随机和非本质性。

Lin Yilin’s work “Big Family: Brothers, Not Comrades” employs video, photographs and text to chart the events and episodes amongst a specific group of overseas Chinese artists—a family so to speak, spread across different countries and continents—that are united by their joint experiences in migrating from China during the 1990s. Tracing how these random histories coincide and overlap with one another and with preeminent political figures such as Chairman Mao, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, underscores the random and nonessential roles of these individual histories and locations.

刘鼎的作品“献给情绪制造者的墓碑”是基于一次艺术家在一个艺术网站上被攻击的极端的个人经验所创作的。这件作品反思了互联网论 坛中道德 原则和约束缺失的危险性。这个作品也开启了整个展览的讨 论。

Liu Ding’s work, “Gravestone for Rumour Monger” was based on an extreme personal experience of being attacked on an art-related website and a reflection on the risk of the absence of moral principle and binding on the Internet forum. This work had opened up the discussion of this exhibition.

朱学勤回应抄袭指责 原文作者称举报人不知情

上海大学教授朱学勤早年的博士论文《道德理想国的覆灭》被网友Isaiah指称存在“抄袭嫌疑”后，迅速成为新的学术关注事件。

事件的核心人物朱学勤今晚8点接受《第一财经日报》电话采访时称，自己已经接到很多媒体的电话，正在写正式的回应文章逐条反驳，将不日发表。朱 学勤在电话里语气平静，他说：“不会像汪晖那样一言不发，不会成为第二个汪晖。”

“非常希望启动调查机制”

朱学勤表示，在回应文章里，他会指出，其一，Isaiah在网络和报纸上，一直不敢公开真实姓名，这是对学术界以及对Isaiah自己的不尊 重，应该有胆量对其言论负责；其二，Isaiah很多说法属于不实之词，不能成立，他会逐条加以反驳。

21世纪教育研究院副院长熊丙奇也关注了“朱学勤事件”，他今日对本报称，不论是对于汪晖还是朱学勤事件，他们是否涉嫌抄袭自己并没有专业能力 判断，但是解决学术争端的基本制度应该是一致的。

熊丙奇表示，认定汪晖是否抄袭，应该由授予汪晖博士学位的中国社会科学院学术委员会进行独立调查，然后进行处理，不管有多少人“挺汪”还是“倒 汪”，最终解决纷争的根本途径还是取决于独立专家组的调查、听证，然后给予处理。

而同样，授予朱学勤博士学位的复旦大学学术委员会也应该启动类似的调查，这是还被质疑者一个清白的途径。“这对朱学勤本人和学校的声誉都很重 要。国外大学遇到检举、质疑，依靠的就是这样的基本模式”。熊丙奇说。

学者易中天7月9日也在《新京报》上撰文《汪晖教授请勿坐失良机》指出，没有权威机构的结论，你就永远是“涉嫌抄袭者”。

对此，朱学勤坦言，非常希望复旦大学启动调查机制。

另一当事人的说法

Isaiah通过将《阳光与闪电》与《姊妹革命：美国革命与法国革命启示录》比对，Isaiah指出，《阳光与闪电》一文，“抄袭了Dunn的 研究成果”(苏珊•邓恩，Susan Dunn，美国威廉姆斯大学法国文学与思想史教授)，“将间接引用伪装成直接引用，并抄袭了杨小刚等人的译文”。

对此，《姊妹革命：美国革命与法国革命启示录》一书译者杨小刚表示，关于朱学勤涉嫌抄袭事件，涉及到的一些事实和背景，可能Isaiah先生不 太了解，所以造成抄袭的错觉。杨小刚现为第一财经员工。

杨小刚称，其在上海大学读硕士时，学校需要一些科研成果，包括翻译学术书籍或者在核心期刊发表文章才能毕业。朱学勤老师便推荐了Dunn这本书 要他翻译。上海文艺出版社觉得此书还有点价值，所以要求出版，并请朱学勤写了一篇序言，这序言就是《阳光与闪电》一文，但后来由于种种原因该序言没有随书 一起出版。

“或许因为朱学勤觉得此书的一些思想跟他《道德理想国的覆灭》一书可以互相补充，就在这书再版时把这篇序言收录进去作为附件”。杨小刚说，如果 这篇文章作为Dunn译本序言，引用一些文章内容，并无不妥，而且是非常必要的。当它作为该书的序言时，如果还在文章中注明出处，就多此一举了。何况，朱 学勤的文章在开头就介绍了Dunn的这本书。

至于是间接引语还是直接引语，杨小刚认为，直接引语要求原文原话毫无偏差地引用，但是如果作者出于不能完全保证忠于原作者意思的情况下，间接引 语或许更妥当。

学术何时自治

最近涉嫌抄袭、造假的事件层出不穷。如何建立防止学术腐败的有效机制？熊丙奇开的药方是建立学术共同体，学术自治，摆脱行政的影响，学者贡献不 由官方认定，不由媒体认定，而是遵从学术共同体认定的学术标准和规范，不看所谓的影响和江湖地位。

复旦大学哲学系教授、博士生导师王德峰今日对本报称，自己并不了解朱学勤事件，对事件本身无法置评。但是，他也表示，抄袭成为学术界的病症，不 能因为学术体制的弊端为抄袭辩护，有些学者遗忘了对社会的责任，谋求体制下的利益，而“学术良知是知识分子的最后立足点，学者应该安贫乐道，良知不改”。

“学术乃天下之公器，不公开姓名的指控，非常不严肃，可以称得上‘懦夫’，此前，不管是指控汪晖还是为汪晖辩护的人，都是公开姓名的。”朱学勤 说，真相总有大白天下的那一天，坏事会变成好事。他还希望读者不要看一面之词，可以去看书本身。来源：第一财经日报

Goldsmith’s Graduate hits home with ‘Alternative Information Portal – FaceROOK’

As part of my new role at Chinese Arts Centre, I am lucky enough to visit the annual national degree shows to see recent graduates work. On my visit to Goldsmiths earlier in the week, I came across an artist’s work that seemed to echo our own interests with the current ‘Liberation’ exhibition. Candy Chen Shuhui’s work has been described as works that ‘create real-time events out of things that are just/already occurring but are not so much noticed from the everyday… it’s a real multi-sided conversation’. Using on-line media as just one of her many tools, she successfully opened up the debate of ‘virtual communication’. How as an artist do we use on-line media to communicate our thoughts and concerns? How as an on-line audience are we expected to respond to this? These are questions that I feel Candy successfully explores. Within her degree show, the audience is drawn towards a TV monitor, filming the public as they enter and exit the main building. As the audience turn to view the second TV monitor behind them, it becomes clear that they were being filmed the whole time and can now be seen on this second screen. The voyeur now becomes the watched. With on-line social media sites, such as Facebook increasingly opening doors for anyone to essentially track your day to day activities, it seems timely and necessary for artists like Candy Chen Shuhui and our Liberation artists, to discuss the presence of the on-line world. Furthermore with evidence of Candy Chen Shuhui’s other on-line projects, such as ‘FaceROOK’ emerging as an ‘alternative information portal’ it is clear that as the on-line technology develops, so will the debate.

Liz Wewiora, Programme Coordinator

Experience with filtering of emails in China

Since we started to work on the exhibition- ‘Liberation’, I have read a lot and heard a lot about the clamp down on internet from the Chinese Government. I finally experienced it personally while I was working in Chongqing China setting up an exhibition- ‘Negotiable Values’ over the last two weeks.

I found that I could not access my work email from Chinese Arts Centre because it was hosted by gmail. I therefore used my personal yahoo email account to communicate with my colleagues in the UK. Through out the time I was in China I received only two emails from my colleagues and  so this led me to believe they must have only sent the two messages and that everything was fine while I was away. I got back to the UK on Sunday and opened my yahoo email once again to find that there were in fact over ten emails from my colleagues showing up as unread. But there was nothing when I checked my email in China!

I never suspected that there was anything wrong with my email, especially as I had received other personal emails from friends and promotion as per usual.  It seemed that everything was working properly and there was no sign of any filter system selecting which messages I did or did not receive.

What was going on there? Was it due to the clamp down on internet in China?

Ying Kwok, Curator

Summary of Chinese participants blog comments so far

Liberation from Restriction

Liberation blog is an open window to show the opinion about the freedom of online networking by different artists, curators and the public. All the ideas are based on the structure of the society in China in relation to the law of internet. Politic, economy, education, law, history, culture are discussed in order to figure out the real role and the function of the internet for human rights. This is a strong emotion about the doubt of the way how China controls their people for developing the country, such as capitalism. The blog also is a symbol of power to convey the ideas about how important the freedom of internet for human being or societies in the world. On the other hand, it is against the policy of some governments which treat their people in unreasonable ways in order to repress the freedom of the internet. Basically, the blog provides a space to argue how the freedom of internet should be practiced by governments for the world.  In short, Liberation blog offers an opportunity for the public to speak out the unsatisfied freedom of internet, namely, liberation from restriction.

互联网自由的边界是法律:

The Law is the Boundary for the Freedom of the Internet.

Chen Ping is the professor of the Peking University Law School and the director of The Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL), who discusses about how to confine the freedom of the internet. He argues that although everyone can find benefits from internet freedom, there must be some restrictions on this freedom as well. All the activities of the internet world need to be controlled under the law, which is the common method to manage the internet by almost all the countries around the world. Chen Ping also mentions how in China there are restrictions on the internet such as government policies that are created in order to protect people from pornography and violence in the internet, especially for the teenagers who are under 14 years old in China. In addition, although the internet seems to have much more, if not total freedom in America, they do have the “Patriot Act” which works to repress illegal behaviour in the internet world since “911” in 2001. Essentially according to the moral rights and ethics of society, which has already seen misuse of the freedom of the internet, there should be a boundary, which is the law.

中国在互联网自由问题上左右为难

China is facing a dilemma about how broad the internet freedom should be.

Today, people have the right to use the internet without restriction in China, because the leader of Chinese Communist Party (CCR) develops the freedom of the internet. However, people start to worry about if there is no law for the internet freedom; some people may be attacked by others who abuse the internet freedom to spread fake information around the internet, especially with celebrities.  For instance, two famous anchorwomen were investigated by the government of China, because someone intentionally made false allegations on the internet. Although, the allegations were evidenced unreal, the two anchorwomen’s reputations were harmed detrimentally.  This kind of situation is occuring more and more as the unlimited internet freedom continues to exist and so people hope the government can now do more to protect their privacy. Meanwhile, they still want to keep their right to use the internet as they wish.  Indeed, the internet freedom is a window which can help the Beijing Government to understand what the society need and think. Yet, it still is a difficult issue for the government to balance the internet freedom and the restriction.

GENEVA DECLARATION ON INTERNET FREEDOM

Adopted by the Human Rights Defenders and Civil Society Representatives assembled
at the 2nd Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, March 9, 2010.

Preamble
We, human rights defenders and representatives of civil society from all regions of the world, having assembled here at the Second Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy,

Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression_r_r, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,

Recognizing that the Internet is a universal space for communication and the exchange of ideas that can promote freedom and mutual understanding among all people, regardless of race, religion, geography or economic status,

Mindful that the Internet has become a primary vehicle for communication in all sectors of life in a globalized economic and civil society, requiring its transparency and openness to function properly,

Believing that the preservation of a free Internet is essential to the full enjoyment of human rights, civil liberties and a free and democratic society,

Alarmed that the situation of Internet freedom in many regions of the world is increasingly perilous and under assault,

Acknowledging that the intimidation and the use of technologies aimed at the restriction and monitoring of Internet creates an environment of repression,

Affirming that suppression of independent thought by filtering, monitoring and censoring of websites, online content, blogs and messaging services constitutes a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recognizing that all countries have obligations to guarantee Internet freedom,

Emphasizing that countries which enjoy secure and open Internet technologies are obliged to prevent exported communications technologies from being used as a vehicle for suppression and censorship, and that Internet companies should take reasonable steps to avoid complicity with, and liability for, violations of human rights,

Recognizing that the struggle for freedom of expression_r_r has today largely shifted online as the Internet has become the means of choice for political dissidents, democracy activists, human rights defenders and independent journalists worldwide,

Considering that there are particular countries in which the situation of Internet freedom is under a grave and gathering threat, with imprisoned political dissidents, journalists and bloggers who are in urgent need of protection by the international community,

Recalling the proposed 2008 Directive of the European Parliament concerning the EU Global Online Freedom Act, in particular its finding that authoritarian states such as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam censor the internet by blocking websites and filtering search results and intimidate internet users through cyber police and obliged registration,

Deeply concerned that authorities in China have seized computers, imprisoned individuals for sharing information online, blocked and deleted blogs and other online services, and incarcerated journalists and social activists for online activity,

Alarmed that authorities in Iran have acted to suppress the free flow of information by blockading Internet traffic and suspending email providers and messaging services, and have created a special police division to hunt down Internet users suspected of so-called “insults and spreading of lies” against the regime,

Deeply disturbed that authorities in Cuba imposed near-total restrictions on access through prohibitive user fees, few public access points and slow connection speeds, and restricted distribution of service to a state-controlled provider,

Decide to hereby adopt this Declaration on Internet Freedom, in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 9, 2010;

Urge the United Nations Human Rights Council, now meeting in its 13th Regular Session, to endorse this Declaration and support the cause of Internet freedom in the face of repression;

Urge all other relevant United Nations and international bodies to endorse this Declaration and support the cause of Internet freedom in the face of repression;

Urge all like-minded supporters of freedom, human rights and democracy to adopt similar declarations, resolutions, or other statements to support the cause of Internet freedom in the face of repression, and urge that these be submitted to the United Nations.

Article 1
Everyone has the right to equal access to the Internet, regardless of race, religion, ethnic or geographical origin.

Article 2
Everyone has the right to the free flow of information and freedom of expression_r_r without fear of discrimination.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to a transparent and open Internet without the subjection of individual licensing or prohibitive, discriminatory requirements such as heavy tolls.

Article 4
Everyone has the right to preserve and protect their intellectual property, kept private and confidential from invasion, seizure or monitoring.

Article 5
Everyone has a right to protect Internet access, Internet infrastructure and communication technologies from government seizure.

Article 6
Everyone has a right to anonymity and online privacy, free from intrusive monitoring by the state or third parties.

Article 7
Everyone has the right to encrypt or otherwise secure their identities and the security of their information as it travels across the Internet, to protect themselves and their information from unwarranted monitoring.

Article 8
No one should be allowed to export or sell technologies, equipment or software that enables the restriction of Internet use or access for the purpose of violating human rights.

Article 9
Internet providers should not be allowed to provide governments, corporations or third parties any information about their users without their legal consent.

Article 10
Any attempt to restrict or intimidate people from free, uncensored, and secure access of the Internet constitutes a fundamental abridgement of human rights and undermines the promotion of peace and world order.

Article 11
The rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration are guaranteed subject only to such reasonable limits, prescribed by law, as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Adopted by consensus, Geneva, March 9, 2010

日内瓦互联网自由宣言

序言

我们是来自世界所有区域出席第二届日内瓦人权、宽容和民主高峰会的维权者和公民社会代表；

根据《世界人权宣言》和《公民权利与政治权利国际公约》规定，人人有权享有主张和发表意见的自由，此项权利包括持有主张而不受干涉的自由和通过任何 媒介和不论国界寻求、接受和传递消息和思想的自由；

鉴于互联网是沟通和思想交流的通用空间，能够不分种族、宗教、地理和经济状况，增进自由和所有人民之间的相互了解；

我们注意到互联网已经成为全球经济和公民社会所有方面的主要通讯工具，为使其正常运行必须保证其透明度与公开性；

我们相信维系一个自由的互联网对充分享有人权、公民自由以及一个自由民主的社会皆必不可少；

我们忧虑到互联网自由在世界各地面临的日益增长的危险和攻击；

我们认识到对互联网自由的威胁以及通过技术手段对互联网进行限制和监控构成压迫环境；

我们确认对网站、在线内容、博客和短信服务进行过滤、监控和审查，压制独立思想，违反《世界人权宣言》第19条；

鉴于所有国家都有责任确保互联网自由；

我们强调享有安全和开放式互联网的国家有责任，防止出口通讯技术被用作压制和审查自由互联网的工具；互联网公司理当采取合理步骤避免成为侵犯人权的 同谋和为侵犯人权担责；

鉴于互联网已在世界范围内成为政治异见人士、民主人士、维权人士和独立记者的首选方式，争取言论自由的斗争现已广泛转移到在线领域；

考虑到个别国家的互联网自由正遭受严重威胁且威胁在日益加剧，这些国家被监禁的政治异见人士、独立记者和博客作者迫切需要国际社会提供保护；

回顾2008年欧洲议会提议的关于《欧盟全球在线自由法的欧洲议会法令》，特别是其中指出的专制国家如白俄罗斯、缅甸、中国、古巴、埃及、埃塞俄比 亚、伊朗、北朝鲜、沙特阿拉伯、叙利亚、突尼斯、土库曼斯坦、乌兹别克斯坦、越南等，通过封锁网址、过滤检索结果和以网络警察及强制登记来胁迫互联网用户 等手段对互联网进行审查；

我们深切关注中国当局没收电脑，监禁在线分享信息网民，封锁或删除博客和其他在线服务，记者和社会活动人士因网络活动而被监禁；

我们忧虑伊朗当局通过封锁互联网流量、停止电子邮件服务商业务和短信服务方式压制信息自由流通，并且设立了特别警察机构搜捕被怀疑为所谓“侮辱和散 布谎言”的反政府互联网用户；

我们深为不安的是古巴当局通过抑制性的高价互联网用户使用费、极少公共场所的互联网接入点和很慢的连接网速以及只限于由政府控制的互联网供应商提供 互联网服务等手段几乎完全限制人们使用互联网；

我们谨此决定，于2010年3月9日在瑞士日内瓦通过此《互联网自由宣言》；

我们敦促现在正召开第13次会议的联合国人权委员会拥护此宣言，以支持面临威胁的互联网自由；

我们敦促所有相关的联合国机构和国际组织拥护此宣言，以支持面临威胁的互联网自由；

我们敦促所有自由、人权和民主的志同道合者通过类似的宣言、决议或其他形式的声明，并将之提交给联合国，以支持面临威胁的互联网自由。

第 1 条
人人都有平等使用互联网的权利，不论种族、信仰、民族或地域背景。

第 2 条
人人都有不受歧视地享有自由流通信息和自由发表意见的权利。

第 3 条
人人都有享有透明和开放的互联网，无需单独申领互联网使用许可，和免受诸如昂贵的互联网用户使用费等抑制性、歧视性要求限制的权利。

第 4 条
人人都有持有和保护知识产权，维护隐私和秘密免受入侵、没收和监控的权利。

第 5 条
人人都有保护自己的互联网接入、互联网基础设施和通讯技术不受政府没收的权利。

第 6 条
人人都享有网络匿名权和在线隐私权，不受政府或第三者入侵性监控。

第 7 条
人人都有在使用互联网时通过加密或其他方式保证自己身份和信息安全，保护自己和自己的信息不受未经授权监控的权利。

第 8 条
任何人不得输出或销售以侵犯人权之目而限制使用或接入互联网的技术、设备或软件。

第 9 条
互联网服务供应商未经用户合法许可，不得向政府、公司或第三者提供任何用户信息。

第 10 条
任何限制或胁迫人民使用自由的、不受审查的和安全的互联网接入的试图，都是对人权的严重侵犯和对增进和平和世界秩序的破坏。

第 11 条
本宣言所确定的权利和自由只受在一个自由民主社会明显具有正当理由的法律所规定的限制。本宣言中的任何内容都不可解读为默许任何个人有权进行旨在损毁《世 界人权宣言》所载明的任何权利和自由的活动或行为。

本宣言2010年3月9日由第二届日内瓦人权、宽容和民主高峰会维权人士和公民社会全体代表一致通过

中国采用了我们的资本主义模式——我们将采用它的专制统治吗？

中国采用了我们的资本主义模式——我们将采用它的专制统治吗？

作者：斯拉沃热·齐泽克

The explosion of capitalism in China has many Westerners asking when political democracy — as the “natural” accompaniment of capitalism — will emerge. But a closer look quickly dispels any such hope.

当资本主义在中国蓬勃发展的时候，很多西方的观察者都会问，政治上的民主（作为资本主义“自然伴随物”）何时才会到来。然而，当我们仔细看清中国 的现状时，基本上很快就会打消这种希望。

Modern-day China is not an oriental-despotic distortion of capitalism, but rather the repetition of capitalism’s development in Europe itself. In the early modern era, most European states were far from democratic. And if they were democratic (as was the case of the Netherlands during the 17th century), it was only a democracy of the propertied liberal elite, not of the workers. Conditions for capitalism were created and sustained by a brutal state dictatorship, very much like today’s China. The state legalized violent expropriations of the common people, which turned them proletarian. The state then disciplined them, teaching them to conform to their new ancilliary role.

现代中国，并不是一个资本主义的东方专制的扭曲版本，而是一个欧洲资本主义自身发展的翻版。在近代早期，大部分的欧洲国家离民主还有一段距离。而 且那时候，如果它们是民主国家的话（如17世纪荷兰的），也只不过是有财产的自由主义精英的民主，而不是工人的民主，而发展资本主义所需要的条件当时就是 由野蛮粗暴的国家专断权力创造，并维持下去的。这一点，与今天的中国非常相似。过去，中国合法化了各种剥夺老百姓财产权的野蛮暴力，使普通老百姓成为了无 产阶级，然后，国家再对其进行规训，教育他们去适应新的辅助型角色。

The features we identify today with liberal democracy and freedom (trade unions, universal vote, freedom of the press, etc.) are far from natural fruits of capitalism. The lower classes won them by waging long, difficult struggles throughout the 19th century. Recall the list of demands that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made in the conclusion of The Communist Manifesto. With the exception of the abolition of private property, most of them — such as a progressive income tax, free public education and abolishing child labor — are today widely accepted in “bourgeois” democracies, and all were gained as the result of popular struggles.

那些今天我们所熟知自由民主的特征（工会，普选，出版自由等）其实都远非是资本主义的自然结果。中下阶层在19世纪当中，通过发动长期而又艰苦的 斗争才争取到这些权利。我们不妨回忆一下马克思和恩格斯在《共产党宣言》当中提出的那一系列的要求，除了要废除私有产权以外，大部分的这些要求——如累进 所得税，免费的公共教育，禁止使用童工等——这些在今日的“资产阶级”民主当中经已被广泛采纳和接受的权利，实际上全都是普通老百姓一直以来斗争的结果。

So there is nothing exotic in today’s China: It is merely repeating our own forgotten past. But what about the afterthought of some Western liberal critics who ask how much faster China’s development would have been had the country grown within the context of a political democracy? The German-British philosopher Ralf Dahrendorf has linked the increasing distrust in democracy to the fact that, after every revolutionary change, the road to new prosperity leads through a “valley of tears.” In other words, after the breakdown of state socialism, a country cannot immediately become a successful market economy. The limited — but real — socialist welfare and security have to be dismantled, and these first steps are necessary and painful. For Dahrendorf, this passage through the “valley of tears” lasts longer than the average period between democratic elections. As a result, the temptation is great for leaders of a democratic country to postpone difficult changes for short-term electoral gains.

所以，在今天中国也不例外：它只是在重复我们早已忘却的过去。然而，一些西方自由主义的批评者曾经提出疑问说假如中国进入到政治民主的状态时它的 发展会可能会有多快，后来他们又是怎么想的呢？哲学家达伦多夫曾经把民主当中日益增长的不信任与以下的这个现实联系在一起：在每一次革命以后，通往新的繁 荣之路都必须要经过一个“眼泪谷”。也就是说，在国家社会主义崩溃以后，一个国家是很难迅速地成为一个良好运作的市场经济体。那些有限的却又真实存在的社 会福利以及保障将被迫先要清除，这些往前迈出第一步的行动都是必需的，同时也是痛苦的。达伦多夫说，穿越“眼泪谷”的这段旅程所花的时间往往比两次民主选 举间的平均周期要长。因此，对于那些民主国家的领导人来说，就会受到某种诱惑，令他们推迟重大的改革，而谋求短期的选举收益。

In Western Europe, the move from welfare state to the new global economy has involved painful renunciations, less security and less guaranteed social care. In post-Communist nations, the economic results of this new democratic order have disappointed a large strata of the population, who, in the glorious days of 1989, equated democracy with the abundance of the Western consumerist societies. And now, 20 years later, when the abundance is still missing, they blame democracy itself.

在西欧，从福利国家迈向崭新的全球化经济时代的过程中，包含着痛苦的放弃，被减少的安全措施以及难以保证的社会保障。在那些后共产主义国家里面， 新的民主秩序下的经济成果让社会当中的大多数阶层失望，这些阶层在1989年左右曾有某些辉煌岁月，当时，他们把民主与西方富饶的消费主义社会混为一谈。 但如今，20年过去，被预期会出现的经济富庶却一直没有出现，于是这些阶层就转过头来去责怪民主。

Dahrendorf, however, fails to note the opposite temptation: The belief that, if the majority of a population resists structural changes in the economy, an enlightened elite should take power, even by non-democratic means, to lay the foundations for a truly stable democracy. Along these lines, Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria points out how democracy can only “catch on” in economically developed countries. He says that if developing countries are “prematurely democratized,” then economic catastrophe and political despotism will soon follow. It’s no wonder, then, that today’s most economically successful developing countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Chile) have embraced full democracy only after a period of authoritarian rule.

然而，达伦多夫没有注意到另一种相反的诱惑：这种观点就是，假如大多数的民众拒绝经济上的结构性转型的话，那么那些较早觉悟的精英就应该去掌握公 权力，即使是通过一种非民主的手段，从而为真正意义上稳定的民主打下基础。按照这种观点，新闻周刊专栏专家Fareed Zakaria为我们指出，民主是如何只在经济上的发展中国家里面得到理解的。他说，如果一个发展中国家处于“早熟的民主状态”，那么经济上的灾难和政治 上的专断就会随之而来。所以，毫无疑问，今天经济上最成功的一些发展中国家和地区（台北省，南韩，智利），它们都在经历了一段威权主义统治以后，才获得充 分发展的民主制度。

Isn’t this line of reasoning the best argument for the Chinese way to capitalism as opposed to the Russian way? In Russia, after the collapse of Communism, the government adopted “shock therapy” and threw itself directly into democracy and the fast track to capitalism — with economic bankruptcy as the result. (There are good reasons to be modestly paranoid here: Were the Western economic advisers to President Boris Yeltsin who proposed this approach really as innocent as they appeared? Or were they serving U.S. strategic interests by weakening Russia economically?)

这种说法，是否就是对于为何中国会采纳一条有别于俄罗斯模式的资本主义道路最好的回答呢？在俄罗斯，在共产主义崩溃以后，它们采取了“休克疗法” 而直接进入民主制度以及通向资本主义的快速通道——当然，也伴随着经济上的破产。（在这里，我们有很好的理由去成为一个温和的偏执狂：那些向俄罗斯前总统 叶利钦建言让其采纳“休克疗法”的西方经济学家是否就真的是如他们看起来的那样纯真呢？又或者说，他们是否服务于美国的利益而有心削弱俄罗斯的经济呢？）

China, on the other hand, has followed the path of Chile and South Korea in its passage to capitalism, using unencumbered authoritarian state power to control the social costs and thus avoid chaos. The weird combination of capitalism and Communist rule proved to be a blessing (not even) in disguise for China.

在另一方面，中国则采纳了之前智利和南韩的资本主义道路，使用毫无监管和约束的威权主义国家权力控制社会成本，从而避免社会骚乱。这种资本主义和 共产主义离奇的结合对于中国来说，被证明是个伪装的幸福，甚至还不能算是个幸福。

The country has developed fast, not in spite of authoritarian rule, but because of it. With Stalinist-sounding paranoia, we are left to wonder, “Maybe those who worry about China’s lack of democracy are actually worried that its fast development could make it the next global superpower, thereby threatening Western primacy.”

中国之所以发展得如此地快，不是因为其脱离了威权主义的统治，相反，而是由于这种威权主义统治所带来的。假如我们用斯大林式貌似合理的偏执想法来 思考的话，那么的确还有很多值得我们思考的问题，“那些担心中国缺乏民主的人，可能实际上是在担心中国的高速发展，从而形成一个新的全球超级力量，最终威 胁到西方的利益。”

Today, the tragedy of the Great Leap Forward is repeating itself as a comedy. It has become the rapid capitalist Great Leap Forward into modernization, with the old slogan “iron foundry into every village” re-emerging as “a skyscraper into every street.” The supreme irony of history is that Mao Zedong himself created the ideological conditions for rapid capitalist development. What was his call to the people, especially the young ones, in the Cultural Revolution? Don’t wait for someone else to tell you what to do, you have the right to rebel! So think and act for yourselves, destroy cultural relics, denounce and attack not only your elders, but also government and party officials! Swipe away the repressive state mechanisms and organize yourself in communes!

今天，在中国，昔日“大跃进运动”的悲剧以一种喜剧的形式重新上演。它变成了一场高速地奔向现代化的资本主义大跃进运动，当年“大跃进运动”当中 的口号“每个乡村都要有一个炼钢厂”如今变成了“每条街道上都要有一座摩天大楼”。但该段历史最大的讽刺却是毛泽东为资本主义的迅猛发展创造了意识形态上 的条件。还记得毛泽东在“文化大革命”中说了什么，尤其是对青年人说了什么吗？不要等其他人告诉你你要去做什么，你有反抗的权利！所以，为自己去打算和行 动吧，破坏文化遗迹，不仅要去谴责和攻击你的长辈，还包括政府和政党的领导人！推翻这种压迫人的体制吧，到在人民公社当中实现自我管理吧！

And Mao’s call was heard. What followed was such an explosion of unrestrained passion to delegitimize all forms of authority that, at the end, Mao had to call in the army to restore order. The paradox is that the key battle during the Cultural Revolution was not between the Communist Party apparatus and the denounced traditionalist enemies, but between the Communist Party and the forces that Mao himself called into being.

很多人响应了毛泽东的号召。于是接下来就是一场无法压制的热情爆发，他们把所有形式的权力机构通通认为是不合法的，到了文化大革命的后期，毛泽东 不得不召来军队恢复了社会秩序。这里面有一个重要的悖论，这不是一场发生在共产党机构和被谴责的传统主义敌人之间的重大战争，而是一场发生在共产党和被毛 泽东所鼓动的那股力量之间的重大战争。

A similar dynamic is discernible in today’s China. The Party resuscitates big ideological traditions in order to contain the disintegrative consequences of the capitalist explosion that the Party itself created. It is with this in mind that one should read the recent campaign in China to revive Marxism as an efficient state ideology. (Literally hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars are spent on this venture.)

而在今日中国，我们通过能够清晰地发现到仍旧存在着某种相似的力量。共产党重新激活了大型的意识形态传统，用它们来抑制共产党自己创造的资本主义 高速发展所带来的分裂恶果。我们心中必须以下这一点：即最近中国开始了一场重新把马克思主义作为有效率的国家意识形态的运动。（从官方文件上，我们知道有 数十亿美元将会用于这个计划上面。）

Those who see this as a threat to capitalist liberalization totally miss the point. Strange as it may sound, this return of Marxism is the sign of the ultimate triumph of capitalism, the sign of its full institutionalization. For example, China has taken recent legal measures to guarantee private property, a move that the West has hailed as a crucial step toward legal stability.

那些把这场复兴马克思主义的运动视为是一种对资本主义自由化威胁的人基本上是看错了。可能听起来会有点奇怪，实际上，这次马克思主义的回归的确是 资本主义的最后胜利，是资本主义完全制度化的标志。举个例说，中国最近已经采取立法手段来保障私有产权，这一举动被西方国家赞其是迈向法律稳定性上的重要 一步。

But what kind of Marxism is as appropriate for today’s China? First, let’s look at the difference between Marxism and Leftism. Leftism is a term that refers to any talk of workers’ liberation — from free trade unions to overcoming capitalism. But the Marxist thesis says that developing the forces of production is the key to social progress, and it is this type of Marxist development that fosters the conditions for the continuing fast “modernization.”

但哪一类型的马克思主义最适合今天的中国呢？第一，先让我们来看一下马克思主义和左派之间的差别，左派指的是关于工人解放的一切言论——从自由组 建工会到推翻资本主义。但马克思主义却认为发展生产力才是社会进步的关键，而正是这种类型的马克思主义的发展才能为持续而快速的“现代化”进程培养土壤。

In today’s China, only the Communist Party’s leading role can sustain rapid modernization. The official (Confucian) term is that China should become a “harmonious society.”

在今天的中国，只有共产党的领导地位才能维持快速的现代化进程。而官方（儒家）的主题则是中国应该变成一个“和谐社会”。

To put it in old Maoist terms, the main enemy may appear to be the “bourgeois” threat. But, in the eyes of the ruling elite, the main enemies are instead the “principal contradiction” between unfettered capitalist development that the Communist Party rulers profit from and the threat of revolt by the workers and peasants.

把这一点放进旧的毛泽东主义里面去看，主要的敌人可能会是“资产阶级”的威胁。然而，在统治精英的眼中，主要的敌人已经发生了改变，其“主要矛 盾”已经变成了“共产党领导人想要利用的不受约束的资本主义发展”与“工人和农民企图革命的威胁”这两者之间的矛盾。

Last year, the Chinese government strengthened some of its oppressive apparatuses — including forming special units of riot police to crush popular unrest. These police are the actual social expression of what, in ideology, appears as a revival of Marxism. In 1905, Trotsky characterized tsarist Russia as “the vicious combination of the Asian knout [whip] and the European stock market.” Doesn’t this characterization still hold for modern-day China?

去年，中国政府加强了它某些具有压制性功能的机构的力量——包括成立特种防暴警察来压制民众的骚动。这些防暴警察的设置其实在意识形态上马克思主 义的复兴落实到现实社会层面的一种表达。在1905年，托洛茨基就指出沙皇统治下俄罗斯的几个特征，包括“亚洲皮鞭与欧洲股票市场的残暴混合”。这一点， 是否也能够概括今天中国的特征呢？

But what if the promised democratic second act that follows the authoritarian valley of tears never arrives? That is what is so unsettling about today’s China: Its authoritarian capitalism may not be merely a remainder of our past but a portent of our future.

但是，假如在眼泪谷之后，威权主义国家没有迎来民主的第二波运动的话， 那怎么办呢？这就是为什么大家对于今天中国会感到如此不安的地方：它的威权资本主义不单单是我们过去的某个剩余物，还可能是我们未来的预兆。

Slavoj Žižek, a philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany. He is the author of, among many other books, The Fragile Absolute and Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?

斯拉沃热·齐泽克，哲学家和精神分析师，德国埃森高级人文研究所的高级研究员。著有大量书籍，其中包括《易碎的绝对》以及《有没有人说过集权主 义？》

互联网自由的边界是法律

刊发时间：2010-02-11 07:51:57　光明日报

□北京大学法学院教授、互联网法律中心主任　张 平

□本报记者　袁祥　王逸吟

互联网的开放、自由给所有人都带来了好处。但互联网自由

不是绝对的，互联网自由也有边界，这个边界就是法律。网络空间的任何活动，都要受制于法律的约束。依法对互联网进行管理，是世界各国通行的做法。

只概括性地承认互联网上的一般自由是远远不够的,更要看到互联网自由也有边界,这 个边界就是法律

“互联网自由”近来成为焦点话题。人们在互联网上享受信息自由流动带来巨大便利的同时，也面临着网络诽谤时有发生、网络淫秽色情信息层 出不穷等诸多问题。那么，互联网自由的边界在哪里？怎样建设一个法治的互联网？本报记者就此与北京大学法学院教授、互联网法律中心主任张平进行了探讨。

记者:中国互联网行业发展到今天呈现了怎样的局面?它是自由发展的 吗?

张平:我这里有一组数据。截至2009年底,中国网民总数达到3.84亿,互联网普及率超过世界平 均水平;网站数量达到368万个,SNS、微博等新的互联网应用也迅猛发展。这些数字充分说明,中国互联网上的信息交流是开放的、充分的、自由的。

从文化发展的角度看,网络空间为个人意志和情感的抒发提供了更广阔的平台,也极大丰富了民众可以获取作品的类型,文化的多样性、丰富性 在网络社会中得到了最大程度的实现。从电子商务发展的角度看,以网络游戏、网络广告、电子商务为主要构成的互联网经济带来的产值规模已逾数千亿,腾讯、百 度、新浪、阿里巴巴、携程等企业都寻找到了各自的商业模式。从电子政务角度看,党和国家领导人在人民网、新华网与网民进行了零距离接触。

可以说,个人、业界、政府都充分享受了网络带来的便捷和充分的信息交流、文化沟通,以及产生的经济收益。

记者:互联网的开放、自由给所有人都带来了好处。但互联网自由不是绝 对的,它的边界在哪里?

张平:是的,与上述令人振奋的情形相矛盾的现象一直在互联网空间上演。比如青少年深受“网瘾”、低 俗信息之害引发的社会问题,“艾滋女”网络诽谤事件,黑客攻击事件,恐怖组织利用互联网危害国家安全等等,引人警醒。美国国务卿希拉里也承认,现代信息网 络及其支持的技术既可被用于行善也可被用于作恶。

在网络空间,不同的权利之间产生碰撞、冲突的概率较之于线下的世界更高。只概括性地承认互联网上的一般自由是远远不够的,更要看到互联 网自由也有边界,这个边界就是法律。网络空间的任何活动,都要受制于现实法律的约束。

记者:据了解,在号称互联网完全自由的美国,也有爱国者法、儿童互联 网保护法等与互联网有关的法律。美国的这些立法说明了什么?

张平:在“9·11”事件发生45天之后,时任美国总统布什就签署了爱国者法。这部法律的大部分条 款,早在“9·11”事件之前就已起草完毕了。爱国者法作为反恐行动的法律依据,明确规定为了反恐需要,警方有权查询电话、电子邮件通讯、医疗、财务和其 他种类的记录;可以监视公民网上交流;情报机构可以利用技术手段监控、跟踪乃至删改互联网上不利于美国国家利益的信息。

在美国,向儿童传播淫秽色情信息也是违法行为,相关部门也采取安装过滤软件、严惩肇事者等措施予以打击。儿童互联网保护法规定,学校和 图书馆必须具有互联网安全政策和技术保护措施,每台接入互联网的电脑必须具有相应的过滤软件,以屏蔽属于淫秽或儿童色情的图像,并且防止未成年人获取对其 有害的材料。

从这些法律可以看出,美国立法和行政机关在反恐、维护国家安全、保护未成年人合法权益时必然会对互联网进行管治。美国的互联网自由也不 是绝对的,而是有其价值取向,价值取向决定了立法取向和内容。其他国家也是如此,依法对互联网进行管理,是世界各国通行的做法。

网络色情、网络诽谤、网络黑客攻击等都已冲破了社会文明的道德伦 理底线，是违反法律法规的行为,必须依法惩治

记者:那么,我国政府对互联网的管理,主要依据哪些法律法规?

张平:我国对互联网的管理,主要依据的法律可以分为这样几类。一是互联网安全立法、惩治利用互联网 进行犯罪以及治理网络侵权的立法。1994年,国务院颁布了计算机信息系统安全保护条例,标志我国的互联网安全立法的起步。这方面的法律法规还有刑法及其 修正案、侵权责任法、全国人大常委会关于维护互联网安全的决定、商用密码管理条例等。据悉,目前有关部门正在起草网络信息安全法,这部法律作为调整互联网 信息安全关系的基本法,预示着我国互联网法治将进入一个新阶段。

我们高兴地看到,最高人民法院、最高人民检察院日前联合发布了《关于办理利用互联网、移动通讯终端、声讯台制作、复制、出版、贩卖、传 播淫秽电子信息刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释(二)》,这一司法解释是在2004年发布的《关于办理利用互联网、移动通讯终端、声讯台制作、复制、 出版、贩卖、传播淫秽电子信息刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》基础上,依据我国刑法以及全国人大常委会有关规定制定的。这两个司法解释共同为整治互 联网和手机媒体淫秽色情及低俗信息专项行动提供了强有力的司法保障,其惩治重点在于切断淫秽网站、电信运营商、广告主、广告联盟、第三方支付平台之间形成 的环环相扣的利益链条。这将有助于从源头上惩治淫秽电子信息犯罪,净化网络环境,促进互联网行业健康发展,保护未成年人健康成长。

2009年12月,十一届全国人大常委会第十二次会议通过了侵权责任法。其36条对网络侵权的法律责任作了明确规定:网络用户、网络服 务提供者利用网络侵害他人民事权益的,应当承担侵权责任。网络用户利用网络服务实施侵权行为的,被侵权人有权通知网络服务提供者采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接 等必要措施。网络服务提供者接到通知后未及时采取必要措施的,对损害的扩大部分与该网络用户承担连带责任。网络服务提供者知道网络用户利用其网络服务侵害 他人民事权益,未采取必要措施的,与该网络用户承担连带责任。

二是电子商务立法。我国已经形成了以合同法、电子签名法为基础,一系列行政法规、司法解释、部门规章、地方法规为辅助的电子商务法律法 规体系。1999年制定的合同法对于以电子邮件等数据电文形式订立合同的法律问题作出了原则性规定;2005年起施行的电子签名法确认了电子签名和数据电 文的法律效力,并对电子签名认证机构的法律地位、认证程序、市场准入及行政许可作出了规定。

第三是保护知识产权的立法。这类立法以信息网络传播权保护条例为主,确立了尊重知识产权原则、鼓励互联网产业发展原则。此外,计算机软 件保护条例、专利法、商标法、反不正当竞争法等等,对互联网知识化产权侵权都起到了规制作用。

记者:这些法律法规划出了什么样的边界?是否符合中国的实际情况?

张平:按照上述法律法规,中国法律保护公民在网上的言论自由,保护公民的合法民事权益,保护知识产 权人的经济、精神权利,保护未成年人合法权益。法律禁止利用互联网颠覆国家政权、破坏国家统一,煽动民族仇恨和民族分裂,宣扬邪教以及散布淫秽、色情、暴 力和恐怖等信息。互联网用户包括网民和网络内容提供商、服务提供商须在法律允许的范围内行事,侵害他人的合法权益要承担相应的民事、行政以及刑事责任。

这些规定是符合中国国情的。我国作为一个文化大国,有着深厚的文化传统和特有的社会习俗,中国公民也有判断网络自由的伦理道德准则,法 律则是道德准则的最低点。对中国民众来讲,网络色情、网络诽谤、网络赌博、网络诈骗、网络黑客攻击等都已冲破了社会文明的道德伦理底线,侵犯了公民的基本 权利,是违反法律法规的行为,必须依法惩治。

“两高”的司法解释对不满14周岁未成年人给予了特殊保护，但这还远远不够，我国 亟待制定未成年人网络保护法

记者:对于互联网法律法规的进一步完善,您关注哪些方面?

张平:我主要关注三个方面的内容。

首先,反网络攻击的法律还不够用。由于技术原因,发展中国家的互联网比较脆弱,也容易成为国际黑客攻击的目标。事实上,我国已经成为网 络攻击最大的受害国之一,就在今年1月,百度在美国注册的域名信息就被非法篡改,DNS被劫持。而早些年,新浪、百度、央视网等网站都曾被黑客攻击,木马 病毒也是频频爆发。

安全性是互联网最基础的特性。互联网的开放性决定了黑客攻击地点的不确定性,很难预防。而网络安全事关国家利益、社会发展和网民利益, 保障互联网安全,是政府对互联网管理的第一要务。安全的互联网才能保障网民进行有价值的使用,才能促进互联网的健康发展。

互联网安全除了要从技术层面着手以外,更重要的还应当通过立法避免侵害互联网安全的事件发生,保障网络用户权益不受侵害,并对违法犯罪 行为进行打击和惩处。例如,全国人大常委会于2009年初通过的刑法修正案(七)增加规定,非法侵入他人计算机信息系统获取数据,或对计算机信息系统实施 非法控制,或为实施这类行为提供程序、工具,情节严重的,将追究刑事责任。

但总的来看,我国在反网络攻击方面的立法相对还比较滞后,立法层次不高,尚未形成完整的法律体系。比如说,计算机信息网络国际联网安全 保护管理办法规定,制造和传播病毒是违法的。但目前对于木马、黑客程序等并没有清晰的概念界定,因此适用起来有一定局限。期待正在制定中的网络信息安全法 能够解决这些问题。

其次,治理网络淫秽信息的有关法律还需要完善。中国的青少年网民已达1.2亿,如何保护他们免受淫秽色情等有害信息的侵害,始终是一个 大问题。从世界范围来看,对内容涉及未成年人的淫秽信息予以特殊打击,突出对未成年人权益的保护,是各国的普遍做法。为体现对不满14周岁未成年人的特殊 保护,此次“两高”的司法解释规定了利用互联网、移动通讯终端制作、复制、出版、贩卖、传播内容含有不满14周岁的未成年人的淫秽电子信息行为构成传播淫 秽物品牟利罪、传播淫秽物品罪的定罪量刑标准,在2004年的相关司法解释规定的数量、数额标准的基础上下调一半,以加大对此类犯罪的打击力度。

但这还远远不够,我国亟待制定未成年人网络保护法。我了解到,文化部以及地方文化部门已经准备对网络游戏进行分级管理。我认为,对互联 网监管采取分级分类体制,并对受众进行区分是比较有效可行的,在此基础上,可考虑制定未成年人网络保护法。

最近一段时间,多个部门联合开展了整治手机和互联网传播淫秽色情信息专项行动。这一行动进一步完善了各机构的职能分工,取得了显著成 效。但是执法成本比较高,从长远来看,必须建立稳定的常规的制度。国家可从近些年的扫黄打非活动中,适时总结经验将其上升为规范的法律制度。

记者:还有一个方面呢?

张平:还有就是数字版权的保护。互联网产业的核心其实就是数字内容产业,而知识产权法律关系则是串 起这条产业链条的纽带。

每一种新型商务模式的诞生,总会触及现有版权保护之雷区,成为产业者难以言衷之痛。搜索引擎的诞生、交互式软件的应用、互联网电视的问 世,都反映出数字版权保护的难题。数字版权保护横亘在互联网法治建设和互联网产业发展之间,实质上要解决的是版权、技术、商业模式之间的利益博弈和权益分 配问题。

应当承认,数字环境下,基于版权的盈利模式和传播模式都已经发生了根本的改变。所以我认为,互联网知识产权保护应以积极促进文化产品的 传播为方向,寻求有效可行的授权方式,以疏导而非阻止的方式,调整版权人、用户、产业集团、网络运营商之间的利益关系。这方面的法律法规应该以私法规范为 主,多一些授权性规范,引导互联网产业走上健康发展之路。

北京轻点万维电信技术有限公司无限互联网业务部4名员工，因通过手机WAP业务传播淫 秽图片，于2008年底被北京西城法院判处3到5年不等的有期徒刑。

资料图片