雷诺兹特权原理及其借鉴意义——以中曼石油诉新京报名誉侵权案为例  

“Reynolds Privilege”and Its Enlightenment——A Case Study of ZPEC Vs. The Beijing News for Reputation Infringement

作　　者：王伟亮 WANG Weiliang(Media school, Shandong University of Political Science and Law, Jinan 250014, China)

机构地区：[1]山东政法学院传媒学院,山东济南250014

出　　处：《邵阳学院学报（社会科学版）》2018年第2期65-71,共7页Journal of Shaoyang University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目"媒体融合背景下新闻侵犯名誉权的特权抗辩研究"(17YJA860016)

摘　　要：我国内地法律将"公共利益+基本真实"作为一种名誉侵权抗辩事由。中曼石油案在过错认定方面,首次明确认可了"合理审查义务""确信真实",体现出类似英国雷诺兹特权的逻辑和思路。不过,法院仍然强调对事实真实与否的审查,作为判断是否具有违法性的依据。我国台湾地区通过法释509号解释确立的"合理查证义务"规则与英国雷诺兹特权以及成文法化后的"为公共利益而发表"抗辩非常近似。为保护新闻报道尤其是调查性报道,内地应尽快确立"公共利益+合理审查"的司法标准。“Public interest ＋ Substantial tmesis a defence of tort to reputation in Chinese mainland. As for deciding whether there is fault or not, the judge in ZPEC confirmed the criterion of u obligation of reasonable examination ^ and u convincing oneself of the reality＂ , which is similar to the doctrines of Reynolds Privilege. However, the judge also stresses the importance of facts examination in order to decide whether there is illegality or not. To some extent,the criterion of “obligation of reasonable ex-amination” in No. 509 judicial interpretation of law made by Taiwan Judicial Yuan is very similar to Reynolds Privilege and the codified defence of publication on matter of public interest. The criterion of “public interest ＋ obligation of reasonable examination” should be confirmed as soon as possible to shield the journalism, especially investigative journalism.

关 键 词：雷诺兹特权 公共利益 合理审查义务 名誉 中曼石油 

分 类 号：D923.4[政治法律—民商法学]