再发一遍：网络不是伤人，泄愤的工具

编者按：本文是大中报2012年3月发表的文章。过去两周以来，多伦多的社区领袖钟新生民事起诉另一多伦多居民吴健诽谤一案在多伦多华人社区引起很大反响。加拿大是依法治国的国家，期望本文能让读者对自己如何做一个守法公民进行认真思考和讨论。

拥有博客、帖子、论坛的网站为网民们提供了一个强有力的自由发表评论的平台，同时，它们也会成为牢骚满腹的员工、受骗消费者、被出卖的合伙人抒发不满、甚至故意伤害他人的工具。

Web bloggers, on-line bulletin boards, and Internet forums that provide a powerful platform for free expression could become a tool for disgruntled employees, misled clients and betrayed partners to release their frustrations, as well as a means for those who intend to harm others.

一位读者向《大中报》表示：“如果你不刊登的投诉，我会到网上利用我的言论自由权利将其公开，而且我相信我的故事上网后会引起更多共鸣。”

“If you choose not to publish my allegations, I would go to Internet where I can enjoy the freedom of speech, and I believe my story posted there would resonate with more similar complaints,” a reader told Chinese News.



但可用来攻击他人、也可用来抒发不满的互联网是一把双刃剑。虽然互联网作为一种全新的表达工具为人们提供了自由言论的机会，但这种自由信息也让人们开始呼吁对其内容进行管制。

However, using the internet as a tool to harm or release frustration is a double-edged sword. While Internet empowers freedom of expression by providing individuals with new means of expression, the free flow of Information has raised calls for content regulation.

《多伦多星报》和CBC的代表律师、Blakes律师行的著名诽谤诉讼律师Tony Wong表示：“虽说界限较难划清，但在言论自由保护与维护个人名誉之间还是有所区别。根据传统，加拿大的法律更偏向于维护个人声誉。”

“Although it is difficult, there is a line to be drawn between protection of freedom of expression on one hand and protection of personal reputation on the other. In Canada, the line has historically been drawn in favor of protection of reputation over freedom of expression,” said Tony Wong, a prominent libel lawyer of Blakes, who represents the Toronto Star and CBC.



Tony Wong律师表示：“根据加拿大法律，定义诽谤的标准相对较低。如果在一个思维正常的人看来，所发表言论对某人不利，法庭就可能会认为这一言论具有诽谤性，认定言论中的内容为虚构，并要求发表言论的一方证实其言论的真实性。但美国法律则不同，被控诽谤的原告必须去证明该言论并非属实。”

“Under Canadian law, the threshold of what is defamatory is relatively low.  If a statement tends to cause a reasonable person to think ‘less’ of the subject of the statement, then a court will likely find it to be defamatory, which is presumed to be false and the onus is on the party making the statement to prove that it is true. However the contrary is the case in the United States, where libel plaintiff must prove the statement is false,” said Wong.

意识到这张网并非是一条自由表达个人思维意识的畅通无阻之坦途，网民们的行似乎为有所收敛。

Recognizing that Internet is not a complete “free way” to express their thoughts, online posters seems to have shown signs of constraint.

Rolia.com网站上一个网名为“boredman”的网友发帖子未指名道姓地称“对这位不良地产经纪应启动法律程序……他专门欺骗华人。如果你想知道这个经纪的名字，请留言……”

Not directly naming the individual, a posting by “boredman” (an online registered name) on the website of Rolia.com alleges that “a complaint process or lawsuit should be filed against this indecent realty agent, who set out to screw up members of the Chinese community. If you want the name of the agent, please leave a message… “



一些跟贴者纷纷询问：“他是谁，请发短消息告诉我。”

“Who (is it), PM (private message) me please,” several posters asked in response.

一封boredman给《大中报》员工发送的短消息提供了该经纪的名字及其所属公司“他没有职业道德，欺骗了我们。所以我打算告他……”

In one of the PM sent to a staff member of Chinese News by boredman, the message provides the name of the agent and the company he is with…”He does not show a business moral, and has cheated us. So I decided to sue him… “ said the PM.

一封以其他网名发的帖子将这名经纪称为“Yuan Trick”.

Another post under a different online name referred to the agent as “Yuan Trick”.

在接受《大中报》的采访时，该名被指控的地产经纪表示他是从其朋友口中了解到这些网贴的。

In an interview with Chinese News, the real estate agent alleged by boredman said that he was informed of the postings about him by several of his friends.



该名经纪表示：“那些针对我的指控是没有根据的，完全属诽谤，而且我知道发帖子的人是谁。”

“The allegations against me are groundless, which is absolutely defamatory, and I know who the poster is,” said the agent.

如果一封网贴谴责社区一名生意人，虽未指名道姓，但发帖人将通过个人邮件或者短消息的形式向读过帖子网友透露该人姓名，那这个发帖人甚至该网站是否在法律上负有诽谤之责呢？

If a website posting makes allegations against a businessperson in the community without directly naming the person, but the poster will give out the name through private emails or messages to the requesters who have read the post, are the poster and the website liable for defamation?

Wong律师表示，事实上，即便一在论坛或者博客里没有指明道姓，发贴者也难逃诽谤之责。

In fact, an individual cannot necessarily avoid defaming a person by not using that person’s name in a post or blog, according to Wong.



“根据加拿大法律，即使未直呼其名，法庭考虑的是一名具正常思维能力的人是否会明白该言论所指。在某些情况下，一个人可以在不暴露名字的时候通过其他信息被他人所识别，这些信息包括此人的工作、地址、相关的公开声明或公开的成就、或者上述信息的综合等。”

“Under Canadian law, the question that a court will consider is whether the person defamed would be identifiable to a reasonable person even in the absence of his/her name. In some cases, a person can be identified through characteristics other than his/her name, such as person’s job, address, relative public statements or public accomplishments, or any combination of the preceding,” said Wong.

Tony Wong 律师表示，如果一般网友们很难辨识出网贴所指之人，网站基本上就不用承担法律责任。不过，通过个人邮件透露姓名者则有可能负有诽谤之责。

In the event that no reasonable reader of the website could determine who the subject of the post is, the website is probably innocent. However, the person who gives out the name through a private email would probably be liable for defamation, said Wong.



尽管互联网是一门新技术，一般来讲，网贴所涉及的各方人士，从其发贴子的人到网站本身，都对发布带有诽谤性质的信息负有潜在法律责任。很多网站在意识到他们的法律责任后都会认真的监管网贴，并会即时删除诽谤内容。

Although the internet is a new technology, in general, all parties involved -- from the originator to the website that hosts the comments -- can be held potentially liable for the publication of defamatory information. Realizing their legal liabilities, many websites diligently screen their postings and promptly delete defamatory comments.

不愿意在报纸上公开自己姓名的Rolia文化协会一个董事在Rolia.com网站上的一封致一名网友的信中表示：“为了管理论坛，依照我们的规定及管理规则我们有权删除一些网帖。根据论坛规则，不文明语言和诽谤性内容都禁止在网站上发布。因此我们不允许网友发布或宣传这类文章。”

“To manage the forum, we have to delete some posts according to our rules and our sole discretion. According to our disclaimer and Rules of Forum, prohibited content includes coarse language and defamation.  Thus we don't allow such articles to be posted or advertised,” said director of Rolia Cultural Association in his letter to a poster published on Rolia.com. The director does not want his name published.

该董事表示，Rolia网站希望为移民提供一个和平，理性的交流的平台，而不是成为一些网友攻击他人、发泄不满的工具。

The director said that Rolia.com intends to provide a platform for immigrants to communicate rationally and peacefully, rather than a means for participants to harm others or release anger.



互联网似乎渐渐丧失了其成为对他人攻击或者发泄不满的利器的能力。

Internet seems gradually losing its capacity as a tool for a poster who intends to harm others or release frustration.

该地产经纪表示：“我并未感到那些网贴对我名誉或我的生意造成任何损害。”

“I have not seen any damages caused by the posts to my personal reputation or my business in general, so I choose to ignore the posts,” said the agent.

Tony Wong律师表示，为网上诽谤指控提供的辩护依据为该言论的真实性，加拿大法庭近来更偏袒那些为了大众利益写文章的记者，前提是该记者在准备、写稿和发稿时认真负责，包括向所涉及故事的人物收集观点，依靠可靠消息来源、给当事人合理的机会去发表言论，采取合理步骤核对信息的真实性。这些都是记者被告诽谤时强有力的辩护，即使这些报道可能存在某些失误。

While the defence to an online defamation claim resides in its truth, Canadian courts recently recognized that a story related to a matter of public interest written by a responsible journalist who prepares, writes and publishes a story responsibly -- who obtains comments from those involved in the story, who has relied on credible sources, who has taken reasonable steps to verify information, etc., and who gives people involved a reasonable opportunity to comment has a strong defence against defamation claims, even if the story contains some error, said Wong.

编注：如果你对本文有任何评论，请到096.ca的“特别报道”栏目下、此文的论坛里发表评论。如果你有任何社区、社会和生活故事与大中报的读者分享，或有问题需要大中报回答或调查，请将你的评论或问题细节以电话留言（416-504-0761），或电邮（jack@chinesenewsgroup.com）。你可以匿名为本报提供调查线索，但调查线索应包括当事人的联系电话或地址、发生问题的时间及地址等信息。