作者：祝正明
（三)言论自由的意义
人类的行为方式并无固定的模式可世代通用，任何人想把一种固定的模式作为人类千年通用的准则都是枉费心机，其作用反而是阻碍历史车轮的前进。而反对、批评的意见与建议，正是推动社会进步的自然动力。保护言论对政治思想、政府结构、政府官员进行反对或批评的自由，目的并不是出于对批评者个人的关心，更非是赞同他们的观点，而在于这些言论能及时地使社会发现自己的缺陷，使社会明白需要努力改进的地方。反对、批评的言论，较之拥护的言论，更能保护整个社会的利益。
古人云：良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行。批评与反对的言论也许并不动听、并不在理，但是，让它们有发表的机会仍然是必要的。只有保护了这些言论，才能集思广益，使各种有关政治理论和政治结构的问题、政府官员的不良行为，能够接受严格的检验，使存在的缺陷充分暴露，也才能使那些最能经得起论战考验，最合理，拥有最多支持者的见解与论点来主导社会的各项事务。最终使全体公民的利益得到最好的维护。
一个社会，就算其宪法、法律、社会结构、政策已经到了很完美的程度，仍然应该让反对者与拥护者有均等的机会表达意见。听听反对者的意见，对之进行评论，正可以使已有的优点更深入人心，获得更多的支持，人们更自发地拥护，也正是最好的加强巩固它们自己的机会。
在一个公共场所，对于一个宣讲革命的人，没有人肯定周围的群众会作出何种反应。人们可能报以掌声，也可能把他轰下台，或置之不理，嗤之以鼻。宣讲者可能是位煽动家，但群众不可能是一煽就动的暴民。即便是鼓吹推翻一个合理合法的政府，只要他还没有动手侵犯别人的利益，就应该容忍他发表言论，不要去打扰他，允许他象路标一样站在那里，借此也可以表明我们社会在进步的过程中，能在种种错误的导向牌面前经受得住考验，没有误入歧途。
批评的自由，发表反对言论的自由，无论多么不受欢迎，在民主制度中都是不可缺少的。民主是民众的意志参与决策的过程，实现这一过程，必然依赖于民众的各种主张能够自由地提出并进行自由地讨论。执政党压制批评意见和反对意见的行为，无论有多少理由，都是对民主制度的破坏。
如果说出版一本书就会导致信仰的破灭和政府的垮台，那么，这样的信仰就应该破灭，政府就应该垮台。它之所以会垮台，正说明了它信仰的伪善、结构的缺陷和制度的腐朽已经使它不堪一击，而并非单单是一本书造成。事实上，一个愚昧无知、专横贪婪的政府官员，比一个仗义执言的作家，更能使政府威信扫地，更能对政府的垮台起到实质性的促进作用。
民主是民众参与全社会治理的过程。而人的正确判断依赖于获得充分的、准确的信息。没有信息的自由流动，民众就不可能了解有关的背景知识，不知道存在的问题，不晓得有哪些可能的选择。民意也就很难显得明智，很难使决策达到最优化。公民有权知道自己生活的社会的情况，有权了解发生了什么问题，这是公民神圣的知的权利，任何人均无权剥夺公民的这一权利。
现代文明是对话的文明，这意味着各种意见应能够进行自由的讨论，讨论的主要目的不仅仅是为了说服对方，而是便于将各种思想观点加以对比，共同改进。因此，言论自由包括在思想和著作方面犯错误的自由。社会必须珍惜这种自由，这种看上去无用的自由具有至高无上的价值。
在任何人都能自由地办报、出书以后，任何人的观点都能够在自由的新闻出版媒体上发表出来，乏味的说教报道很快就会从传播媒体上消失，取而代之的将是大量事实性、评论性和观感性的报道，从而能极大地增强新闻媒体的信息量、可信度、趣味性和观赏性，增加民众对新闻媒体的阅读量和收视率、对社会问题的了解和对政治的关心程度，缩小民众与政治的距离，民众的政治参与意识和社会责任感将会同步增加，这对提高整个民族的文化素质和社会道德水准，改变社会的风气都会带来明显的好处。
（四）鼓吹与煽动
鼓吹是言论的一种形式，大鸣大放的辩论与鼓吹是民主政治生活的重要内容之一。任何人都有权自由地，以自己喜欢的方式去鼓吹任何东西。一切党派，不论其观点如何偏激，都有同样的权利去鼓吹任何东西。口头鼓吹如此，文字鼓吹也一样。
煽动是鼓吹的一种形式。实际上每一种主张都是一种鼓吹，每一种鼓吹都是一种煸动。它们提出来的目的就是要让人相信。煽动、鼓吹、挑动，在民主国家中，决不能被视为非法，它们是言论自由的一部分。人人都有自由地煽动、鼓吹的权利，不论什么都可以，包括鼓吹暴力革命。只要没有以暴力违法，口头攻击现行的法律亦不违法。
在民主社会，任何人都可以自由地鼓吹任何主义。莫尔的《乌托邦》、卢梭的《社会契约论》、希特勒的《我的奋斗》，马克思的《共产党宣言》等在专制制度下曾被封为禁书的书籍，都应该可以在任何地方自由地印刷、发行、出售、阅读、研究。这样做，并不等于就是社会赞同了作者的观点，也不是为了保护出版者的利益，其目的在于使各种赞成、反对当代社会制度的人的一切观点，都能让公众了解到，让民众自行判断正确与否，自行决定接受与否，这是公民神圣的选择权利。
当然，民众也有暂时被愚弄而误入歧途的可能。但是，民众有能力很快察觉和纠正。对付这种愚弄的有效办法就是更多的言论。一个能干的煽动家会发现，要煽动群众在短时期内相信他并从事某种行为是有可能做到的事，但要将群众长期维持在这一状态中则绝无可能。因此，完全不用担心存在这种误导的可能性，民众有能力发现其问题，人类理智的判断力是邪恶所无法战胜的。
大吵大闹，粗野放肆的辩论与攻击是民主政治的特色。那些经常在公众面前抛头露面的政治家必须对此有所心理准备，必须具备相应的忍耐力，容忍别人直接反对自己的观念，并把支持自己观点的人从自己的阵营中拉走。民主之所以奇特，在于它要求有权力的一方具有和反对派共处的意向，愿意和他们一起工作和讨论问题，当人民需要的时候，把权力交给对方。
没有在剧场禁止叫失火的法律，因为，如果真的失火，众人还要感谢他，如果没有失火，受到惊扰的众人随后自然会惩罚他。因此，用不着制定法律禁止人们在剧场叫失火，只要有惩罚造谣与诽谤行为的法律就足够了。
对言论和出版自由的控制取消后，短期内，也许所有刊物上最初都会充满鼓吹、煽动，但是，由于这些报道的目的各不相同，它们的作用会相互抵消，短时期以后，民众会逐渐习惯，产生应有的分析辨别能力。在这种环境中，个别人的某一种言论，即便其再奇特，也不可能对社会产生什么影响，因为一种新奇的言论一出笼，立即就会遭到各方面的抨击，如果其没有坚实的基础，很快就会在众多抨击的重压下溃败。只有那些能代表大多数人的利益，能引起大多数人共鸣的言论才能够逐渐脱颖而出，变成一种社会性意志，推动社会进行改良。
（五）诽谤与中伤
对于一个有尊严的公民来说，身外之物再也没有比清白的名誉更有价值的了。言论自由应受到保护，人的名声同样应受到保护。保护言论自由，并不等于就是保护以言论蓄意伤害他人名誉的行为。如果言论自由可以变成诽谤与诬陷的自由，社会舆论就很难变得明智。民主制度下，社会允许任何人自由地发表任何言论，但必须对自己言论的内容与后果负责。这就是言论的事后负责制。
拥有了权利，也必须承担行使这种权利所附带的责任。言论自由的权利、责任和义务必须以法律来明确规定，这就是《新闻出版法》与《诽谤法》。它们的作用就是既要保护公民言论自由的权利，又要保护公民名誉不受无礼侵犯的权利，解决这两种权利冲突时的争端。
通常，恶意的言论对公民利益的侵犯可以分为四类：
1.打扰公民的隐居或安静的生活方式。
2.未经授权，公开泄露私人不宜公开的事实。
3.公开那些在公民心目中对公民产生错误看法的材料。
4.为了得到好处和利益而盗用他人姓名和肖像。
新闻出版界的根本任务是向社会提供有价值的信息，而不是以哗众取宠，招摇撞骗。新闻从业人员必须具备基本的责任感。对于用造谣、诽谤手段侵犯他人利益、诬陷他人清白的责任人，社会必须以法律进行限制和制裁。一般认为，构成诽谤罪有以下要素：
1.动机 — 怀有恶意，故意损坏他人名誉和人格。
2.手段— 捏造事实，无中生有，凭空制造虚假事实，强加于他人，并以众人能够看到或听到的方式散发出去，中伤他人。
3.有明确的对象— 针对具体的人。
4.表现形式——语言、文字等。
必须认识到，对杰出人物进行忘恩负义的诽谤的恶劣行径，对社会的政治稳定也是一种威胁，那些有能力，有影响力，肩负重任的人，在受到不公平对待时，作出任何反应都可能会对社会产生不利影响，在诽谤面前，他们可能会消耗大量的精力而穷于应付，也有可能急流勇退，拒绝为公众服务，或进行的有力回击，产生专断行为。
言论自由不是诽谤自由。社会需要言论出版自由，但并不能庇护造谣、中伤、诽谤者。社会的法律必须保证，任何人，只要受到不正当的伤害，都可以随时依法向法庭起诉，让诽谤者在法庭上露面，接受陪审团和法官的审判，只要控告成立，责任人就必须赔礼道歉，赔偿损失，承担民事责任，使其在经济上、名誉上加倍损失，自食其果。
有时，故意发表某些内容真实，但又不宜公开的材料，也可造成恶意的伤害。因此，有意伤害别人的公开言论，并不能仅仅因为内容真实即可摆脱对诽谤的诉讼。只要是出自不纯正的动机，对他人做出不正当的伤害的责任人，都应承担法律责任。
（六）传播媒体的责任
现代社会传播媒体已成为一个巨大的产业，承担着向社会提供信息的重任，但是，电视、广播节目往往由少数人制作产生，报纸、杂志、书籍的稿件也绝大部分出自个人之手，因此，新闻报道与出版发行的内容极易受个人好恶的影响，受党派利益的左右。对言论与新闻自由的限制解除以后，新闻媒体将会首先成为各党派团体进行论战、攻击的工具。
偏袒是新闻媒体最易出现的问题，是影响新闻客观公正性的一个重要因素。在编写新闻报道时，从业人员有根据个人的好恶来选择材料的倾向，从而影响公众对全部的事实真相的了解，甚至会使公众产生错觉，损害公众利益。
民主社会在建立初期要注意的是，应尽量避免新闻媒体因失去约束而变得不负责任。否则，传播媒体有可能在法律上获得了自由，但在向民众提供真实充分的信息方面，却没有完成任务。
个人好恶人皆有之，对于新闻从业人员，有客观公正地向公众提供全面事实材料的义务，不作删减，不添加自己的见解，没有多余的赞扬、推荐、指责、嘲笑。而反映某些人观点的评论性文章应与事实报道分题另列，不应与事实报道混融一体。
言论自由是社会的治病良药，诽谤与诬陷却是它的副作用。社会为了能够享用出版自由带来的好处，必须忍受它所产生的不可避免的酸痛。新闻出版是一种事后责任制，当诽谤罪名成立时，伤害已经造成，而且往往不可愈合。要让诽谤者受到惩罚，受害者还需要付出更多的精力进行法律诉讼，损耗精力、财力，这是不公平的。但是，社会又不能为了避免这种对少数人的伤害而取消言论自由。减少这种副作用的主要办法就是要求新闻出版界加强社会责任感，提高从业人员的道德素质和业务水平，实行自律，自己加强对自身言行的约束，做到在各种情况下，都不应该因政治观点的不同而对别人的人格进行恶意攻击。
在任何社会，人与人之间的利益冲突都是无法避免的，要用大家都满意的方法来解决争端并非经常可能。因此，民主社会要求矛盾的双方乐意以妥协的办法来解决分歧。如果双方都不妥协，即无达成协议的可能，问题长久搁置无法解决，对双方都没好处。
客观、公正是新闻媒介需要长期追求的目标。民主社会之所以繁荣兴旺，很大程度上依赖于新闻出版界提供的准确信息、健康的评论和负责任的导向。责任、自由、独立、真实、诚信、公平、正直、庄重，是新闻出版从业人员应当遵守的基本原则。只有遵守这些原则，社会才能在稳定祥和的政治环境中集中精力发展经济与科学技术，增强国威，壮大国力，提高全民族的福利。
在发展民主政治的过程中，培养自由与健康的新闻事业是一项非常重要的工作，它需要各方面长期认真的努力。
编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：沈美花
Political Democracy (Issue No. 24, Chapter 3, Sections 3–6)
Author: Zhu Zhengming
(III) The Significance of Freedom of Speech
Human behavior does not follow a fixed model that can be universally applied from one generation to the next. Anyone who attempts to establish a single fixed pattern as a timeless standard for humanity over thousands of years is laboring in vain. Such efforts, rather than benefiting society, only impede the forward movement of the wheel of history. Dissenting opinions, criticisms, and suggestions are precisely the natural driving forces behind social progress.
The purpose of protecting the freedom to oppose or criticize political ideas, governmental structures, and public officials is not to show concern for the critics themselves, nor does it imply agreement with their views. Rather, it is because such expressions enable society to discover its own shortcomings in a timely manner and to recognize where improvements are needed. Compared with speech that merely supports existing institutions, dissenting and critical speech is often more effective in safeguarding the interests of society as a whole.
As an ancient Chinese saying goes: “Good medicine tastes bitter but cures illness; honest advice sounds unpleasant but benefits conduct.” Criticism and dissenting opinions may not be pleasing to the ear, and they may not always be correct. Nevertheless, it remains necessary to allow them the opportunity to be expressed. Only by protecting such speech can society draw upon collective wisdom, enabling various questions concerning political theories, political structures, and the misconduct of public officials to undergo rigorous scrutiny. In this way, existing defects can be fully exposed, and those views and arguments that are most capable of withstanding debate, that are the most reasonable, and that enjoy the broadest support can come to guide public affairs. Ultimately, this serves to best protect the interests of all citizens.
Even if a society’s constitution, laws, social structure, and public policies have reached a highly perfected state, opponents and supporters should still be given equal opportunities to express their views. Listening to the opinions of opponents and responding to them through discussion can further reinforce the strengths that already exist, allowing them to take deeper root in the public consciousness and gain broader support. As people come to embrace them more willingly, this process itself becomes the best means of strengthening and consolidating those achievements.
In a public place, when someone advocates revolution, no one can predict how the surrounding crowd will respond. People may applaud; they may drive the speaker away; or they may simply ignore him and dismiss him with contempt. The speaker may be an agitator, but the public is not necessarily a mob that can be manipulated at the slightest provocation. Even if he advocates the overthrow of a reasonable and legitimate government, as long as he has not taken action to infringe upon the rights or interests of others, his speech should be tolerated. He should not be disturbed. He should be allowed to stand there like a signpost. In doing so, society demonstrates that, in the course of its progress, it is capable of withstanding the test of misleading signposts without losing its way.
The freedom to criticize and the freedom to express dissenting opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be, are indispensable elements of a democratic system. Democracy is a process through which the will of the people participates in decision-making. The realization of this process necessarily depends upon the ability of citizens to freely present their views and to engage in free discussion. Whenever a ruling party suppresses criticism and opposition, regardless of the reasons offered, such actions constitute a violation of democratic principles and an undermining of democratic institutions.
If the publication of a single book is enough to destroy a faith or bring down a government, then such a faith deserves to collapse and such a government deserves to fall. Its downfall would demonstrate that the hypocrisy of its beliefs, the defects of its structure, and the decay of its institutions have already rendered it incapable of withstanding challenge. The book itself would not be the true cause of its collapse. In reality, an ignorant, arrogant, and corrupt government official is far more likely than a conscientious writer speaking for justice to discredit a government and substantially contribute to its downfall.
Democracy is the process through which the people participate in the governance of society as a whole. Sound judgment depends upon access to sufficient and accurate information. Without the free flow of information, citizens cannot acquire the relevant background knowledge, understand existing problems, or know what alternatives are available. Under such circumstances, public opinion can hardly be expected to be wise, nor can decision-making be optimized. Citizens have the right to know the conditions of the society in which they live and to understand what problems exist and what events have occurred. This is the sacred right to know possessed by every citizen, and no one has the authority to deprive citizens of this right.
Modern civilization is a civilization of dialogue. This means that different opinions should be able to engage in free discussion. The primary purpose of discussion is not merely to persuade one’s opponent, but to compare different ideas and viewpoints so that all sides may improve together. Therefore, freedom of speech includes the freedom to make mistakes in thought and in writing. Society must cherish this freedom. This freedom, which may appear useless on the surface, possesses the highest value.
Once everyone is free to establish newspapers and publish books, every person’s viewpoints will be able to find expression through a free press and publishing system. Dull and dogmatic propaganda-style reporting will quickly disappear from the media. In its place will emerge a large quantity of factual reporting, commentary, and observational reporting. This will greatly enhance the amount of information available, as well as the credibility, interest, and appeal of the news media. It will increase public readership and viewership, deepen people’s understanding of social issues, and strengthen public concern for political affairs. The distance between ordinary citizens and politics will be reduced. At the same time, citizens’ awareness of political participation and their sense of social responsibility will grow. Such developments will bring significant benefits to raising the cultural standards and moral character of the nation as a whole and to improving the general social atmosphere.
(IV) Advocacy and Agitation
Advocacy is a form of speech. Open and unrestricted debate, together with vigorous advocacy, constitutes one of the essential components of democratic political life. Every individual has the right to freely advocate anything in whatever manner they prefer. All political parties, regardless of how extreme their views may be, possess the same right to advocate anything. This applies equally to oral advocacy and to written advocacy.
Agitation is one form of advocacy. In fact, every proposition is a form of advocacy, and every act of advocacy is, in essence, a form of agitation. Their purpose is to persuade others to believe. Agitation, advocacy, and incitement must under no circumstances be regarded as illegal in a democratic society; they are an integral part of freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to freely engage in agitation and advocacy, including the advocacy of violent revolution. As long as no unlawful violence is actually carried out, even verbal attacks on existing laws are not illegal.
In a democratic society, anyone may freely advocate any ideology. Books such as Thomas More’s Utopia, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto—works that were once banned under various authoritarian systems—should be freely printed, distributed, sold, read, and studied anywhere.
Doing so does not mean that society endorses the authors’ views, nor is it intended to protect the interests of publishers. Its purpose is to ensure that all viewpoints, whether supporting or opposing the contemporary social system, can be made known to the public, allowing citizens to judge their correctness for themselves and decide whether to accept them. This is a sacred right of citizens: the right of choice.
Of course, the public may at times be deceived and temporarily led astray. However, the people are capable of quickly recognizing such deception and correcting it. The most effective way to counter such deception is through more speech. A capable agitator may indeed succeed in temporarily persuading the masses and inducing certain actions. However, it is impossible to maintain such a condition for a long period. Therefore, there is no need to worry about the possibility of manipulation; the public has the ability to recognize errors, and human rational judgment cannot ultimately be defeated by evil.
Noisy, rough, and even boisterous debate and attack are characteristics of democratic politics. Politicians who frequently appear in public must be psychologically prepared for this; they must develop the ability to tolerate others directly opposing their views and even drawing supporters away from their camp. The peculiarity of democracy lies in the fact that it requires those in power to be willing to coexist with their opponents, to work and deliberate with them, and when the people so require, to transfer power to them.
There is no law in theaters prohibiting someone from shouting “Fire!” This is because if there truly is a fire, the crowd will be grateful; and if there is no fire, the person who caused the disturbance will naturally be punished afterward by public reaction. Therefore, it is unnecessary to enact laws prohibiting such speech in advance. It is sufficient to have laws that punish false accusations and defamation.
Once restrictions on freedom of speech and publication are removed, it is possible that in the short term all publications will be filled with advocacy and agitation. However, because these expressions pursue different purposes, their effects will cancel each other out. After a short period, people will gradually become accustomed to this environment and will develop the necessary capacity for analysis and judgment.
In such a context, any individual statement, no matter how unusual, cannot have a decisive impact on society. As soon as a new and unusual opinion emerges, it will immediately be subjected to criticism from all sides. If it lacks a solid foundation, it will quickly collapse under the pressure of widespread criticism. Only those views that represent the interests of the majority and resonate with the majority of people can gradually emerge, become a kind of social will, and thereby promote social reform.
(V) Defamation and Slander
For a citizen of dignity, among all external possessions, nothing is more valuable than a clean and unblemished reputation. Freedom of speech must be protected, and a person’s reputation must likewise be protected. Protecting freedom of speech does not mean protecting acts in which speech is used to deliberately harm the reputation of others. If freedom of speech is turned into freedom for defamation and false accusation, public opinion in society can hardly become rational and wise.
Under a democratic system, society allows anyone to freely express any speech, but one must be responsible for the content and consequences of one’s own speech. This is what is known as the post-accountability system of speech.
Having rights necessarily entails bearing the responsibilities attached to the exercise of those rights. The rights, responsibilities, and obligations of freedom of speech must be clearly defined by law. This is the purpose of the “Press and Publication Law” and the “Defamation Law.” Their function is both to protect citizens’ right to freedom of speech and to protect citizens’ right to reputation from improper infringement, thereby resolving disputes arising from conflicts between these two rights.
Generally, malicious speech that infringes upon citizens’ interests can be divided into four categories:
Disturbing a citizen’s secluded life or peaceful way of living.
Without authorization, publicly disclosing private facts that should not be made public.
Publicly presenting materials that lead to false impressions about a citizen in the minds of others.
Illegally using another person’s name or image for personal gain or benefit.
The fundamental task of the press and publishing sector is to provide society with valuable information, rather than to seek sensationalism or engage in deceptive publicity. Journalism practitioners must possess a basic sense of responsibility. For those responsible who use rumor-mongering and defamation to infringe upon others’ interests and falsely accuse innocent people, society must impose legal restrictions and sanctions.
It is generally believed that the elements constituting the crime of defamation are as follows:
Motive — harboring malice and intentionally damaging another person’s reputation and character.
Means — fabricating facts, creating falsehoods out of nothing, producing fictitious information and attributing it to others, and disseminating it in a form visible or audible to the public, thereby slandering others.
Clear target — directed at a specific individual.
Form of expression — speech, writing, etc.
It must be recognized that malicious acts of ungrateful defamation against outstanding individuals also constitute a threat to social and political stability. Those who are capable, influential, and bear significant responsibilities may, when subjected to unfair treatment, respond in ways that have adverse effects on society. In the face of defamation, they may be forced to expend enormous energy in constant defense and be overwhelmed by it; or they may withdraw from public service; or they may carry out powerful retaliatory responses, thereby giving rise to authoritarian behavior.
Freedom of speech is not freedom for defamation. Society requires freedom of speech and publication, but it must not shelter those who spread rumors, slander, and defamation. The law must ensure that anyone who suffers unjust harm may, at any time, bring a lawsuit in accordance with the law, allowing the defamer to appear in court and stand trial before a jury and a judge. Once the accusation is established, the responsible party must issue an apology, compensate for losses, and bear civil liability, suffering both economic and reputational consequences, thereby reaping what they have sown.
At times, deliberately publishing certain materials that are factually true but inappropriate for public disclosure may also cause malicious harm. Therefore, publicly expressed speech that intentionally harms others cannot avoid defamation liability merely on the grounds that its content is true. As long as the act is driven by improper motives and results in unjust harm to others, the responsible party should bear legal responsibility.
(VI) The Responsibility of the Media
In modern society, the mass media has become a vast industry, bearing the important responsibility of providing information to society. However, television and radio programs are often produced by only a small number of individuals, and most articles in newspapers, magazines, and books are also written by individuals. Therefore, the content of news reporting and publishing is highly susceptible to personal likes and dislikes, as well as being influenced by party or factional interests.
Once restrictions on freedom of speech and press are lifted, the news media will likely first become a tool for various political parties and groups to engage in debate and attack one another.
Bias is the most common problem in the news media and is an important factor affecting the objectivity and fairness of journalism. When compiling news reports, practitioners tend to select materials according to their personal preferences, thereby influencing the public’s understanding of the full truth of events, and may even cause public misunderstanding and harm the public interest.
A democratic society in its early stage of development must be particularly careful to avoid the news media becoming irresponsible due to the absence of constraints. Otherwise, although the media may obtain legal freedom, it may fail to fulfill its duty of providing the public with truthful and sufficient information.
Personal preferences exist in everyone. However, journalists have the obligation to present comprehensive factual materials to the public in an objective and fair manner, without omission or distortion, without inserting personal opinions, and without unnecessary praise, recommendation, criticism, or ridicule. Commentary articles that reflect certain viewpoints should be clearly separated from factual reporting and should not be mixed with factual news content.
Freedom of speech is a social remedy, while defamation and false accusation are its side effects. In order to enjoy the benefits brought by press freedom, society must tolerate the unavoidable discomfort it produces.
Journalism and publishing operate under a system of post facto responsibility: when a defamation case is established, the harm has already been done and is often irreversible. To hold defamers accountable, victims must also expend additional effort in legal proceedings, losing time and financial resources—this is inherently unfair. However, society cannot abolish freedom of speech in order to avoid such harm to a minority of individuals.
The main way to reduce such side effects is to strengthen the media’s sense of social responsibility, improve the moral standards and professional competence of practitioners, and implement self-regulation. The media should restrain its own conduct, ensuring that under all circumstances it does not engage in malicious personal attacks against others due to political differences.
In any society, conflicts of interest between individuals are unavoidable. It is not always possible to resolve disputes in a way that satisfies everyone. Therefore, a democratic society requires both sides of a conflict to be willing to reach compromises. If neither side is willing to compromise, and no agreement can be reached, the issue will remain unresolved for a long time, which is detrimental to both parties.
Objectivity and fairness are long-term goals that the media must continuously pursue. The prosperity and development of a democratic society depend greatly on the accurate information, healthy commentary, and responsible guidance provided by the press and publishing industry.
Responsibility, freedom, independence, truthfulness, integrity, fairness, honesty, and dignity are the fundamental principles that media professionals must follow. Only by adhering to these principles can society concentrate its efforts on economic development and scientific and technological advancement in a stable and peaceful political environment, thereby enhancing national prestige, strengthening national power, and improving the overall welfare of the people.
In the process of developing democratic politics, cultivating a free and healthy press is a highly important task that requires long-term and serious effort from all sectors of society.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Shen Meihua
