| With the speedy development of computer technology and internet, our country is entering in an internet age rapidly. That makes it easy to obtain and disseminate information, so the convenience that the internet can bring to our life is obvious, but at the same time all kinds of illegal and criminal activities that are committed through the internet are becoming more and more frequent and complicate. During them there is one which called the internet defamation.The definition of the internet defamation refers to fabricate and spread false fact, it makes use of the anonymous, instant and planet-spanning and public nature of the internet to damage other people’s reputation and personality which can result in serious consequences. So in final analysis the internet defamation is also a defamation action. Therefore, the regulation for internet defamation has also caused conflict during the citizen’s right of expression, supervision, reputation guarantee and the cyber space order maintenance.However, the absence of relative laws and the inconsistent criteria in judicial practice lead to judicial disunity and injustice. The phenomenon of same case with different judgments has caused a fierce discussion in the academic world about the internet defamation legislation. One voice said that the existing laws are enough and we don’t need to introduce a special law, but another voice said the current laws are not enough to deter the internet defamation activity and we need to regulate it separately. Based on the characteristics of the internet defamation and its serious result I think we should introduce a separate law, but it is important to note that the subjective shall be accordance with objective. The Judicial Interpretation and Law-application for Utilizing the Internet to Conduct Defamation and Other Criminal Cases that was introduced by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on9th Sep,2013jointly can be said coming out belatedly and it as a criminal regulation on the internet defamation is just like a timely rain. It has not only defined the standards to convict of guilty but also has drawn a line for the public power to intervene the internet defamation. However, there always have shortcomings for the new things and I think there are many aspects need perfecting, such as the determination of the territorial jurisdiction court, the distribution of evidential burden and the behavioral object of the internet defamation and so on. |
