公众监督与国家工作人员隐私权的立法建制

公众监督引发公民批评权与国家工作人员隐私权的冲突。既要保护公民批评权,也要保护国家工作人员隐私权。这一冲突可以通过界定隐私权的法律边界来解决。流行的观点建议在立法中引入“公众人物”概念,制定不同的规范,规定他们的隐私权受到更多的限制。这种因人设制的思路违反了权利平等和法律一般性的原则。在立法建制方面,应当确立统一的隐私权规范,这一规范平等地保护和限制所有人的隐私权,它包含界定隐私权边界的三个准则:公共领域、公共利益、自愿公开,其内容是“自然人享有隐私权,未经本人的同意不得公开其隐私或侵入其私人生活。在公共领域或涉及公共利益的活动中,隐私权的行使受到限制”。这一规范表明,任何人的活动如果发生在公共领域中,或者涉及公共利益,其隐私权都可能受到限制,不独国家工作人员如此。这一规范在适用过程中同样可以有效地解决公民批评所引起的隐私权纠纷、合理地界定公民批评权与国家工作人员隐私权的边界。实际上“公众人物”是一个司法概念而非立法概念,是统一的立法规范在特定类型的案件中的适用结果。
Abstract：Public scrutiny on the internet leads to the conflict between the rights of criticism and privacy, which can be resolved by defining the boundary of privacy. The popular suggestion is that the privacy of “public figure” should be given less protection than that of ordinary person according to two deferent kinds of norms. Public official is a “public figure”. The article argues that the suggestion is contrary to such principles as equality of rights and generality of law, and it is not necessary to import the concept of “public figures privacy” into Chinese law system. What ought to be done is to stipulate general legal norm of privacy. The norm consists of three factors which define the boundary of privacy: public sphere, public interest and voluntary publicity. The norm equally protects and limits everyones privacy. It is up to the courts to apply the norm and deduce the concept “public figure” from the application. As the result of the application, public officials privacy is more limited than ordinary persons. The norm suggested above accords with the principium of equal rights and legal generality. Above all, “public figure” is a judicial concept, not a legislative one.