陳文敏出錯

證據

Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others

LORD KEITH OF KINKEL: “if the criticism consists of defamatory utterances against individual servants of the state actions for defamation will lie at their suit…A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day to day management of its affairs. If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation”

“Lords Justices also alluded to the consideration that the publication of defamatory matter concerning a local authority was likely to reflect also on individual councillors or officers, and that the prospect of actions for libel at their instance also afforded some protection to the local authority”

什麽意思?簡單的說就是:「議會不能提出誹謗訴訟因爲組成議會的個人可以(因爲被告人所指控的並不是議會所能做的行爲,因此指控制針對的是組成議會的個人),而個人能夠提出誹謗訴訟又能給議會一些保護。」

This entry was posted in 體制, 歷史 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 則回應給 陳文敏出錯

  1. Bill 說:

    montwithin,

    Unfortunately we are unable to see the full argument put forward by Prof Chan. I believe he would say given the high position of Leung, there is little room left for him as an individual. His natural person status intertwined with the legal person status of the government. The fallacy and danger of such an argument is that people tend to blur the demarcation line of the official and the government when slandering remarks are made depriving the official the basic human right. The intent is to put a strait jacket on him so that he cannot fight back. It is a double standard approach. While people waving the flag of the importance of human right they should enjoy, they blatantly disregard other people’s right. It is true an official should bear a magnanimous attitude. It cannot be unchecked without rim.

    • 山中 說:

      Bill,
      Exactly what you said. If Chan was using the reasoning as you suggested, he’d be ignoring what Lord Keith of Kinel had said explicitly that an individual’s ability to bring forward a libel lawsuit provide some protection to the authority. Furthermore, Chan’s argument is so hopelessly flawed. If Leung is so intertwine with the government to the point his individual rights become nonexistent, then, in essence, one would have to say that “Leung is the government" (well, Louis XIV had stated: “L’État, c’est moi" (I am the state); maybe Hong Kong is using a 18th century concept of rule of law). This is obviously not true and the concept of rule of law does not allow such thing. If we believe “Leung is the government" and “Treasury Tsang is also the government", this logic would also have us believe that Leung and Tsang is the same entity. Contradicting this stance, the concept of rule of law even in its most rudimentary form suggests that we need to treat individuals as individuals, so we abolished collective punishment and let individuals stand for trial for their own crimes. If what Chan said was true then any individual committing while a crime in office would equate to the whole government committing a crime. This reasoning is so absurd and ridiculous.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s