摘要
我国目前立法规定和司法实践全面承认了"应知"可用于认定网络服务提供者主观知道,但学界在这一问题上却分歧很大。这一现象的产生源于对网络服务提供者提出的应知要求与其不负审查义务的共识相冲突。主张网络服务提供者应知既难以在理论上得以证成,也是对相关规定的误读。通过借助诉讼法中的推定规则,可有效证成网络服务提供者主观知道,从而实现了从起点客观事实不明到终点网络服务提供者承担侵权责任间逻辑脉络的贯通。依循这一逻辑路径,我国目前的相关立法、司法和未来学界的研究重点等都需作出相应的调整。
There are different opinions in academic circle regarding how to interpret the word ＂ know＂ in Art. 36 of Tort Liability Law, although legislations and juridical practices seem mutual consistency of that ＂ know＂ includes ＂ should know＂. The origin of this phenomenon lies on the conflict of two theories which are internet service providers （ISPs） should know theory and ISPs are not obligated for censorship theory. The theory that ISPs should know cannot be justified, and it is also the result of misunderstanding of the US concerning legislation. The reasonable theoretical approach to prove the knowledge of ISPs is through the presumption rule from procedural law. According to the presumption approach, the legisla- tion, juridical practices and the emphasis of research should be adjusted.
出处
《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第2期163-173,共11页
Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
宁波大学人文社会科学培育项目(XPYB13006)
宁波大学人才工程项目(文)"网络服务提供者侵权责任研究"
国家社科基金项目(11BFX006)
关键词
网络服务提供者
知道
应知
推定知道
internet service providers （ISPs）
know
should know
constructive knowledge
