>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Yu Yizhong v. the News and Publication (Case on the Dispute over the Injury on to the Right to of Reputation)
余一中诉《新闻出版报》社侵害名誉权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Yu Yizhong v. the News and Publication (Case on the Dispute over the Injury on to the Right to of Reputation)
(Case on the Dispute over the Injury on to the Right to of Reputation)
余一中诉《新闻出版报》社侵害名誉权纠纷案

Yu Yizhong v. the News and Publication
(Case on the Dispute over the Injury on to the Right to of Reputation)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Yu Yizhong, male, 57 years old, professor of Nanjing University, dwelling in Longjiang District, Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province@#
Defendant: the News and Publication, domiciled in Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Fenzhi, general editor-in-chief of the News and Publication@#
Yu filed an action with the People's Court of Gulou District, Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province for his dispute with the News and Publication over the injury on the right to of reputation.@#
The plaintiff alleged that: He released publishes articles, based on with a strong awareness of a scholar's consciousness and the due attitude of preciseness. After he made criticisms against the editing mistakes in the literal scenario of “The Making of Steel”, a TV play, the defendant issued an signed article acknowledging authorship, alleging him as “Xiang Zhuang performed the sword dance as a cover for his attempt on Liu Bang's life”, “seize on some pretext or other to distort to refer to another”, “the intention of criticism is in question doubtful…”, etc. and further more, commented, in the editor's note, Yu's criticism on the editing quality as a “cardinal question of right and wrong”. Yu's article of criticisms on the editing quality of the play that are is publicly issued is not only an exercise of the right to academic criticism but also an exercise of the due right that readers may enjoy. The defendant's act of publicizing publishing an authorship-acknowledging signed article to condemn Yu is not only a subjective and arbitrary product but also an irresponsible slander. The defendant, when publicizing publishing the signed article with acknowledged authorship, not only failed to fulfill its obligation of examination but also raised the issue to a higher plane of principles and two-line struggle by means of an editor's note, for the purpose of transforming a pure academic question into a political issue.@#
......

 

余一中诉《新闻出版报》社侵害名誉权纠纷案@#
@#
原告:余一中,男,57岁,南京大学教授,住江苏省南京市龙江小区。@#
被告:《新闻出版报》社,住所地:北京市朝阳区。@#
法定代表人;张芬之,该报社总编辑。@#
原告余一中因与被告《新闻出版报》社发生侵害名誉权纠纷,向江苏省南京市鼓楼区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:我以学者的良心和应有的严谨态度发表文章,对电视连续剧《钢铁是怎样炼成的》文学剧本中出现的编校错误提出批评后,被告发表署名文章,说我是“项庄舞剑”、“借题发挥”,“批评的用心值得怀疑……”等等,并在编者按中,还把我对剧本编校方面提出的批评,说成是“大是大非的问题”。我的文章批评公开发行的文学剧本的编校质量,不仅是行使学术批评的正当权利,也是行使读者应有的权利。被告发表署名文章对我进行指责,完全是主观武断的产物,是不负责任的诽谤之词。被告在刊登该署名文章时,不仅不尽审查的义务,反而以编者按进一步上纲上线,为把纯学术讨论的问题引到政治上推波助澜。@#
被告刊登的文章和编者按发表后,我的领导、同事、朋友和学生都非常关切,询问“是不是政治上出了什么问题?”被告的行为损害了我在学术界的声誉和形象,给我精神上带来很多痛苦。故请求判令被告赔礼道歉,消除影响,赔偿精神损失费1万元,并负担本案全部诉讼费用。@#
原告除向法庭提交了该署名文章和编者按的复印件以外,还提交了四份证人证言,以证明署名文章和编者按带有政治色彩,改变了正常的学术讨论性质和气氛,使原告精神激愤、焦虑,未能按期完成科研项目,同时也给原告的家庭生活带来影响。@#
被告辩称:报社不否定学术意见的发表,但学术研究的发表应保持慎重的态度,且应有一定的范围。原告的批评,实际是全盘否定《钢铁是怎样炼成的》一书。报社刊登署名文章并加注编者按,目的是想引起读者讨论《钢铁是怎样炼成的》是否为一本好书,是行使舆论监督的正当权利,没有侵害原告的名誉,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
被告认为原告提交的四份证人证言,只是证人自己的观点,且与本案无关。@#
南京市鼓楼区人民法院经审理查明:@#
原告余一中是南京大学外国文学研究所教授,近年来陆续发表了《<钢铁是怎样炼成的>是一本好书吗?》、《炼出的“一炉废钢”》、《“大炼<钢铁>”炼出的废品》等文章。其中《<钢铁是怎样炼成的>是一本好书吗?》一文,从时代与作品的真实性、作品主人公的艺术形象、作者与作品的编辑加工、作品被大众接受的过程,以及中文全译本的问题等方面,对前苏联出版的小说《钢铁是怎样炼成的》一书进行了分析、评论,结论是:该书不是一本好书,应当把它送进历史的博物馆,而不是把它介绍给年轻一代。《炼出的“一炉废钢”》和《“大炼<钢铁>”炼出的废品》等两篇文章,则主要针对一本名为《钢铁是怎样炼成的(电视连续剧文学剧本)》(以下简称文学剧本)中出现的字词、修辞、语法、体例、标点、地名、人名、称谓等编校错误提出批评。@#
针对原告余一中的上述文章,被告《新闻出版报》社在2000年6月26日的《新闻出版报》上,刊登了署名钟宜渔《由批评编校差错所引发的论争》(以下简称“钟文”)的文章,并配发编者按。“钟文”认为,“余先生指摘文学剧本的编校质量是项庄舞剑”,只要综合考查余一中在三篇文章中的一系列评论就可以看出,“其批判编校质量只是一层薄薄的面纱,借题发挥的后面却做着一块更厚重的文章”。“钟文”在摘引了余一中三篇文章里对《钢铁是怎样炼成的》一书,以及对同名电视连续剧发表的一些评论原话后,认为:“余一中先生对《钢铁是怎样炼成的》一书及同名电视连续剧的评判态度已不是严肃的学术研究,而是在借题发挥肆意攻击”,“如果带着政治和自己的狭隘眼光、偏见来评判一部被公认了的优秀文学作品,这种批评的用心就值得怀疑”。《新闻出版报》配发的编者按中写到:“围绕出版《钢铁是怎样炼成的》书籍和改编电视连续剧一事,居然有一场尖锐的思想论争”,“这个论争不是纯学术的,也不是鸡毛蒜皮的小是小非,而是关系到是否坚持中国先进文化前进方向的原则之争”,是一个“大是大非”的问题。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥400.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese