网络暴力行为刑法规制的类型化研究

Cyber violence refers to a kind of spiritual coercion behavior of a group or an individual carried out in the cyber space. It is implemented through media such as network platforms by means of publicizing private areas, moral condemnation, verbal violence, etc., and has the distinct characteristics similar to “media cold violence”. According to its modes of action, it can be classified into three types: human flesh search type, online language type, and provoking troubles type.Currently, there is no unified governance system for cyber violence. From the perspective of legal theory, there are three aspects of problems: Firstly, in the human flesh search type of violence, the positioning of “citizens’ personal information” is vague, and the scope of criminal regulation of behaviors is relatively backward. Secondly, in the online language type of violence, the boundaries between cyber public opinion supervision and online language violence are unclear, and the sentencing results also deviate from the current trend of leniency in criminal law. Thirdly, there are limitations in the subjective and objective determination of the provoking troubles type of violence. Therefore, a typology-based approach is essential. Cyber violence should be reclassified according to contemporary needs, and regulated under criminal law while adhering to its basic principles, thereby addressing the problem at its root. First, the scope of “personal information” must be clarified to include both public and non-public data, with specific protection for “sensitive personal information.” The range of criminally punishable acts should be expandedto properly address different behaviors under the principle of purposive interpretation. Second, purposive interpretation should be used to distinguish online public scrutiny from verbal violence, treating subjective intent as a prerequisite for objective wrongdoing. The meaning of “severe punishment” should be understood in light of sentencing legitimacy, promoting the application of judicial leniency. Finally, guided by the unity of subjective and objective elements, “severe social disorder” should be assessed based on online dissemination metrics and objective harm. Overemphasis on “hooligan motives” should be avoided, and negligence or the “actual malice” standard is unsuitable for determining the perpetrator’s intent.