俄罗斯挫败一起恐怖袭击企图

宪政作为实现宪法价值的实践过程，自然有其独特运行规律。

针对不同的申请者，有不同的申请费。很多机关不会对复制《隐私权法》文件收取复印费，特别当文件很小的时候。

《信息自由法》特别规定了行政上诉，以及要求政府在《信息自由法》条款下受理此上诉。新闻媒体代表，学者或者公益组织相较于用于商业用途的信息公开申请而言更容易符合费用减免的标准。本类申请者如果其申请公开的信息不是用作商业用途的，将只被收取合理的文件复印费用。委员会在本报告中的一些中立性的描述并不代表委员会对于该法律的意见以及国会的立法意图。通常申请者都会提出如果申请费超出一定的限制，要求得到机关的通知。

1972House Committee on Government Operations. Records Maintained By Government Agencies. Hearings, 92nd Congress, 2d Session. 1972.1974House Committee on Government Operations. Access to Records. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.House Committee on Government Operations. Federal Information Systems and Plans--Federal Use and Development of Advanced Information Technology. Hearings, 93rd Congress, 1st and 2d Sessions. 1973-1974.House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy Act of 1974. H. Rept. 93-1416, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.Senate Committee on Government Operations. Protecting Individual Privacy in Federal Gathering, Use and Disclosure of Information. S. Rept. 93-1183, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.Senate Committee on Government Operations. Materials Pertaining to S. 3418 and Protecting Individual Privacy in Federal Gathering, Use and Disclosure of Information. Committee print, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.Senate Committee on Government Operations and Committee on the Judiciary. Privacy: The Collection, Use, and Computerization of Personal Data. Joint hearings, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights. [Summary.] Committee print, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974.Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Federal Data Banks and Constitutional Rights. Committee print, 93rd Congress, 2d Session. 1974. 6 v.1975House Committee on Government Operations. Central Intelligence Agency Exemption in the Privacy Act of 1974. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st Session. 1975.House Committee on Government Operations. Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974: Data Banks. Hearing, 94th Congress, 1st Session. 1975.1976House Committee on Government Operations. Notification to Victims of Improper Intelligence Agency Activities. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d Session. 1976.Senate Committee on Government Operations and House Committee onGovernment Operations. Legislative History of the Privacy Act of 1974, S. 3418 (Public Law 93-579): Source Book on Privacy. Joint committee print, 94th Congress, 2d Session. 1976.1977Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Government Operations. Final Report of the Privacy Protection StudyCommission. Joint hearing, 95th Congress, 1st Session. 1977.1978House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy and Confidentiality Report and Final Recommendations of the Commission on Federal Paperwork. Hearing, 95th Congress, 1st Session. 1978.House Committee on Government Operations. Right to Privacy Proposals of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d Session. 1978.1980House Committee on Government Operations. Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act. H. Rept 96-832 Part 1, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy of Medical Records. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st Session. 1980.House Committee on Government Operations. Public Reaction to Privacy Issues. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st Session. 1980.House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act. H. Rept 96-832 Part 2, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.House Committee on Ways and Means. Description and Brief Analysis of H.R. 5935, Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act. Committee print, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.House Committee on Ways and Means. Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act. Hearing, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.House Committee on Ways and Means. Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act, H.R. 5935. Committee print, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 1980.1981House Committee on Government Operations. Confidentiality of Insurance Records. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st and 2d Sessions. 1981.House Committee on Government Operations. Debt Collection Act of 1981. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st Session. 1981.House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy Act Amendments. H. Rept. 97-147 Part 1, 97th Congress, 1st Session. 1981.1983House Committee on Government Operations. Oversight of the Privacy Act of 1974. Hearings, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1983.House Committee on Government Operations. Who Cares About Privacy?Oversight of the Privacy Act of 1974 by the Office of Management and Budget and by the Congress. H. Rept. 98-455, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1983.Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Oversight of Computer Matching to Detect Fraud and Mismanagement in Government Programs. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d Session. 1983.1984House Committee on Government Operations. Privacy and 1984: PublicOpinions on Privacy Issues. Hearing, 98th Congress, 1st Session. 1984.Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Computer Matching: Taxpayer Records. Hearing, 98th Congress, 2d Session. 1984.1986Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1986. Hearing, 99th Congress, 2d Session. 1986.1987House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1987. Hearing, 100th Congress, 1st Session. 1987.1988House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. H. Rept. 100-802, 100th Congress, 2d Session. 1988.1990House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990. Hearing, 101st Congress, 2d Session. 1990.House Committee on Government Operations. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990. H. Rept. 101-768, 101st Congress, 2d Session. 1990.House Committee on Government Operations. Data Protection, Computers, and Changing Information Practices. Hearing, 101st Congress, 2d Session. 1990.1991House Committee on Government Operations. Domestic and International Data Protection Issues. Hearing, 102d Congress, 1st Session. 1991.1992House Committee on Government Operations. Designing Genetic Information Policy: The Need for an Independent Policy Review of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project. H. Rept. 102-478, 102d Congress, 2d Session. 1992.2000House Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 4049, To Establish the Commission for the Comprehensive Study of Privacy Protection. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2d Session. 2000.House Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 220, The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2d Session. 2000.House Committee on Government Reform. The Privacy Act and the Presidency. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2d Session. 2000.附录4. 国会以外有关如何适用《信息自由法》和《隐私权法》之书目选（Appendix 4. Select Bibliography of Non-Congressional Materials on Using the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974）注：以下资料每隔一段时间可能被更新或出版新的版本，所以以下书目是在本《指南》更新时已有的最新版。（D）可以合理地预期会暴露秘密的信息来源，包括州、地方政府、外国的机构或机关、或任何私人组织在秘密的基础上提供信息的情况在内。第三，在诽谤罪诉讼中，如何看待被告人的证明行为？按照无罪推定的基本原则，被告人声称无罪，是无需证明的。

在国家机关方面，第一，上级检察机关应当加强对下级检察机关的诽谤罪公诉案件的批准逮捕、审查起诉等工作的监督，必要时可以要求下级检察机关将案件移送本院，由本院承担相关工作，如决定起诉，则向同级人民法院提起。[20]为什么说宪法强调对批评权的保障呢？在宪法权利中，批评权享有一种特别受保护的地位吗？这要把批评权放在宪法的语境中、联系其他相关条款来分析。只有将案件移送另一法院审理，才有可能避免受到干预。批评的权利是于1982年载入宪法条款的。

第三，他们之所以可以这样做，毕竟还有制度上的原因。因为人们一般比较相信社会信誉度高的人说的话，而比较不相信诽谤言论所指责的社会信誉度高的人做过某事，又一般不太相信社会信誉度低的人说的话，比较相信诽谤言论所指责的社会信誉度低的人做过某事。

由于诽谤罪要求这一目的性要素，因此是直接故意犯罪。任何人若试图成为国家工作人员即被推定接受了这种要约。从功能上看，散布是本体性行为，捏造是方法性行为。也许由于它们功能相似，立宪者将之规定在同一条中。

政府存在的目的在于维护公共利益和促进公民福祉。但是这些规定在这类案件的追诉过程中似乎都没有起到什么作用，配合有余而制约不足。研究建立违反法定程序过问案件的备案登记报告制度。实行举证责任置，是基于举证便利和司法效率的特殊考虑，且应由法律特别规定。

动机是一个道德问题，动机是否卑鄙难以确定。有些言论具有诽谤性，属于社会常识，是无需证明的。

如果废除诽谤罪，公民批评便不会面临刑罚威胁。意图是规范本身的内涵及其动机和出发点，价值是规范在某种环境下发挥的作用、功能或意义。

在这一方面存在着许多错误的认识和做法。但是，即使捏造事实诽谤他人，也并不必然成立诽谤罪。当编造得巧妙、圆满，言之凿凿，诽谤言论的可信度就高，反之，当编得粗糙、蹩脚，破绽百出，诽谤言论的可信度就低。然而刑法解释是刑事司法过程中不可避免的现象。[4]但并非所有妨害名誉的行为都会构成诽谤罪。第二，在公民批评所引发的刑事诽谤案中，有利于控诉人的推定被普遍地使用。

刑法并不惩罚所有的具有社会危害性的行为，仅仅惩罚其中具有严重社会危害性的行为。但是，如果对于某些行为，适用民事手段和（或）行政手段，就可以救济受害人的损失，并起到预防效果，就不必使用刑事手段。

有些诽谤案件，控诉人证明不了涉讼言论的虚伪性，被告人也证明不了涉讼言论的真实性，这就成为所谓的疑案。但是本罪之所以被看作为抽象危险犯，是由于在诉讼上，法院难以认定有没有发生侵害，而不是像一般危险犯中一样，因为法益重大，要特别予以保护。

[13]有一种意见认为应废除诽谤罪的但书，并呼吁全国人大常委会组织专门调研，统计一下司法实践中这一‘但书条款的实际执行情况。第一，在诽谤诉讼中应由谁来承担涉讼事实的证明责任？尽管按照刑事诉讼原理，由控诉人承担举证责任，但是具体到诽谤案件似乎有一些变数。

问题还要从内部的根源处去解决。不少案件，由于外界强烈的关注和巨大的舆论压力，当地政法部门不得不作撤案处理，例如彭水诗案、王帅案、山东曹县青年发帖案和王鹏案。最高人民法院司法解释和法学著述关于诽谤一词的通常用法都是把故意和过失包括在诽谤行为的主观状态中。[6]把捏造事实与诽谤他人这两个表述结合在一起，并置于第246条的语境中，可以看出以下两点含义。

第一，在制度规定上一些关键表述不够具体明确，含糊笼统，界限不清。笔者以为，自诉人履行证明责任的过程可以分两个步骤，在审查起诉阶段需要提供前述(a)(b)（c）三方面的证据。

在现代国家里，在大多数情况下，公民由于人数太多而不能亲自行使权力，不得不把权力委托给通过选举产生的政府机构及其官员。归纳其理由，主要有罪刑法定，刑法的稳定性、确定性、可预测性，权力分立（司法机关是法律适用机关而不是立法机关）和人权保障等。

司法实践中似乎普遍地把诽谤重要人物（特别是党政领导）看作是情节严重的行为。作为定罪情节，情节严重中的情节不是指随便哪一个方面的情节，而是指主要的或基本的情节。

除此之外，还要求准确把握诽谤罪与非罪的界限和严格把握诽谤案件自诉与公诉的界限。第一，能够得到曝光的案件毕竟是少数的，公众所了解的因公民批评引起又被错误处理的案件可能只是冰山一角。[3]二、刑事与民事根据现行法律，侵害他人名誉，既可能构成民事侵权行为，也可能构成诽谤罪。那种捏造事实并传播出去、以贬低他人名誉的行为，才可能构成诽谤罪。

刑法第243条规定了诬告陷害罪，并规定：不是有意诬陷，而是错告，或者检举失实的，不适用前两款的规定。这些制度界限规定得是否合适呢？这里我们不涉及现行民事诽谤法是否符合宪法。

只要存在诽谤性言论，就必然产生损害事实。保密义务意味着不能把举报内容加以传播，调查职权意味着对举报内容不能信以为真，只有在履行了必要的调查程序后才能做出决定。

又规定告诉的才处理，但是严重危害社会秩序和国家利益的除外。所以，证明了诽谤性，并不能推定损害后果就已经发生或者损害后果的大小。