【新唐人2013年05月25日訊】5月21號，中共機關雜誌《紅旗文稿》發表的一篇文章，聲稱「憲政屬於資本主義，不屬於社會主義」引發軒然大波，成為眾矢之的。有人注意到，同一期雜誌中，還批判了中國互聯網的「人肉搜索」，認為「人肉搜索」是「多數人的暴政」，侵犯個人的隱私權。但是，有評論指出，在沒有憲政制度的保障下，中國老百姓只剩下「人肉搜索」這個監督公權力的武器，不應該再被剝奪。
《紅旗文稿》雜誌在《西方國家允許「人肉搜索」嗎？ 》文章中說，「人肉搜索」是一個獨特的中國現象，且這種行為是「多數人的暴政」。文章認為，「人肉搜索」極易侵犯個人的隱私權，甚至還容易引起網絡暴力的蔓延。
大陸網絡作家與學者楊恆均表示，在西方的憲政制度下，民眾有一種法制的渠道。恰恰在中國沒有憲政，老百姓只能在網上申冤。
大陸網絡作家與學者楊恆均：「人肉搜索確實是中國的特色，但那是因為中國的權力沒有監督，老百姓沒有任何正常的、在西方有的途徑，包括司法，包括髮表意見的自由，甚至遊行示威抗議的自由，沒有正常途徑，他們只有在網絡上，揭露官員。」
文章說，在互聯網四通八達的美國，「人肉搜索」事件卻並不常見。美國非常注重個人資料和隱私權的保護，先後制定了《聯邦電子通訊隱私法案》、《公民網絡隱私權保護暫行條例》等法律法規，對網絡侵權事件加以懲罰。
但楊恆均指出，西方公眾人物，包括官員和上市公司老總，他們的財產和行為依法要接受公眾監督，並不能以「隱私權」作為保護傘。
楊恆均：「老百姓搜索官員，是因為老百姓看了官員，他們抽的煙，手上戴的錶，和他們的工資不相符合，老百姓覺得應該問這些官員，錢從哪裡來的？而事實上經過搜索之後，這些官員後來都被證實是貪污腐敗的。這不是一個隱私權。官員在這方面，他們必須公布自己的財產。這是所有文明國家，尤其是憲政民主國家，都早就在實行的。」
楊恆均還表示，《紅旗文稿》的兩篇文章放在一起，正好暴露了中國目前矛盾的困境。
楊恆均：「他們一方面，否定了憲政制度，從制度上要搞自己的這套。但是另一方面，他們卻解決不了一個問題，就是你不實行憲政民主制度，你永遠解決不了貪污腐敗。那麼民眾就只能是刁民、是暴民，為甚麼呢？你解決不了這個制度，你貪污腐敗，我就只能用所謂人肉搜索來對付你。」
楊恆均解釋，西方民眾不流行「人肉搜索」，是因為有憲政，老百姓權利得到保障，政府官員的權利得到限制。而中共不實行憲政，卻還想剝奪老百姓僅剩的網絡監督權利。
他進一步指出，在沒有互聯網的時候，美國有個「扒糞運動」，事實上就是媒體記者在做「人肉搜索」，只不過他們做的更專業。楊恆均說，美國前總統克林頓「性醜聞」，尼克松「水門事件」，都可以看成是「人肉搜索」。
楊恆均在博客上撰文反駁說，一些掌握了一點權力的官員與御用文人，凡是發現西方對自己有利的東西，就欣然「全盤西化」，匆忙接軌，甚至要「挾洋自重」。而遇到可能危及他們手裡不受限制的權力時，就立馬搬出了所謂「特色」，這已經不是第一次，也不是最後一次。
楊恆均說，過去五年，中國網民靠「人肉搜索」挖出了許多貪污腐敗份子，連檢察院與反貪局都自嘆弗如，這難道不應引起官員們的深思，對比一下中西反貪特色，而找出制度根源嗎？
採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/周天
The Chinese Communist Party Denies Constitutionalism,
While trying To Block “Human Flesh Search Engine”
On May 21st the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) internal
magazine “Hong Qi Wen Gao” published an article which
stated that “Constitutionalism is a characteristic of
Capitalism, not Socialism”.
This opinion triggered a public outcry in China,
and has become a sitting duck for critics.
Someone noticed that another article in the same volume
reacted against the “human flesh search engine”, stating
that “Human flesh search engine is a type of tyranny by
the majority and is an invasion of privacy”.
However, some argued that as Chinese civilians are not
protected by Constitutionalism, “human flesh search engine”
turns out to be their only weapon to supervise the CCP
so it should not be taken away.
The CCP』s internal magazine, Hong Qi Wen Gao, published
an article titled “Is Human Flesh Internet search engine
allowed in western countries?”
The article said “Human flesh search engine”
is a unique phenomenon only seen in China,
and it is “a type of tyranny by the majority”.
It also drew the conclusion that “Human flesh search engine”
can easily lead to invasion of privacy or even spreading of Internet violence.
Yang Hengjun, a Chinese Internet writer and scholar, said
in western countries the framework of Constitutionalism
provides civilians a path to seek legal redress.
As there is no Constitutionalism in China, Chinese civilians
can only address their injustices on the Internet.
Yang Hengjun, Chinese Internet writer and scholar: ”It is true
that “Human flesh search engine” is only seen in China.
However, this is because there is no supervision over
political power in China.
Our civilians don』t have any standard way to seek justice,
which is available in western countries.
There you have judicial system, freedom of speech
and freedom of demonstration/protest.
In China we don』t have these rights so the only choice
is to expose bad officials online.”
Hong Qi Wen Gao』s article also mentioned in the US
where the Internet is extremely developed,
there have been very few cases involving
“Human flesh search engine”.
In the United States, protection of privacy and personal data
is regarded as a very important issue.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and
other laws have been established to inflict punishment against invasion of privacy in cyberspace.
However, Yang Hengjun pointed out that, the possession and
behavior of western public figures such as officials and
presidents of listed companies are subject to
public supervision as required by law.
They cannot use “protection of privacy” as an excuse
to hide this information.
Yang Hengjun: ”Chinese civilians do “Human Flesh Search”
on officials because their tobaccos and watches cannot be
afforded by them at their announced salary level.
Our people feel that they should know where
the real income of officials is from.
In fact “Human flesh search engine” later confirmed that
those officials were corrupt. This is not about privacy.
The officials have to declare their properties.
This is a rule that has been put into practice long before
in Constitutional and democratic states.”
Yang Hengjun added that, the two articles by Hong Qi Wen
Gao altogether exposed the dilemma that the CCP is facing.
Yang Hengjun: ”On one hand, they (the CCP) deny
Constitutionalism and stick to their own regime.
On the other hand, they are not able to solve
the resu problem.
That is, without a framework of Constitutionalism
they can never prevent officials from corruption.
In such situation, the civilians have to act like
『unruly people』 or 『mobs』. Why?
As you don』t want to reform the regime and solve the corruption
problem, then I can only respond with 『Human Flesh Search』.”
Yang Hengjun explained that, “Human flesh search engine”
is not popular in western countries, because there is Constitutionalism to rely on.
Therefore civil rights are protected and powers of
governmental officials are restricted.
The CCP denies Constitutionalism, but still tries to deprive
Chinese people of their only rights of Internet supervision.
Yang further remarked that, there was a “muckraker
movement” in the United States the before Internet appeared.
In the movement the journalists were actually doing the
same as “Human flesh search engine”, but more professionally.
The Lewinsky scandal involving former US president Bill
Clinton and Watergate scandal involving Richard Nixon can
both be regarded as results of using “Human flesh search engine”.
Yang Hengjun wrote a microblog article to refute
what Hong Qi Wen Gao said.
He wrote that, for some officials and their hired scribblers,
whenever they found anything in western society in favor of their regime,
they would advocate “full westernization as soon as possible”
or even make intimidating comments;
For any western system that challenges their unlimited power,
they would deny them with the excuse of “keeping Chinese characteristics”;
This was not the first time they did so,
and would definitely not be the last time.
Yang Hengjun said that, in the past five years Chinese netizens
dug out many corrupt officials by “Human Flesh search engine”.
Even procuratorates and anti-corruption bureaus
have to acknowledge its effectiveness.
So shouldn』t the CCP officials ponder over the phenomenon and
find out the differences between Chinese and western regimes that lead to the problem?
《紅旗文稿》雜誌在《西方國家允許「人肉搜索」嗎？ 》文章中說，「人肉搜索」是一個獨特的中國現象，且這種行為是「多數人的暴政」。文章認為，「人肉搜索」極易侵犯個人的隱私權，甚至還容易引起網絡暴力的蔓延。
大陸網絡作家與學者楊恆均表示，在西方的憲政制度下，民眾有一種法制的渠道。恰恰在中國沒有憲政，老百姓只能在網上申冤。
大陸網絡作家與學者楊恆均：「人肉搜索確實是中國的特色，但那是因為中國的權力沒有監督，老百姓沒有任何正常的、在西方有的途徑，包括司法，包括髮表意見的自由，甚至遊行示威抗議的自由，沒有正常途徑，他們只有在網絡上，揭露官員。」
文章說，在互聯網四通八達的美國，「人肉搜索」事件卻並不常見。美國非常注重個人資料和隱私權的保護，先後制定了《聯邦電子通訊隱私法案》、《公民網絡隱私權保護暫行條例》等法律法規，對網絡侵權事件加以懲罰。
但楊恆均指出，西方公眾人物，包括官員和上市公司老總，他們的財產和行為依法要接受公眾監督，並不能以「隱私權」作為保護傘。
楊恆均：「老百姓搜索官員，是因為老百姓看了官員，他們抽的煙，手上戴的錶，和他們的工資不相符合，老百姓覺得應該問這些官員，錢從哪裡來的？而事實上經過搜索之後，這些官員後來都被證實是貪污腐敗的。這不是一個隱私權。官員在這方面，他們必須公布自己的財產。這是所有文明國家，尤其是憲政民主國家，都早就在實行的。」
楊恆均還表示，《紅旗文稿》的兩篇文章放在一起，正好暴露了中國目前矛盾的困境。
楊恆均：「他們一方面，否定了憲政制度，從制度上要搞自己的這套。但是另一方面，他們卻解決不了一個問題，就是你不實行憲政民主制度，你永遠解決不了貪污腐敗。那麼民眾就只能是刁民、是暴民，為甚麼呢？你解決不了這個制度，你貪污腐敗，我就只能用所謂人肉搜索來對付你。」
楊恆均解釋，西方民眾不流行「人肉搜索」，是因為有憲政，老百姓權利得到保障，政府官員的權利得到限制。而中共不實行憲政，卻還想剝奪老百姓僅剩的網絡監督權利。
他進一步指出，在沒有互聯網的時候，美國有個「扒糞運動」，事實上就是媒體記者在做「人肉搜索」，只不過他們做的更專業。楊恆均說，美國前總統克林頓「性醜聞」，尼克松「水門事件」，都可以看成是「人肉搜索」。
楊恆均在博客上撰文反駁說，一些掌握了一點權力的官員與御用文人，凡是發現西方對自己有利的東西，就欣然「全盤西化」，匆忙接軌，甚至要「挾洋自重」。而遇到可能危及他們手裡不受限制的權力時，就立馬搬出了所謂「特色」，這已經不是第一次，也不是最後一次。
楊恆均說，過去五年，中國網民靠「人肉搜索」挖出了許多貪污腐敗份子，連檢察院與反貪局都自嘆弗如，這難道不應引起官員們的深思，對比一下中西反貪特色，而找出制度根源嗎？
採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/周天
The Chinese Communist Party Denies Constitutionalism,
While trying To Block “Human Flesh Search Engine”
On May 21st the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) internal
magazine “Hong Qi Wen Gao” published an article which
stated that “Constitutionalism is a characteristic of
Capitalism, not Socialism”.
This opinion triggered a public outcry in China,
and has become a sitting duck for critics.
Someone noticed that another article in the same volume
reacted against the “human flesh search engine”, stating
that “Human flesh search engine is a type of tyranny by
the majority and is an invasion of privacy”.
However, some argued that as Chinese civilians are not
protected by Constitutionalism, “human flesh search engine”
turns out to be their only weapon to supervise the CCP
so it should not be taken away.
The CCP』s internal magazine, Hong Qi Wen Gao, published
an article titled “Is Human Flesh Internet search engine
allowed in western countries?”
The article said “Human flesh search engine”
is a unique phenomenon only seen in China,
and it is “a type of tyranny by the majority”.
It also drew the conclusion that “Human flesh search engine”
can easily lead to invasion of privacy or even spreading of Internet violence.
Yang Hengjun, a Chinese Internet writer and scholar, said
in western countries the framework of Constitutionalism
provides civilians a path to seek legal redress.
As there is no Constitutionalism in China, Chinese civilians
can only address their injustices on the Internet.
Yang Hengjun, Chinese Internet writer and scholar: ”It is true
that “Human flesh search engine” is only seen in China.
However, this is because there is no supervision over
political power in China.
Our civilians don』t have any standard way to seek justice,
which is available in western countries.
There you have judicial system, freedom of speech
and freedom of demonstration/protest.
In China we don』t have these rights so the only choice
is to expose bad officials online.”
Hong Qi Wen Gao』s article also mentioned in the US
where the Internet is extremely developed,
there have been very few cases involving
“Human flesh search engine”.
In the United States, protection of privacy and personal data
is regarded as a very important issue.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and
other laws have been established to inflict punishment against invasion of privacy in cyberspace.
However, Yang Hengjun pointed out that, the possession and
behavior of western public figures such as officials and
presidents of listed companies are subject to
public supervision as required by law.
They cannot use “protection of privacy” as an excuse
to hide this information.
Yang Hengjun: ”Chinese civilians do “Human Flesh Search”
on officials because their tobaccos and watches cannot be
afforded by them at their announced salary level.
Our people feel that they should know where
the real income of officials is from.
In fact “Human flesh search engine” later confirmed that
those officials were corrupt. This is not about privacy.
The officials have to declare their properties.
This is a rule that has been put into practice long before
in Constitutional and democratic states.”
Yang Hengjun added that, the two articles by Hong Qi Wen
Gao altogether exposed the dilemma that the CCP is facing.
Yang Hengjun: ”On one hand, they (the CCP) deny
Constitutionalism and stick to their own regime.
On the other hand, they are not able to solve
the resu problem.
That is, without a framework of Constitutionalism
they can never prevent officials from corruption.
In such situation, the civilians have to act like
『unruly people』 or 『mobs』. Why?
As you don』t want to reform the regime and solve the corruption
problem, then I can only respond with 『Human Flesh Search』.”
Yang Hengjun explained that, “Human flesh search engine”
is not popular in western countries, because there is Constitutionalism to rely on.
Therefore civil rights are protected and powers of
governmental officials are restricted.
The CCP denies Constitutionalism, but still tries to deprive
Chinese people of their only rights of Internet supervision.
Yang further remarked that, there was a “muckraker
movement” in the United States the before Internet appeared.
In the movement the journalists were actually doing the
same as “Human flesh search engine”, but more professionally.
The Lewinsky scandal involving former US president Bill
Clinton and Watergate scandal involving Richard Nixon can
both be regarded as results of using “Human flesh search engine”.
Yang Hengjun wrote a microblog article to refute
what Hong Qi Wen Gao said.
He wrote that, for some officials and their hired scribblers,
whenever they found anything in western society in favor of their regime,
they would advocate “full westernization as soon as possible”
or even make intimidating comments;
For any western system that challenges their unlimited power,
they would deny them with the excuse of “keeping Chinese characteristics”;
This was not the first time they did so,
and would definitely not be the last time.
Yang Hengjun said that, in the past five years Chinese netizens
dug out many corrupt officials by “Human Flesh search engine”.
Even procuratorates and anti-corruption bureaus
have to acknowledge its effectiveness.
So shouldn』t the CCP officials ponder over the phenomenon and
find out the differences between Chinese and western regimes that lead to the problem?
