【新唐人2013年05月25日讯】5月21号，中共机关杂志《红旗文稿》发表的一篇文章，声称“宪政属于资本主义，不属于社会主义”引发轩然大波，成为众矢之的。有人注意到，同一期杂志中，还批判了中国互联网的“人肉搜索”，认为“人肉搜索”是“多数人的暴政”，侵犯个人的隐私权。但是，有评论指出，在没有宪政制度的保障下，中国老百姓只剩下“人肉搜索”这个监督公权力的武器，不应该再被剥夺。
《红旗文稿》杂志在《西方国家允许“人肉搜索”吗？ 》文章中说，“人肉搜索”是一个独特的中国现象，且这种行为是“多数人的暴政”。文章认为，“人肉搜索”极易侵犯个人的隐私权，甚至还容易引起网络暴力的蔓延。
大陆网络作家与学者杨恒均表示，在西方的宪政制度下，民众有一种法制的渠道。恰恰在中国没有宪政，老百姓只能在网上申冤。
大陆网络作家与学者杨恒均：“人肉搜索确实是中国的特色，但那是因为中国的权力没有监督，老百姓没有任何正常的、在西方有的途径，包括司法，包括发表意见的自由，甚至游行示威抗议的自由，没有正常途径，他们只有在网络上，揭露官员。”
文章说，在互联网四通八达的美国，“人肉搜索”事件却并不常见。美国非常注重个人资料和隐私权的保护，先后制定了《联邦电子通讯隐私法案》、《公民网络隐私权保护暂行条例》等法律法规，对网络侵权事件加以惩罚。
但杨恒均指出，西方公众人物，包括官员和上市公司老总，他们的财产和行为依法要接受公众监督，并不能以“隐私权”作为保护伞。
杨恒均：“老百姓搜索官员，是因为老百姓看了官员，他们抽的烟，手上戴的表，和他们的工资不相符合，老百姓觉得应该问这些官员，钱从哪里来的？而事实上经过搜索之后，这些官员后来都被证实是贪污腐败的。这不是一个隐私权。官员在这方面，他们必须公布自己的财产。这是所有文明国家，尤其是宪政民主国家，都早就在实行的。”
杨恒均还表示，《红旗文稿》的两篇文章放在一起，正好暴露了中国目前矛盾的困境。
杨恒均：“他们一方面，否定了宪政制度，从制度上要搞自己的这套。但是另一方面，他们却解决不了一个问题，就是你不实行宪政民主制度，你永远解决不了贪污腐败。那么民众就只能是刁民、是暴民，为什么呢？你解决不了这个制度，你贪污腐败，我就只能用所谓人肉搜索来对付你。”
杨恒均解释，西方民众不流行“人肉搜索”，是因为有宪政，老百姓权利得到保障，政府官员的权利得到限制。而中共不实行宪政，却还想剥夺老百姓仅剩的网络监督权利。
他进一步指出，在没有互联网的时候，美国有个“扒粪运动”，事实上就是媒体记者在做“人肉搜索”，只不过他们做的更专业。杨恒均说，美国前总统克林顿“性丑闻”，尼克松“水门事件”，都可以看成是“人肉搜索”。
杨恒均在博客上撰文反驳说，一些掌握了一点权力的官员与御用文人，凡是发现西方对自己有利的东西，就欣然“全盘西化”，匆忙接轨，甚至要“挟洋自重”。而遇到可能危及他们手里不受限制的权力时，就立马搬出了所谓“特色”，这已经不是第一次，也不是最后一次。
杨恒均说，过去五年，中国网民靠“人肉搜索”挖出了许多贪污腐败份子，连检察院与反贪局都自叹弗如，这难道不应引起官员们的深思，对比一下中西反贪特色，而找出制度根源吗？
采访编辑/秦雪 后制/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?
