| 摘要: |
| 传统上，美国信用评级机构主张评级报告属于涉及公共利益的意见，援引宪法第一
修正案进行抗辩，实际恶意标准是最重要的保护手段。《2010年华尔街改革和消费
者保护法》等法律法规的出台反映美国加强评级业监管的理念。虽然美国各级法院
做法存在差异，但是现在普遍认为判断信用评级机构能否免责应基于自身在构建商
事交易中的作用。作为商业言论的评级报告不一定能适用实际恶意标准，但是可以
获得宪法第一修正案对于言论自由的其他保护。美国经验对中国信用评级机构法律
责任的构建和司法审判具有借鉴意义。 |
| 关键词: 信用评级机构 宪法第一修正案 实际恶意标准 商业言论 |
| DOI： |
| 投稿时间：2012-11-22 |
| 基金项目:教育部哲学社会科学研究重大攻关项目“国际金融中心法制环境研究”（项目编号：2011JZD009）；华东政法
大学研究生创新能力培养专项资金资助项目（项目编号：20132029） |
|
| Protection of Credit Rating Agencies under the First Amendment:From the Perspective of Judicial Precedents |
| LI Xiao-fu |
|
| Abstract: |
| Credit rating agencies have historically been quite successful in avoiding liability over their ratings
by appealing to the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorized unprecedented regulation of credit rating agencies’ methodologies
and created a new standard governing agencies’ private liability. Courts should not mechanically apply the actual
malice standard simply because the defendant is a credit rating agency; rather, when a credit rating agency plays
an active role in structuring the deal, courts should recognize the credit rating agency’s speech for what it is
professional speech and deny the credit rating agency the protection of the actual malice standard. As commercial
speech, a credit rating agency may not be able to apply the actual malice standard, but it can use other kinds of
protection under the First Amendment freedom. The U.S. experience is useful for China in future. |
| Key words: credit rating agency First Amendment actual malice commercial speech |
