近年来，公民在网络上发表言论攻击公职人员现象频发。本文对近来发生的网络辱警案例的进行收集分析，发现相关案例在言论定性、法律适用、限制标准等方面均存在问题。表达自由是宪法赋予公民的基本权利，行政机关限制公民言论必须符合宪法精神。本文试从保护公民表达自由的角度，对行政机关处理网络辱警言论的可行性路径进行讨论，以期建立合理的网络言论审查标准，实现保护公民权利和维护网络公共秩序的平衡。

“网络辱警”规制需要根据案情个案分析，以保护公民基本权利为原则。对于不当言论限制需要建立可适用的标准，言论评价标准和限制手段要符合法治精神，限制行政机关自由裁量权，防止公权力对公民基本权利造成不当侵害。

本文分为四大部分。

第一部分：介绍选题的意义和背景。着重说明分析“网络辱警”案例对于网络评论自由表达问题研究的典型意义。对案例选择标准和研究方法做了说明，集中选择近期案例，案例来源和资料完整度综合考量，保证案例选择的真实性和代表性。

第二部分：对“网络辱警”进行概述。讨论辱警现象出现的根源，以及相关案例中存在的一些问题，包括案件定性、法律适用争议、合宪性争议以及不当言论评价标准几个方面。同时对“网络辱警”中的两个关键问题进行讨论，即辱警言论所涉及的公共秩序以及名誉权保护问题，重点是辱警案例中公共场所的界定标准以及国家公职人员名誉权的限制性保护。

第三部分：对网络评论中言论限制的合理路径进行探究。首先讨论辱警言论限制的原则，提出将辱警言论发表平台与言论性质进行综合考量，对侵害不同法益的言论要进行分类化处理。然后根据表达自由理论对网络评论中言论的保护范围进行讨论。明确辱警言论并不能一概排除在表达自由保护范围之外。最后对网络评论中言论的限制标准进行分析，这里借鉴实质恶意原则，从公共利益保护和目的正当性角度探讨不当言论的限制标准。

第四部分：对网络言论规制提出合理建议。主要从提高警察执法合宪性意识、规范行政机关自由裁量权、提高行政机关人权保护意识等角度进行论述。

In recent years, citizens have made attacks on public officials frequently on the Internet. This article collects and analyzes the recent cases of online speech  humiliation, and finds that the relevant cases have problems in terms of qualitative speech, legal application, and restrictions. Freedom of expression is the basic right granted to citizens by the Constitution, and administrative organs must limit citizens' speeches in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. This article attempts to discuss the feasibility of administrative organs' handling of online humiliating speech from the perspective of protecting citizens' freedom of expression, with a view to establishing a reasonable online speech review standard to achieve a balance between protecting citizens' rights and maintaining online public order.

The regulation of "Internet shame police" needs to be analyzed on the basis of the case, with the principle of protecting citizens' basic rights. For improper speech restrictions, it is necessary to establish applicable standards. The speech evaluation standards and restrictive measures must conform to the spirit of the rule of law, limit the discretionary power of administrative agencies, and prevent undue violation of public rights by citizens ’public power.

This article is divided into four parts.

Part 1: Introduce the significance and background of the topic. Focus on explaining the typical meaning of the analysis of the case of the internet humiliation police for the free expression of online comments. Explained the case selection criteria and research methods, focused on selecting recent cases, comprehensive consideration of case sources and data integrity, to ensure the authenticity and representativeness of the selected case.

Part II: An overview of the "Internet Shame Police". Discuss the root causes of police insults and some problems in related cases, including case determination, legal application disputes, constitutional disputes, and inappropriate speech evaluation standards. At the same time, the two key issues in the online insulting police speech are discussed, that is, the public order and the protection of reputation rights involved in the insults of the police. The focus is on the definition of public places in the case of police insults and the restrictive protection of the reputation rights of public officials.

Part Ⅲ: To explore the reasonable restriction path of online speech. First, discuss the principle of limitation of online insulting police speech, put forward a comprehensive consideration of the platform for publishing insulting police speech and the nature of speech, and classify the speech that infringes on different legal interests. Then, according to the theory of freedom of expression, the scope of protection of the comments in the online comments is discussed. Explicit remarks on police insults cannot be excluded from the protection of freedom of expression. Finally, we analyze the restriction standards of speech in online reviews. Here we draw on the principle of “substantive maliciousness” and discuss the restriction standards of inappropriate speech from the perspective of public interest protection and the justification of purpose.

Part IV: Put forward reasonable suggestions for the regulation of speech in online reviews. It mainly discusses from the perspectives of improving the constitutionality awareness of police law enforcement, standardizing the discretion of administrative agencies, and raising the awareness of human rights protection of administrative agencies.