学界对赔礼道歉的分歧皆因未区分道德层面与法律层面的赔礼道歉而起,二者具有不同的功能,前者关注的是加害人的良心救赎和形象重塑,后者关注的是对受害人损害的填补,因此作为民事责任承担方式的赔礼道歉仅指法律层面的赔礼道歉。赔礼道歉的适用不以存在精神损害为前提,其对象也不限于自然人,法人等社会组织的名誉受到侵害的也可以请求赔礼道歉。非自愿的赔礼道歉不能够直接强制执行,司法实践中,可通过受害人发布对侵权人的谴责声明,并由侵权人承担相关费用的方式间接执行,但声明发布之前,法院应该对声明内容进行审查,并允许侵权人在规定的期限内就声明中不实的内容提出异议。对于因言论导致的名誉侵权,还可责令侵权人撤回不实陈述。 The academic apologies for apologizing to apologists both apologize for not distinguishing between moral and legal apologies. Both of them have different functions. The former focuses on the perpetual redemption and reshaping of the perpetrators, while the latter focuses on the victims Therefore, the apology as a way of assuming civil liability only refers to the legal apology. The application of apology does not prejudice the existence of mental damage, and its object is not limited to natural persons, legal persons and other social organizations whose reputation has been infringed, they can also request apology. An involuntary apology can not be directly enforced. In judicial practice, the victim may issue a condemnation statement to the infringer and be indirectly executed by the infringer at the expense of the infringer. However, before the statement is issued, the court should make the declaration Review and allow the infringer to challenge objectionable content within the prescribed time frame. It may also order the infringer to withdraw false statements about the infringement of reputation resulting from the speech.