透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.91.249.156
  • 學位論文

明顯而立即危險原則之回顧與前瞻

Review and Prospect of the Clear and Present Danger Test

指導教授 : 黃昭元

摘要


1969年的Brandenburg v. Ohio一案是「明顯而立即危險原則」演化發展的一個高峰,於該案之後法院即堅持該現代化版本的「明顯而立即危險原則」,學說上亦未有提出反對或修正該原則之有力見解。由此可以說明此項修正原則來處理煽動內亂行為之言論,似乎已獲得接近一致的共識,然而本文質疑此原則已達成「看似明確」的一致標準,其適用上的「彈性」是否真正明確?今天的「明顯而立即危險原則」,面臨到當代社會新興爭議的挑戰,同時許多籠罩在此原則身上舊有的問題,亦依舊維持著神秘的色彩。「明顯而立即危險原則」的內涵本身在面對極端案件事實的時候,是否應該有所調整,以符實際狀況的需要;以及適用此原則時有否應該遵循的界線,亦即其權力所能及之涵攝範圍,均屬Brandenburg標準尚待處理的核心問題。又為解決上述爭議,尚需針對不同言論的性質進行較為細緻的檢證分析,有時候又必須與當前的憲政環境進行有效的連結,始能揭開覆蓋此原則近半世紀的神秘面紗。 司法院大法官會議於釋字第445號首次引進「明顯而立即危險原則」,並以之為審查基準,宣告部分集會遊行法之條文違憲,使之成為我國法上言論自由法制內違憲審查的判斷準則之一,惟何謂明顯而立即之危險基準?其適用範圍如何?效果如何?該號解釋皆未有清楚說明。本文原則上肯認Brandenburg案所修正之「明顯而立即危險原則」是一種兼顧言論自由及國家安全社會秩序與他人權利的一種原則,不僅其理論基礎具有說服性,同時,它也是幾經爭執及磨練所確立的原則,將之引進作為我國解決類似問題時的一項準則,當有其價值。就我國當前刑事法體系中有可能被公權力執行者濫用箝制人民言論自由的法律與制度,尚包含有對於國家威信與尊嚴加以護衛之相關立法、煽惑犯罪之處罰,以及集會遊行法相關法制之規範,是否有引入美國法上Brandenburg修正式的「明顯而立即危險原則」予以適用之必要,尚需一一進行檢證分析。結論上,本文認為若上述法律規定具有處罰基礎未明、構成要件過於寬泛或是判斷標準難以確立之情形,Brandenburg標準不但能提供學理上較為堅強的理論依據,亦可以避免交由法院面對具體個案涵攝適用之時,易流於法官個人的恣意,並可以增加人民對於犯罪成立與否判斷上之可預測性。

並列摘要


Brandenburg v. Ohio is decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, which is the capstone of the evolution in this century of the "clear and present danger" test when it originated from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States. After Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court stick to that modern version of the clear and present danger test, and there is no any influential argument to rebut or refine it. Therefore, advocacy of performing unlawful acts or breach the peace will fall under the Brandenburg’s shield with almost unanimous approval, but whether the test itself is clear enough or not is debatable. In fact, the Brandenburg test face with a lot of emerging challenges nowadays and there are many old problems still unsolved as well. Is it has to adopt different standard when it comes to extremely extraordinarily facts in cases? If we admit that the principle is not meant to be universally applied to all political subversion free speech cases, is the Brandenburg test has its own limitations? Is it only could apply to those kind of cases for which it was devised? These are all questions that go to the heart of the Brandenburg test and must be answered before Brandenburg can fulfill its promise. The interpretation NO.445 of Judicial Yuan of R.O.C initial refer to clear and present danger test, and regard it as one of the constitutional scrutiny test in our free speech judicial system, but the reasoning in the interpretation did not clear explain how to exercise the test in cases, how broad the test could applied, and what are the legislative effects of the test will be. This thesis affirms that the Brandenburg test is the principle which could give considerations to both sides of national security and speech protective. Not only because the test has persuasive theoretical basis, but also it has been gone through long periods of times, and it must be valuable if we could use it as the ways of solving similar controversies in our country. There are still articles and systems in our current Criminal Code which may restrain the freedom of speech as long as the government executes the policy improperly, including the offenses of insult to a public official or a public office, emblem of the Republic of China or the flag of the Republic of China, or the founder the Republic of China, incite another to commit an offense or to violate the law or disobey a legal order, and relevant regulations of Assembly and Demonstration Code. If such offenses have any vague punishable foundations, extensive meaning of components, or unclear judge standards, this essay concludes that, at least, the Brandenburg test would provide much stronger theoretically ground, and at the meantime, avoid the judge’s personal subjective opinions to interpret the offenses, and increase the anticipation of the result of the conviction.

參考文獻


──(1998c)。〈集會遊行規則立法的審查基準(下)──司法院釋字第四四五號解釋評析〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,39期,頁108-115。
周漾沂(2008)。〈論「煽惑他人犯罪或違背法令」之處罰理由〉,《臺大法學論叢》,37卷4期,頁347-389。
黃昭元(2003)。〈司法違憲審查的制度選擇與司法院定位〉,《台大法學論叢》,32卷5期,頁1-64。
林鈺雄(2003)。〈誹謗罪之實體要件與訴訟證明──兼評大法官釋字第五○九號解釋〉,《臺大法學論叢》,32卷2期,頁67-104。
林東茂(1994)。〈危險犯的法律性質〉,《台大法學論叢》,23卷2期,頁267-304。

延伸閱讀