我國言論自由界限之詮釋研究

A Study on the Interpretation of the Limit of Freedom of Speech in Taiwan

黃漢權(Han-Chuan Huang)

指導教授 ： 洪鎌德

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.02631

摘要

中文摘要
言論自由是我國憲法第11條所明文保障之人民權利，亦為一自由民主社會所不可或缺的基本人權，但是否所有言論，不論其內容為何，均為憲法言論自由所保障？抑或有部分內容之言論並非憲法所欲保障？此即涉及言論自由此一基本權利之界限為何之問題，然而憲法條文對於此一問題並無法給予明確的解答。因此，本論文即先擬從法律層面加以探討言論自由之界限及法學解釋方法、言論自由權與名譽權之衝突解決、言論自由界限之新詮釋及其審查判斷程序等議題，以期能研究釐清言論自由之界限此一議題。
其次，更值得關注的是臺灣地區的言論自由發展歷史，自1949年5月20日國民政府宣布臺灣進入戒嚴時起至民國1987年7月14日解除戒嚴令止，臺灣經歷長達38年之戒嚴時期，而這段漫長之戒嚴時期，戒嚴法令對於臺灣人民之言論自由實施相當嚴苛之箝制，突顯臺灣言論自由之發展歷程相當艱辛。因此，探討言論自由之界限更應站在臺灣本土歷史發展上觀察其間是如何之演進及變化。
然而，從歷史層面觀察雖可得知在我國戒嚴時期與解嚴後之言論自由界限確實有著極大之變動，但造成這種變動之原因為何？則似難以用法律層面加以分析，而須藉由法律社會學層面加以分析探討。關於法律社會學層面之分析探討，本論文介紹法律社會學之典範學說理論，進而試著以法律社會學之角度分析言論自由的規範及詮釋，並且運用盧曼之「法律與政治雙重交換」理論，及藉用法律社會科學之依變項、自變項及控制變項等研究方法，嘗試分析我國戒嚴前、後之言論自由界限之變動因素為何。
本文擬經由上述之法律層面之研討、歷史層面之觀察及法律社會學之綜合解析等研究成果，以期能對言論自由之界限有一嶄新及妥適的詮釋。

關鍵字

言論自由 ； 名譽權 ； 界限 ； 戒嚴時期 ； 盧曼之「法律與政治雙重交換」理論 ； 控制變項

並列摘要

Abstract
Freedom of speech is one of the rights of people explicitly stated in the Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of China; it is also an indispensable basic human right in a free and democratic society. Are all speeches protected by the right of freedom of speech as stated in the Constitution of the Republic of China, regardless of their contents, or are some parts of speech not protected by the Constitution of the Republic of China? This is a critical issue involving the limit of a basic right, freedom of speech. However, the constitutional provisions are unable to provide an explicit answer to this issue. Therefore, this thesis intends to explore and clarify the limit of freedom of speech and the methods of legal interpretation from a legal perspective, conflict resolution of the right of freedom of speech and Right of Reputation, as well as their procedures of examination and judgment.
Second, the history of the development of freedom of speech in Taiwan deserves more attention. From May 20, 1949, when the National Government declared martial law in Taiwan, to July 14, 1987, when martial law was lifted, Taiwan underwent a long period of martial law (38 years). During this long period of martial law, very stern suppression of the Taiwanese people’s freedom of speech was implemented, which highlighted the arduous development history of freedom of speech in Taiwan. Therefore, studies on the limit of freedom of speech should focus on observing how the evolution and changes of the freedom of speech proceeded from the aspect of Taiwan’s historical development during the period of martial law.
The historical perspective shows a great change in the limit of freedom of speech from the period of martial law to that of post-martial law. However, what were the causes of such a great change? It seems difficult to analyze this issue from the legal aspect. Instead, the issue, including norms and interpretation, should be explored from the aspect of the sociology of law; in this regard, this thesis will present doctrinal and theory-related examples from the sociology of law. Niklas Luhmann’s theory of “double interchanges in law and politics” will be applied, and research methods of law and social science, including “dependent variable”, “independent variable” and “control variable”, will also be used to analyze factors behind the change of limit of freedom of speech before and after the period of martial law.
This paper intends to present a brand new and proper interpretation on the limit of freedom of speech through the aforementioned research findings, including studies from a legal aspect, observations from a historical aspect and a comprehensive analysis based on the sociology of law.

並列關鍵字

Freedom of Speech ； Right of Reputation ； The limit of freedom of speech ； Martial Law ； Niklas Luhmann’s theory of “double interchanges in law and politics” ； Control Variable

參考文獻

林鈺雄（2003）。〈誹謗罪之實體要件與訴訟證明－兼論大法官釋字第509號解釋〉，《台大法學論叢》32（2）：67-104。

司法院（2000）。〈司法院大法官會議議決釋字第509號解釋〉，《司法院公報》42 （9）：1-30。

司法院（1996）。〈司法院大法官會議議決釋字第414號解釋〉，《司法院公報》38 （12）：5-16。

司法院（1998）。〈司法院大法官會議議決釋字第445號解釋〉，《司法院公報》40 （3）：1-28。

洪鎌德(2000b)。〈韋伯的法律與社會哲學〉，《哲學與文化》。317 ：905-930。