- 期刊
色情與言論自由之司法界綫爭論～以美國「米勒判例」審理適用之釋疑研究
U.S. Judicial Review on Obscenity v. Freedom of Speech ~A Study case of U.S. ＂Miller Test＂
摘要
言論市場中，形形色色，惟色情言論爭議最大，旦見尺度大膽圖文出現媒體，輒起話題，但爭訟過後，往往又不了了之，不禁啟人疑問：何以不見此爭辯，司法上，一勞永逸解決之道？而法律可得以劃清兩者界限？抑是徒勞？成了民主國家的司法沙坑，陷於難解。宛若打開潘朵拉的盒子，美國最高法院布利南（William Brennan)大法官，自一九五七年所創「猥褻」（obscenity）一詞，繼以「米勒標準（Miller Test）」衡諸，企圖立下一道言論自由與色情的普世法界後，就挑戰、爭議不斷，首先「猥褻」與否，太過自由心證，連大法官史都華（Potter Stewart）也譏以「我沒有辦法定義什麼是猥褻，但我一看就知道。（But I know it when I see it.）」，但歸根仍在「色情」常涉「言論自由」之保障領域，分寸難捏。待七O年代，廣、電媒體大興，廣、電「滲透力」益讓「米勒標準」適用益形窘迫，待二十世紀網路科技之問世，美國高院終懸崖勒馬，「米勒標準」幾近名存實亡。總之，由美國最高法院針對色情與言論自由之司法審理過程中，根本解決之道，莫過政府應將言論資訊的選擇權還諸「言論市場」，政府實不適宜介入國民內心之主觀世界，「須知民主政治之基石乃在於傳統自由主義之精神，而此種精神之前提為信賴人民有追求幸福之能力，而非仰仗官署之干預。」
並列摘要
Chief Justice Potter Stewart once wrote: ＂to classify what material constituted exactly what is obscene I shall not today define …[b]ut I know it when I see it…＂ which best describe the difficulty to draw a line between the freedom of speech and obscenity. This paper is to review the U.S. Supreme Court landmark judicial precedents on obscenity against the freedom of speech. As opening the Pandora Box, chief justice William Brennan first ruled obscenity that is an exception to the constitutional rights under the First Amendment in 1957 Roth v. United States. And, after 16 years, it was culminated in 1973 in Miller v. Californibility reached a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene. Dramatically in the same year’s later Paris Adult Theater case, it was also justice Brennan confessed that this 16-year effort to draw a constitutionally acceptable boundary was a total failure to distinguish clearly protected and unprotected speech and concluded that this approach＂ cannot bring stability to this area of the law without jeopardizing the First Amendment values. The emergence of an electronic culture might be a good opportunity to take a fresh look at what First Amendment values should be in the new age. Shall the Miller test still works in this era? It is especially evident in the issue of ＂pervasive impact＂ argument, first raised in the Pacifica case in 1978. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Court refused the consistence in Reno v. ACLU decided that the most pervasive medium of all, the Internet, did not fall within Pacifica's ambit. New age thinkers tell us that the Internet, facebook, APP will change the way we think about information and communications, and in turn the way we think about the law of information and communications - the First Amendment included.