摘要
侮辱公署罪規範於我國刑法第140條第2項、集會遊行法第30條，誹謗公署罪則僅規範於集會遊行法第30條，二者之正當性皆存在高度疑義。從政治哲學的角度出發，本文否定霍布斯式的絕對國家，同時也認為人民對於國家的情感僅是一種自然現象而不具有規範上的意義。國家的出現是為了解決前國家狀態中個人行使權利的不便與衝突，其功能僅在保護個人權利的範圍內具有正當性。回到刑法應然理念的層次，本文認為法益概念具有體系內含及體系批判的功能，且為了保有批判可能性並避免其淪為區分與排除的工具，法益概念必須具備｢普遍有效性｣，在侮辱、誹謗公署罪相關的保護法益主張中，僅｢國家公權力的正常運作｣符合此要求。對於國家公權力的正常運作來說，侮辱公署的行為根本欠缺侵害可能性，誹謗公署的行為雖在特定情況下有可能造成侵害，但現行法仍屬欠缺正當性的犯罪前置化立法。從實證法的角度出發，本文認為侮辱、誹謗公署罪對於言論自由的限制無法通過比例原則｢手段合比例性｣的審查，應屬違憲。另外，參考人權事務委員會針對公政公約作成的第34號一般性意見，本罪恐有違反公政公約第19條的疑慮。為了緩和現行法下侮辱、誹謗公署罪的正當性疑慮，在構成要件層次，應該透過限縮解釋的方法，對構成要件行為增加｢足以侵害公權力正常運作｣的適性要求；在違法性層次，則應肯認刑法第310條第3項及第311條於本罪的適用，並進一步考慮個案中的實質違法性問題。
並列摘要
According to the Criminal Code of Taiwan Article 140 Paragraph 2 and the Assembly and Parade Act Article 30, insulting and defaming public agencies are criminal offenses in Taiwan. However, the legitimacy of such offences is highly controversial. Through the study of political philosophy, this article proposed that the only justifiable purpose of a state is to preserve the rights and liberty of its citizens. In the field of criminal law, this article argued that we can utilize the concept of legal good as a normative standard to analyze and criticize criminal legislations. General validity concerning interpersonal reality is the feature that makes the legal good to have the function of criticism and keeping away from excluding minorities. Among all legal goods proposed to be protected by the norm, “governmental function” is the only one that suffices the feature of “general validity”. Insulting public agencies has no risk of harming governmental functions. Defaming public agencies might interfere with governmental functions in certain circumstances; however, the scope of “defaming public agencies” in the current provision is too broad. As a consequence, this article considered offences of defaming public agencies is not a just criminal preposition. Also, this article proposed that offences of insulting and defaming public agencies disproportionately restrict freedom of speech and therefore is against Articles 11 and 23 of the Constitution and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Accordingly, it is necessary to adopt limited explanation method to interpret the current provisions. This article suggested that the “capability of interference with public functions” should be taken into account as the key element when interpreting the term “insulting and defaming public agencies”. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider not only the justifications approved by the Criminal Code of Taiwan Article 310 Paragraph 3 and Article 311, but also the concept of “substantial illegality” established in recent judgments in Taiwan.
參考文獻
中文部分
王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕(2013)，《刑事訴訟法(上)》，二版，臺北：承法。
王皇玉(2016)，《刑法總則》，二版，臺北：新學林。
古承宗(2017)，《刑法的象徵化與規制理性》，台北：元照。
台灣社會法與社會政策學會(編)(2015)，《社會法》，臺北：元照。