去類型化猥褻性言論之理論建構—美國法之比較研究

我國釋憲實務在處理猥褻言論管制合憲性的問題上，採取了與美國法院實務類同之定義式衡量方法，類型化了猥褻性言論而僅給予憲法言論自由的低度保障，故而僅對政府的管制行為為寬鬆審查。然而，本文基於下述理由採取反對立場，而主張應暫時回歸個案利益權衡方式為處理。首先乃類型化猥褻性言論的正當性基礎問題。本文否定抽象的社會公共善得一般性地凌駕於猥褻言論價值，而得出憲法低度甚或不保障此類型言論的主張；至於常見主張此類言論的行使，有造成他人具體傷害的可能（例如青少年身心發展健康，不願受干擾之人及受性歧視之人的權利），本文仍主張在此些傷害與猥褻性言論之因果性連結，尚有爭議的情形下，不宜以此為由而一般性地降低此類型言論受憲法保障的程度。其次，本文雖接受定義式利益權衡方式連結至雙階理論的操作方式，仍是處理言論自由案件較佳的方法論，但前提是須能夠有明確的標準足以界定（或定義）該言論類型。倘若尚不具備此一明確標準，則為免對於利益保障偏倚任何一端，宜避免事先一般性地劃定某類型言論的價值，而應轉採用個案利益權衡方式解決之。總此，本文主張應放棄類型化猥褻性言論，於一般法院個案審判中進行個案的利益權衡；而反映在法規範制定上，立法者對於與性相關之言論（性言論）的規範，仍應面臨較為嚴格的違憲審查檢驗。

關鍵字

猥褻；色情；性言論；個案權衡方法；定義式衡量方法；法律明確性原則；釋字第617號解釋；刑法第235條

並列摘要

When be asked to determine constitutionality on regulations of obscene speech, the Taiwan Constitutional Court tends to follow the U.S. court standard-“definitional balancing approach” to categorize obscene speech, wherein obscene speech will be categorized and usually minimum level of freedom of speech protection are offered when examining government regulations in this respect. However, this essay adopts a different position that “ad hoc balancing approach” shall be more appropriate in dealing with the above issue. The reasons are as follows:1. First, regarding the legal basis of the “definitional balancing approach”, this essay will provide a view that public interest shall not automatically be considered that it would weigh more than the value of obscene speech and it is also unjustified to conclude that certain types of speech shall desire very minimum or no protection under the Constitutional Law. There are allegations that certain types of speeches would lead to or likely to bring about damages in some respects, such as negative influence to children/teenagers' development, disturbance to persons that want to avoid unwanted speeches and to sex discriminations etc. However, before the causation linkage between the obscene speech and the alleged damages can be adequately proved, it is unjustified to generally reduce the degree of protection of freedom of speech.2. I agree that the “definitional balancing approach” works better for freedom of speech disputes. Nonetheless, it should be first ascertained that all kinds of speeches can be properly defined or categorized. If no clear definition can be established, it would be better not to pre-judge the value of any speeches to avoid bias against to certain values and to bring in the “ad hoc balancing approach” in resolving the relevant disputes To sum up, I would propose to abolish the “categorizing obscene speeches” approach and to apply ”ad hoc balancing approach” to determine the dispute on a case by case basis. When it comes to sex oriented speeches, the governments' regulations shall still be subject to strict judicial scrutiny.