美國誹謗法所稱“真正惡意“法則之研究

The Actual Malice Rule as Applied under American Defamation Law

吳永乾(Joe Y. C. Wu)

《中正大學法學集刊》 15期 (2004/04) Pp. 1-97

https://doi.org/10.30094/NCCULJ.200404.0001

摘要

美國誹謗法所稱真正惡意法則的精義，就是把普通法設定由被告提出並舉證的真實抗辯，轉變成由原告（控方）證明被告「明知陳述不實或完全不在乎其真偽」的誹謗成立要件。從訴訟程序立論，這無疑是舉證責任的轉換，而轉換舉證事項則是誹謗陳述真偽性的認識問題，證據說服強度也由一般民事訴訟所要求的「證據優勢」，提升到「確實清楚」。蘇利文案所建立的此一法則，原本是針對具有公務員身分的民事原告而設，不過聯邦最高法院在後來的一些誹謗案例裹，陸續將適用範圍擴大到刑事誹謗、公眾人物、甚至於非公眾人物就涉及公共事務的誹謗言論請求懲罰性損害賠償的情況。
其他民主憲政國家並不認同美國以原告身分區別名譽保護程度的作法，因此拒絕全盤移植真正惡意法則。絕大多數國家在維持真實抗辯制度的前提下，從減輕被告對誹謗陳述真實性的舉證責任或擴張解釋免責特權的範圍著手，提供媒體及一般人民更寬廣的表現自由空間。我國大法官釋字509號解釋所採取的合理確信原則，旨在減輕被告的真實舉證責任，法理上應一體適用於民、刑事誹謗，且不宜有被告為媒體或非媒體之分。

關鍵字

表現自由 ； 誹謗 ； 真正惡意 ； 真實抗辯 ； 公正評論 ； 免責特權 ； 公衆人物 ； 公共事務 ； 合理確信 ； 懲罰性損害賠償

並列摘要

The actual malice rule as applied under American defamation law has largely replaced the common law defense of truth, which has to be pleaded and proved by a defendant in defamation cases, with a requirement that the plaintiff show the statement was published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. From a procedural perspective, this rule effectively shifts the burden of proof regarding the truth or falsity of a libelous statement from defendants to plaintiffs. The proof of actual malice must be clear and convincing, an unusually high standard of proof in civil actions where normally proof on the balance of probabilities suffices. As first established in Sullivan, the actual malice rule was applied to public-official plaintiffs in civil libel. Gradually, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended the application of the rule to criminal libel, public-figure plaintiffs, and private figures who are suing for punitive damages based on speech concerning public matters.
Other modern democracies can hardly appreciate the American approach in differentiating the extent of protection for reputational interests based on the identity of the plaintiff, and hence have refused to adopt the actual malice rule straightforwardly. While maintaining the truth defense, most jurisdictions, unlike the U.S., provide the media and the general public with better protection for freedom of expression either by lessening the rigidity of proving the truth of factual statements or by broadening the scope of privileged speech. The ROC Judicial Yuan has adopted a reasonable belief test in its Interpretation No. 509 that aims at relaxing the defendant's burden of proving the truth. As the analysis hereof may command, this test should be applicable both to civil and criminal defamation cases with no distinction between media defendants and nonmedia defendants.

並列關鍵字

freedom of expression ； defamation ； actual malice ； defense of truth ； fair comment ； privileges ； public figure ； public concerns ； reasonable belief ； punitive damages