論性的刑事規制─散布猥褻物品罪之再檢視

A Review of Obscenity Rules in Criminal Law

李庭歡(Ting-Huan Li)

指導教授 ： 周漾沂

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201900164

摘要

刑法第235條處罰散布猥褻物品的行為，然而何謂猥褻概念，透過大法官釋字第617號解釋區別硬蕊與軟蕊資訊的方式，仍然無法透過社會心理情緒的反應，以及與藝術性、醫學性物品的區分方式，實質認定何謂猥褻資訊。本文根本質疑類型化區分言論的方式，主張猥褻概念只是社會區分性常軌與性變態的建構產物，該建構行為類型並予以規制的方式是否具正當性，仍須回到刑法的法規範目的做檢視。經由本文對於法益理論的爬梳與檢討，本文仍舊認為刑法的規範目的在於保護法益，為使得在共同體制生存下的個體其平等且自由的地位得以實踐，法益概念必須與權利理念相橋接，個人法益與集體法益必須符合普遍有效性的證立誡命，才能使得個體間權利主體地位獲得規範上的承認，並以此檢視散布猥褻物品罪背後的保護法益，善良風俗的觀點違反集體法益作為護衛法權體制的規範誡命。既然刑法的目的在於規範主體間外在行為互動界線，使得個體的內在自由貫徹在外在行為自由的實現，傷害原則相較冒犯原則更能與規範上權利保障的概念相連結，所謂刑法上的傷害便是對另一個體權利主體地位的否定。以此檢視散布猥褻物品的行為，由於欠缺對於女性及未成年人集體權利的傷害論證，因此本文主張廢除散布猥褻物品罪的規範，以性解放的觀點看待各種多元的性詮釋，真正落實每一個體其自由且平等的權利實現。

關鍵字

猥褻 ； 保護法益 ； 傷害原則 ； 冒犯原則 ； 言論自由

並列摘要

According to the Art. 235 of the Criminal Code, the distribution, broadcast, sale, or public display of obscene materials is prohibited. However, it is controversial to define the meaning of obscene materials. Even though No. 617 of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation defines the obscenity by distinguishing the difference in hardcore and softcore pornography, it is still questionable to explain and describe the meaning of obscenity referred to emotional reaction of average people, or to make the obscenity different from artistic, medical or educational value. The way how the law maker defines obscene materials expresses how the society values and treats the normality and abnormality of sexual behaviors. Whether evaluating specific sexual behavior as the obscenity and then prohibiting it is appropriate depends on the legal purpose of criminal law. The main purpose of criminal legislation is protecting legal good. Since every person living in a community should be equal and free, the concept of legal good is necessarily connected to the basic rights. Both personal and collective legal good should fit the standard of general validity, which makes every person as a subjectivity is equally accepted under the law. Therefore, the purpose of the protection of sexual morality and public order in the Art. 235 violates the rule of collective legal good as the protective mechanism for a person fulfilling the freedom. Furthermore, since criminal legislation decides the limitation on external behaviors among people and makes the freedom come true, the harm principle is better than the offense principle to connect the conception of basic rights and to illuminate such external limitation. The harm under criminal law means the rejection to one person as a subjectivity. Reviewing on the obscenity rule in the Art. 235 by the harm principle, due to the deficiency of the proof of the harm to women and minority rights, the crime of the public display of obscene materials shall be abandoned. Instead of sexual oppression, only sexual liberation satisfies the requirement of the right to be free and equal for every subjectivity.

並列關鍵字

obscenity ； protection of legal good ； harm principle ； offense principle ； freedom of speech

參考文獻

中文文獻

1.Gustav Radbruch（著），王怡蘋、林宏濤（譯）（2011），《法學導論─給法律人的第一本書》，頁35，台北:商周。

2.John Stuart Mill（著）, 程崇華（譯）（1986），《論自由》，台北：西潮文庫。

3.Rainer Zaczyc（著），廖宜寧、林倍伸（譯）（2018），《自律與法權》，台北：五南。

4.Ronald Dworkin（著），孫建智（譯）（2013），《認真對待權利》，台北：五南。