論兒少色情管制之正當性

兒少色情（Child Pornography），形式上係以兒童或少年從事之性活動為內容的色情素材，實質上多被定性為對於兒童或少年進行性虐待或性剝削的紀錄。然而，本諸幼兒至上社會對於兒童或少年多採取極端保護的策略，認為兒童或少年應當遠離性並保持純潔，從而在這樣的的「理型」下，「性虐待」及「性剝削」概念被無限地延展，致使兒少色情的範圍亦在這種背景下在各國呈現寬窄不一但幾乎皆呈現擴張之趨勢。由於「性虐待」及「性剝削」在如此擴張與演化的過程中顯現概念定義的不清晰，此導致作為我國兒少色情管制規範的《兒童及少年性剝削防制條例》無法受明確的「性剝削」概念之指引，因而產生該條例中第36條至第39條兒少色情規範解釋之困境，而這樣的窘境在既有學說實務對於兒少色情保護法益（兒童及少年身心健全發展）中出現。兒童及少年身心健全發展之個人法益、社會法益混合說或二者的混合說，在內容上各有其優缺點，也各有其無法妥適發揮法益機能的狀況，是以本文主張倘若繼續採取法益理論作為批判立法、規範正當性的依據，將會違反憲法價值，且無以透過法律言說說服保守派或自由派改變兒少色情管制的堅定立場。具體來說，除了因為身心發展健全的概念模糊使得無法明確發揮法益指引解釋之機能以外，也因為要發揮法益的限縮刑罰機能，就必須仰賴刑法通說對於法益所寄託的自由主義思維才能達成。然而，在憲法涵容多元價值的情況下，以自由主義之法益概念批判立法的作法將有高度違反權力分立原則之虞，是以我們勢必當放棄法益概念，轉往以基本權及比例原則作為規範正當性的基準。以主觀與客觀解釋之法學方法詮釋《兒童及少年性剝削防制條例》第2條指明條款後可以知悉，兒少色情犯罪的規範目的應為防免未成年人的性自主決定權受到侵害，且依據個體的性發展是否已成熟而可分為「性自主決定權（性發展已成熟之未成年人）」及「隱含身心不受傷害權的性自主決定權（性發展未成熟的未成年人）」。據此，在進行違憲審查時應當將未成年人性自主決定權作為保全利益，和行為人的基本權相互權衡，唯有當立法者充分且多元地考量所有涉及的基本權時，兒少色情規範才屬於合憲之法律。於後，本文將說明除了無正當理由持有兒少色情罪之行為規範屬於違憲規定之外，其他行為規範亦由於立法者未能依照個體的性成熟程度進行規範上的區分，不當干預已成熟之未成年人的性自主決定權，亦為違憲，僅係後者可以透過合憲性解釋而已。另外，就制裁規範之部分，由於部分罪名併科罰金的金額顯然不當超越我國刑法當中的其他罪名，違反比例原則，故該等制裁規範應為違憲規範。最後，本文將提出對於司法可以遵循的、合憲的解釋方式之建議以及立法者將來制訂規範時可以採取的策略。

關鍵字

兒少色情；兒童色情；性剝削；兒童及少年性剝削防制條例

並列摘要

Child pornography is a pornographic material which portrays a child who participates sexual activities; however, the courts focus on the child who suffers from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. The protection of a child is deemed as a priority for the whole society which insists that child should stay away from sex and keep pure; therefore, the concept of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation is expanded without limits in this prototype and affects the boundary of child pornography. Due to expansion and uncertainty of the concept of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, not only Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act but also the legal interest of child pornography can’t be guided by the definite concept of sexual exploitation. The interpretation of personal legal interests, public interests or combination of both explanation has its own pros and cons, the most important of all, the interpretation can’t abide by the protection of legal interests. Therefore, adoption of legal interest’s theory will violate the value of the Constitution and can’t persuade Conservative or Liberal to change the standpoint of child pornography. Concretely speaking, the principle of last resort should depend on liberalism, however, it will highly violate the principle of separation of power based on the Constitution which contains the value of diversity. In the end, we have to abandon the concept of legal interest and turn our glare to the basic rights and the principle of proportionality. The purpose of the punishment of child pornography is to prevent a child’s sexual autonomy from being infringed according to the interpretation of article 2 of Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act and it can be divided into two categories depending on the maturity of the sexual development. Therefore, the legislators should balance the agent’s basic rights and the child’s sexual autonomy to make the function of regulation for child pornography in accordance with the Constitution. The article will demonstrate that not only article 39 of Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act but also the other regulations which do not distinguish the maturity of the sexual development violates the Constitution. However, the latter can be explained by constitutional interpretation. Besides, regarding the sanctioned norm, partial regulations which impose an additional fine violates the principle of proportionality. At the last, the article will provide a reasonable interpretation for the Judicial and a legal strategy for the legislators to enact the law in the future.