公共論壇的理論與實踐：臺灣經驗之分析與批判

「公共論壇」原則(Public Forum)在美國已邁入體系化發展階段,1983 年的 Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association 案,是一個很重要轉捩點,這讓「公共論壇」的分類,除「傳統公共論壇」之外,也包括了「指定公共論壇」以及「非公共論壇」。因此,Perry 案的判決使「公共論壇」發展脈絡注入新的活水源頭。「公共論壇」原則涉及公共意見表達的地點,傳統被當成通道使用的街道或公園,基於溝通的目的成為公共意見討論場域,是論述「公共論壇」原則的最初本質。美國聯邦最高法院及學術界更進一步闡述其脈絡,透過從 1930 年代開始的司法實踐過程,從司法相關案例中進行系統性梳理,逐漸發展出「公共論壇」原則,賦予人民在政府擁有的地產上,行使美國憲法第一修正案的言論自由權利。「公共論壇」原則並非原本存在或一蹴可幾的結果,而係歷經從無到有的實踐過程,成為實踐言論自由重要場域,言論自由相對的也成為落實「公共論壇」重要途徑。由於「公共論壇」原則保護了人民說話的權利,暢通表達公共事務意見管道, 其具體實踐著實和民主政治發展有密不可分的關係。本文從「公共論壇」原則發展理念及脈絡分析,推導出「公共論壇」具有「促進民主參與」、「言論自由保障」、「提升政治文化」等三項功能。「公共論壇」原則已深植於美國政治與人民日常生活之中,影響深遠,因此, 如果從美國「公共論壇」發展經驗和過程,檢證新興民主國家臺灣,特別具有啟發意義。本論文研究以為,臺灣大法官會議透過釋字第 445 號解釋、釋字的 718 號解釋和釋字第 734 號解釋,已然形塑「公共論壇」雛型框架,保障民主參與。在言論自由權利保障方面,復引進「真實惡意」原則,相繼做出釋字第 509 號解釋、釋字第 656 號解釋及釋字第 689 號等解釋,落實以保障言論自由。就制度建構而言,臺灣大法官會議著實扮演憲法守護者角色,不過,本文首先經檢證臺灣民主參與發展過程,認為的確有其正向功能,從集會遊行的次數和民間的激情投入,民主參與能量逐漸增溫,但警方執法心態則扮演其中的關鍵角色。其次,臺灣在民主化過程中之言論自由,隨著政治解除戒嚴及報禁開放,已從心靈長期桎梏中獲得解放,加諸刑法的 100 條修正,臺灣的言論自由尺度大開,的確促進媒體多元發展,但也開啟了媒體失序亂象。第三,本文透過社會資本概念論述臺灣公共論壇的政治文化形塑,發現臺灣的媒體囿於意識型識、不良的名嘴文化、欠缺發掘真相能力,致未能充分發揮媒體依賴效果,建立堅實的互信及網絡聯結,遑論發揮厚實政治文化功能。因此,本論文提出七項研究發現,認為臺灣「公共論壇」所面臨的挑戰和瓶頸, 包括「公共論壇係經由司法釋憲演繹」、「臺灣公共論壇已顯相當困境」、「強勢政府言論已威脅公共論壇」、「臺灣媒體出現市場集中化危機」、「臺灣媒體仍缺專業及自律作為」、「公共論壇未促成社會資本累積」、「公共論壇數量開放不等同提升民主品質」。本文同時提出六項研究建議,以之為臺灣「公共論壇」的標本兼治之道, 包括「強化各級法院法官的憲法意識」、「警方以秩序維護取代管制心態」、「健全言論市場以維護公共論壇」、「積極落實反媒體壟斷的法制化」、「提升媒體素養以健全公共論壇」、「提升媒體依賴以強化社會資本」。

關鍵字

公共論壇；民主參與；言論自由；政治文化；社會資本；媒體依賴

並列摘要

“Public Forum” is a place that can be used for the expression of the public affairs. Traditionally, streets and parks have been widely described as pathways for the purpose of communication. In light of these concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually built up “Public Forum Doctrine” by judicial review into the ruling since 1930s. That doctrine empowers people to access the government property to exercise the First Amendment right to freedom of speech under the US constitution. Over the past decades, the doctrine has paved the way for the prospect of diverse opinion as speaker and audience in terms of public affairs, but also has come to realize that its relationship isinextricably boundtogether in conducting democratic development. For mentioned above, the doctrine can significantly heighten three major positive advantages in promoting participatory democracy and protecting the right of free speech, as well as raising political culture. Thus, this study aims to use the doctrine as a basis for further interpreting and inspecting the development of public forum in Taiwan during the period from 1987 to 2016. More specifically, that will know more about the achievements and challenges for the country’s democratic transition and its consolidation. From the perspective of system theory, Taiwan’s Constitution Court indeed keeps an arbitrator in proposing a framework for public forum. Take participatory democracy as an example, Justice has made the interpretation of Article 445, 718 and 734. Additionall, Justice has also made the interpretation of Article 509, 656 and 689. The above three interpretations have highlighted Justice used the “actual malice principle” to protect the right of free speech. However, from the perspective of substantial impact, Taiwan’s public forum still faces challenges. First, the most significant factor is police and its law enforcement characters even if the energy of participatory democracy is booming by dint of numbers of parades and vibrant attendees passion around the country. Second, with the lifting of martial law and opening the ban of media, the right of free speech in Taiwan has made a great progress in the past decades. That also promotes the diverse speech but disorder, simultaneously. Third, Taiwan media coverage is not capable of finding the truth behind the scene due to the ideology and negative pundit culture. That is the reason why the media is fault to producing positive effect of media dependency, building the trust and its network, and operation better function of political culture. The major findings suggest that the island’s public forum faces seven challenges in the present, such as “public forum interpreted by Justice” “obvious plight in public forum”, “government speech threatening”, “the crisis of media manipulation”, “media without self-disciple discipline”, “social capital falling into dilemma” and “assessing democratic quality not in terms of the quantity of forums”. The results of the study may also propose six solutions to be a healthy public forum. The main steps include: “fostering judges' constitution consciousness”, “changing the attitude of controlling manner among policemen”, “maintaining the healthy market of speech”, “enacting the media anti-manipulation law”, “updating media accomplishment and its culture” and “promoting social capital by strengthening the effect of media dependency”.