論新聞記者之拒絕證言權 —以美國聯邦最高法院及歐洲人權法院判決為中心

Journalist’s Privilege - Focusing on the Decisions of U.S. Supreme Court and the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

張庭維(Ting-Wei Chang)

指導教授 ： 許宗力

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.00723

摘要

我國刑事訴訟法迄今仍未明文保障新聞記者之拒絕證言權；雖然刑事訴訟法第182條為基於職業關係而得拒絕證言之規定，惟該條規範得拒絕證言之主體並不包含新聞記者，且我國學界通說及實務多認為該條文所明文可主張拒絕證言之職業為列舉規定，故新聞記者不得援引該條文主張拒絕證言。
西元2005年勁永案（俗稱股市禿鷹案）為我國司法實務首次因新聞記者主張拒絕證言權而被裁罰之司法案件。惟在法律無明文規範之情況下，審理該案之各級法院於利益權衡後皆認高姓新聞記者並無擁有拒絕證言之記者特權。後雖歷經數次立委提案修法，惟迄今仍立法未果。直至日前（西元2012年）李宗瑞案爆發，仍有記者被要求透露消息來源，新聞記者是否得主張拒絕證言此一爭議再度浮出檯面，可見新聞記者是否具有拒絕證言權在我國尚無相關立法之前仍有探討實益之問題。
本文首先自比較法之觀點，比較美國聯邦法院以及歐洲人權法院之相關判決，最後連結至我國的司法實務判決，並對於三者之異同作比較分析。
其次，本文從言論自由及新聞自由之本質出發，比較上開兩權利之異同，並進而探討新聞記者拒絕證言權究竟受上開何種憲法權利所保障。
又，由於今日數位匯流時代已來臨，身為地球村一份子的台灣亦不例外，在數位匯流時代下定義新聞媒體已成為法律人不可迴避之問題，故本文將進一步討論在新媒體來臨的時代中，何謂新聞記者？以及是否每一種新媒體記者皆可主張新聞記者之拒絕證言權，並探討與新聞記者拒絕證言特權相關之其他問題。
最終，本文將綜合前開比較法的觀點以及傳統媒體與新媒體之異同，提出我國新聞記者拒絕證言權之立法建議，並且，同時提出在立法機關制定相關法律時立法機關應注意之界限，以及在我國尚無相關立法前，如何因應之暫時措施。

關鍵字

新聞自由 ； 新聞記者拒絕證言權 ； 新聞記者定義 ； 數位匯流 ； 正確性 ； 適當性 ； 編輯制度

並列摘要

There is no journalist’s privilege in Code of Criminal Procedure of R.O.C. yet. Although Article 182 of Code of Criminal Procedure is about the protection for certain people having the right to refuse to testify during criminal procedure based on their careers, journalists are not included. Besides the scholars and the judicial decisions of the courts in Taiwan generally contend Article 182 of Code of Criminal Procedure only protects those people whose jobs are listed in that article. Therefore, journalists have no privilege under Article 182 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
PQI case（勁永案） which occurred in 2005 was the first judicial decision about a journalist fined because of refusing to disclose his source. But in the end, all the judges who had ever heard the case considered the journalist in PQI case had no privilege because there was no law to protect him. In order to solve such a problem, several bills that gave journalists privilege were introduced by legislators, but all failed eventually. Lately, Justin Li’s scandal（李宗瑞事件） happened in 2012, and some reporters were summoned by the police to disclose their sources, which showed whether or not to give reporters privilege is still a very important issue in our country even until nowadays.
Firstly, this thesis compares the judicial decisions among three different countries/areas which embrace the United States, European Court of Human Rights, and Taiwan.
Secondly, the essentials of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are listed and compared with. Then, it is discussed that under which freedom above journalists’ privilege is protected.
Thirdly, with the coming of “digital convergence”, Taiwan too requires to define the definition of “who is a journalist?” in the age of web 2.0. For this reason, this thesis goes on discussing who the journalist is in the age of web 2.0, whether or not “every kind” of journalist could assert that he owns the privilege not to disclose his source, and some other relative issues.
Finally, the thesis would follow all the conclusions above and give some suggestions which include the recommended bill of journalists’ privilege, the boundaries the Legislative Yuan need to notice when Legislative Yuan execute its constitutional power to make laws, and some temporary solutions before the law which give journalists privilege have been enacted.

並列關鍵字

freedom of the press ； journalists’ privilege ； the definition of a journalist ； digital convergence ； correctness ； appropriateness ； the function of editing

參考文獻

黃琳君（2009）。《通訊傳播規範於數位匯流下之困境與變革：以多合一服務（Triple-Play Service）為中心》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文（未出版），新竹。

司法院釋字第371號解釋及理由書

司法院釋字第567號解釋及理由書

司法院釋字第572號解釋及理由書

司法院釋字第590號解釋及理由書