透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.191.135.224
  • 學位論文

性表意自由之研究—以大法官解釋及相關規範為論述中心

指導教授 : 陳文政
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


我國關於性言論的大法官解釋主要為釋字第407號解釋及釋字第617號解釋,這兩號解釋均涉及刑法第二百三十五條猥褻罪中有關「猥褻」與否的認定,惟大法官以性慾是否獲得滿足、是否引起普通一般人羞恥或厭惡感作為判斷是否構成猥褻的標準,本文認為有斟酌、檢討的空間。 本文將從美國學者納思邦(Martha C. Nussbaum)的噁心與羞恥之情感哲學取徑,檢視我國大法官以「引起普通一般人的羞恥或厭惡感」作為刑法規制猥褻物品或言論的理由所可能產生的問題,並論述國內學者對相關議題的觀點,以期更瞭解相關規定的合憲性。最後,本文將討論焦點集中在大法官對性言論規制的「價值」選擇,藉此說明「價值」在憲法解釋中的運用直接影響了性言論的保障,並進一步尋找刑法性言論規制之違憲審查的合理操作模式。

關鍵字

性言論 刑法第235條 猥褻 羞恥 價值

並列摘要


In our country, Chief Justice Interpretations about sex expression are mainly included in the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 407 and No. 617, both of which involve whether to judge "obscenity" that is also stipulated in Crime of Obscene Act in Article 235 of the Criminal Code. But only Chief Justice Interpretation takes whether sexual desire has been satisfied and whether shame sense or disgust is caused in ordinary people as standards for judgment of obscenity. This article sees it that there are spaces for consideration and review. This article, from views of disgust and shame philosophy raised by US scholar Martha C. Nussbaum, views possible problems caused by our justices' standards that "whether sexual desire has been satisfied and whether shame sense or disgust is caused in ordinary people" are taken as standards for judgment of obscene material or expression. It also discusses about opinions of domestic scholars on related topics in order to understand constitutionality of related regulations. Finally, this article focuses discussions on choices in "value" of sex expression regulations by justices to explain that use of "value" in constitution interpretation directly affects protection of sex expression. It further seeks rational operation modes for judicial review of sex expression regulations that is stipulated in the Criminal Code.

參考文獻


李仁淼,〈網路內容規制立法之違憲審查與表現自由—以美國法上對網路色情資訊規制立法之憲法訴訟為線索〉,《中正法學集刊》,第12期,2003年7月,頁35-144。
高玉泉,〈網際網路上兒童色情資訊規範之回顧與檢討(1999-2002):一個由兒童人權出發的觀點〉,《中正法學集刊》,第11期,2003年4月,頁3-62。
高玉泉,〈後網路時代網路內容規範之演變與評價—以未成年人保護為中心之探討〉,《國立中正大學法學集刊》,第20期,2005年4月,頁91-116。
鄭逸哲,〈「公然猥褻」和「公然性交」均未必犯罪〉,《法令月刊》,第六十卷第一期,2009年1月,頁4-15。
劉靜怡,〈一個自由主義女性法學者的憲法反思:錯亂「淨化」價值觀下的情色言論規範框架曾否改變?〉,《律師雜誌》,第313期,10月號,2005年,頁38-60。

延伸閱讀