不表意自由之研究：從理論到實踐

本文採取比較憲法研究方法、語言學批判言談分析法及傳播學之符號學分析法，論文共分六章，第一章包括研究動機、研究範圍及研究方法、名詞定義、我國及美國法文獻回顧，以及本文論點及架構。第二章比較我國司法院大法官解釋與美國聯邦最高法院強迫言論法則之源起案例，以釐清不表意自由相關爭議。第三章探討不表意自由定義、理論基礎與保障範圍，以及強迫言論之「言論」定義。第四章介紹美國法之強迫言論類型，分析美國強迫言論法則之核心爭議，再依本文主張之不表意自由理論基礎及言論定義，檢討各該強迫言論類型。第五章比較我國與美國法強迫言論之司法審查，並提出本文見解，繼而評析我國大法官解釋，第六章則說明研究結論及研究展望。本文主張，不表意自由為「不被操弄思考過程之權利」，其憲法上權利依據為「言論自由」，應區分「主觀意見表達之強迫」與「客觀事實陳述之強迫」而異其理論基礎，前者為「思想自由」，後者主要為「隱私權」。至於憲法之「言論」定義，應以語言符號在「日常社會生活中之社會實踐」判斷。本文主張，「主觀意見表達強迫」只有傳統強迫言論類型，「客觀事實陳述強迫」排除非屬言論者，包括一般強迫揭露及強迫揭露個人身分類型。又「主觀意見表達之強迫」應依強迫表達或揭露之內心信念是否與個人人格發展等核心事務密切相關、懲罰或獎賞之高低，決定是否採取較為嚴格之審查標準；「強迫客觀事實陳述」則應依所揭露資訊之性質是否屬於私密敏感事項、是否易與其他資料結合為詳細之個人檔案，採取不同密度之審查標準。不表意自由在美國及我國仍屬新興議題，本文梳理不表意自由之理論與實務，期許學界能加入更多討論，並繼續研究本文未完之特殊場域、身分者之強迫言論議題。

關鍵字

不表意自由；思想自由；強迫言論；雙歷程理論；言論涵蓋範圍；語言符號；認知失調理論

並列摘要

The methodology of this dissertation includes comparative constitutional law, critical discourse analysis and semiotic analysis. First, it explains purpose of this dissertation, research area, methodology, and etc. Then, it compares “freedom not to speak” cases in Taiwan Constitutional Court (hereinafter TCC) and U.S. Supreme Court in order to identify related controversies. Chapter 3 discusses the definition of “freedom not to speak”, its theoretical foundation, and the coverage of “speech”. Chapter 4 analyzes different categories of compelled speech recognized by U.S. Supreme Court and its main issues, then it reexamines these cases under the proposition suggested in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 suggests levels of scrutiny for compelled speech, then apply in the preceding TCC interpretations. Finally, it responds the issues presented in the first chapter, and explains future expectation. This dissertation argues “freedom not to speak” is a right not to be manipulated thinking process, its constitutional right foundation is “free speech”. The theoretical foundation of “compelled statement of opinions” is “freedom of thought”, while “compelled statement of facts” foundation is “right of privacy”. The meaning of “speech” in Constitutional law shall consider the social practice of linguistic sign in everyday life. It suggests “compelled statement of opinions” only includes traditional compelled speech cases, whereas “compelled statement of facts” includes compelled disclosure cases and compelled disclosure of personal identity cases. Considering the different level of scrutiny, the former cases depends on the belief speaker held and the severe or greatness of punishment/reward; the latter depends on the sensitivity of the disclosed information, and whether the information may be easily combined with other information to form a detailed personal data. “Freedom not to speak” remains a novel topic in Taiwan and U.S., it shall be expected that there will be further discussions on the unfinished research related to special domains and special personal status.