透過您的圖書館登入
IP:174.129.59.198
  • 學位論文

新聞自由vs.名譽權-從民事名譽侵權案件看媒體過失責任與合理查證之標準

Press Freedom vs. Right of Reputation-The Fault Standards and Reasonable Investigation in Civil Defamation Cases

指導教授 : 洪貞玲
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


新聞自由在民主社會中被新聞工作者奉為最高核心價值,但記者於報導時又須面臨侵害報導對象名譽的風險。近年來台灣媒體經常遭到政府官員、公眾人物控訴侵犯名譽權,嚴重影響記者心理與工作權益。本研究認為,媒體作為監督政府的第四權,甚至是獨立於資本利益及財團的第五權,在報導公共事務上應享有最大程度的保障,方能助於民主社會之發展。 本研究以媒體涉訟的名譽侵權民事訴訟為研究對象,分析上訴至最高法院的十一個民事名譽權侵害案件,探討當今法院賦予新聞自由之內涵。研究發現,部份法院將新聞自由視為言論自由的一部份,有的則強調其特殊性;最高法院主張媒體擔負的「監督」功能,因與公共利益有關,需給予最大程度保障。 法院在民事侵權案件中,已採納大法官釋字第五○九號的「相當理由確信為真」原則,但有兩種解釋模式,分別為「真實惡意」與「合理查證」。最高法院則主要採「合理查證」解釋,認為媒體若有相當理由確信報導為真,就已經盡到善良管理人之注意義務而無過失,相當於抽象輕過失。在地方與高等法院則經常出現「真實惡意」解釋,此不同於美國法院的「真實惡意原則」,較多為認定媒體是否有惡意動機,作為微調媒體過失責任之工具,但需要再更詳盡說明以避免混淆。 案件公共性是啟動「相當理由確信為真」原則的關鍵,即強調媒體扮演的「監督」功能,影響新聞媒體負擔的善良管理人注意義務的增減。研究發現,公共性在法院的定義中仍過於模糊,難以細緻化法院在認定媒體過失責任時,何種類型的言論以及報導對象應受較多或較少的保障。 當報導被認定與真實有出入時,媒體如何查證成為實際判斷其有無過失的條件。本研究歸納出法院判決的檢視標準,分別是報導來源及其可信度、衡平報導、報導時效性與查證能力、報導寫作方式,但也發現是否符合該標準仍然取決法院主觀認定,將使新聞工作者難有一明確遵循原則。

並列摘要


Press freedom is the highest core for the journalists in democratic society; however, they also have to face the risk of defamation. In recent years, journalists are accused by public officials or public figures, which severely influenced their mentality and the rights of work. As Fourth Estate to superintend the government, even as Fifth Estate, which is independent from capitalists, news media should have the extraordinary protection in order to help the development of democratic society. This study analyzes eleven civil defamation cases which appealed to supreme courts, trying to realize how the courts considering press freedom. It shows that some courts regard it as part of the freedom of speech; while others emphasize its specialty. The supreme courts affirm that news media should have the extraordinary protection since they account for supervision, which relate to public interests. In these cases, the courts have adopted the rule raised in the Interpretation NO.509; that is, when the accused has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true, they must be found not guilty of defamation. This rule is explained as two standards, which are actual malice and reasonable investigation. The latter one equals to the concept of subjective negligence and supports by Supreme Courts Civil Panel. However, in Local Courts and High Courts, they also use the word actual malice but the concept is different from the principle used in U.S.A. Here it means that whether the media have bad motives and will be used to adjust the fault standards. It should, nevertheless, be declared more clearly to avoid the misunderstanding. Emphasizing the function of media as a “watchdog”, the publicity in these cases is the key of using the rule in the Interpretation NO.509 in order to increase or decrease the obligatory of media. It is found that the definition of publicity is still too vague, which is difficult to know what type of speech and figures should require more or less protection. When the news is not totally true, how the media investigate become the elements of considering whether they have falsehood. In this study, it sorts the standards of reasonable investigation used by the courts, which are reporting sources and its liability, balanced reports, the time benefits of report, the ability of investigation and the writing forms. Nevertheless, how these standards used are still decided by the subjectivity of judges which makes it more difficult for news media to follow.

參考文獻


謝清傑(2010)。《刑法第311條第3款善意適當評論之適用問題》。交通大學管理學院科技法律學程碩士論文。
許曉菁(2004)。《美國新聞誹謗判決審查標準之研究-兼論呂秀蓮訴新新聞案-》。臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。
許家馨(2012)。〈言論自由與名譽權的探戈:我國名譽侵權法實務與理論之回顧與前瞻〉,《政大法學評論》,128:203-260。
許家馨(2011)。〈什麼樣的民主?什麼樣的新聞自由?——從民主理論視野分析美國新聞自由法制〉,《政大法學評論》,124:1-71。
呂麗慧(2011)。〈論名譽權保護與言論自由保護的衡平與衝撞-從美國侵害名譽權法之啟示論析我國民事侵害名譽權法之問題與發展〉,《高雄大學法學論叢》,6(2):131-191。

被引用紀錄


葉偉立(2016)。論侵害名譽權之不法性〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610107

延伸閱讀