透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.207.126.53
  • 學位論文

言論事前審查之研究--以醫藥廣告為中心

A Study on Prior Restraint of Speech --Focus on Advertisement for Medicines, Medical Treatment and Medical Devices

指導教授 : 劉靜怡
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


過去我國於大法官釋字第414號解釋,認為商業廣告保障程度有別於其他一般性言論,並宣告藥品廣告事前審查合憲,然而在釋字744號中提出了迥異於釋字414號的違憲審查基準,認為行之有年的「化粧品廣告事前審查制」為對於言論自由之重大干預,並進而宣告違憲;故而釋字做成後衍生的諸多討論,包含商業廣告的保障程度與事前審查禁止原則的適用 事前審查係指在實際發表或者出版之前,政府事前加諸限制在言論或者其他形式的表意行為,由於事前審查可謂是對言論最嚴重的抑制,可能會導致人民為了避免受到裁罰,產生「自我審查」以及寒蟬效應的後果。因此,在美日等國的實務以及學理上有所謂的「事前審查禁止原則」,亦即原則不允許為事前審查,僅在極為例外的情形下方得為之,亦即符合法規明確的要求、最小手段的要求以及賦予程序的保障。而大法官也在釋字744號中提出了原則禁止事前審查的要求,並且也在目的審查中提出非常嚴格的審查標準。然而事前審查禁止原則是否適用於商業廣告的案件,以及未來其他商業廣告事前審查的案件中是否皆適用釋字744號的標準實際上都是有待討論的問題。 此外,我國尚有其他同樣採取事前審查的商業廣告規範,本文的研究客體限定在與釋字第744號的審查標的性質相近的藥品廣告、醫療器材廣告以及醫療廣告,以前述三項廣告為中心,分析醫藥廣告事前審查在釋字第744號的標準下,是否能夠通過合憲性的要求。

並列摘要


According to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.414, the Justices said that the level of protection to commercial advertisement was different from another types of speech, as a result, the prior restraint of medicinal advertisement was constitutional. However, many years later, the Justices made a new judicial review standard of prior restraint in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 744, the Justices pointed out that the prior restraint of cosmetic advertisement was a regulation that interfered the freedom of free speech seriously, and it was unconstitutional. This standard was so definitely different from the standard of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.414, and there are many discussions based on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 744 after it was issued, including the discussion of the level of protection to commercial advertisements and prohibition of prior restraint. Prior restraint is a government action that may prohibit speech、publish or other expression before it can take place , and it is the most severe regulation on speech because it will lead to the consequence that speakers exercise self-censorship to avoid the punishment. As a result, in many countries, any system of prior restraint is prohibited and bear heavy presumption against its constitutionality validity, with certain limited exceptions. In other words, prior restraint is principally unconstitutional except it meets the following requirements: the clarity of law、the necessity of means and due process protection. Besides, the Justices also affirmed that prior restraint bear heavy presumption against constitutionality validity in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 744. However, it is a problem whether this standard is applied to another commercial advertisements case or not. Furthermore, there are other commercial advertisement regulations also in the form of prior restraint. This article focus on medicinal advertisement、medical device advertisement and medical treatment advertisement, because there are some similarity between the advertisement mentioned above and cosmetic advertisement. Through the following discussion, I try to analyze the purpose of prior restraint and whether the prior restraint of medicinal advertisement、medical device advertisement as well as medical treatment advertisement be unconstitutional under the standard of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 744. Keywords:Freedom of speech, commercial advertisements, prior restraints, medicinal advertisements regulations, medical devices advertisements, medical treatment advertisements

參考文獻


壹、中文
林子儀(1999)。《言論自由與新聞自由》。臺北:元照出版社。
許志雄(2000)。《現代憲法論》。臺北:元照。
李震山(2005)。《多元、寬容與人權保障-以憲法未列舉權為保障中心》。臺北 : 元照出版社。
林世宗(2005)。《言論新聞自由與誹謗隱私權》。臺北:自版。

延伸閱讀