猥褻、性與道德─由晶晶書庫案之爭議談起

Obscenity, Sex and Morality:An Argument Started with the Controversy in Gin Gin Gay Bookstore Case

林佳儀(Jia-Yi Lin)

指導教授 ： 陳妙芬

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01717

摘要

到底什麼是刑法235條所規制的「猥褻物品」？對於猥褻物品的定義，釋字407號、釋字617號都試圖在回答這個問題。然而就其所提出的猥褻定義，卻仍是問題重重，在實務上引起相當多的爭議與困難，例如晶晶書庫案的猥褻爭議即為一例。本文認為，問題正是在於實務上認定刑法235條所保護的法益為社會風化的緣故，而所謂的風化，即社會主流的性道德；而這樣的法益保護觀使得向來的猥褻概念，也是糾結、纏繞著風化概念而共生。因此本文並非是重蹈覆轍地去尋求對「猥褻物品」的最佳定義，而是跳脫以上的定義問題，去尋求以刑法作為手段來維護道德的合理性問題，於此指的尤其是所謂的「性道德」。
本文將藉由哈特與德弗林的辯論，討論在什麼樣的情況下國家有權以刑法作為手段來限制個人自由，進而引出以自由主義的「傷害原則」作為個人自由行使的界限，以及刑法規範與道德規範的界分。但傷害原則在適用上不免有模糊之處，尤其在面對猥褻物品所造成的「性道德」傷害時，典型反應是一般人噁心、羞恥等的感覺，本文將藉由瑪莎•納思邦在《逃避人性：噁心、羞恥與法律》一書中的分析，去論證諸如噁心或羞恥的情感，是不適當被評價為刑法上所保障的傷害，從而也不應作為刑法所保護的情感，是以訴諸該些情感的猥褻定義和背後所保障的社會風化，亦不具有正當性，否則刑法只是成為鞏固性多數對性少數族群之霸權宰制的工具。本文也將以上述修正過後的傷害原則，來檢視於釋字617號解釋中所提出的「硬蕊色情」領域，去正視該性文化內涵，並解構因固有的偏見與歧視所建構的傷害，進而提出硬蕊色情根本上是無害的，是以刑法也無絕對封鎖其「內容」的規範正當性。
最後將以本文之理論架構，去回答晶晶書庫案的主要爭點，並提出刑法對於性言論與性資訊的管制，應是建立在對性自主權的保障、而非社會風化上，並應根本放棄使用「猥褻」一字來作規範，因為該字眼本身即乘載著我們對性的焦慮與恐慌。

關鍵字

刑法235條 ； 釋字407號 ； 釋字617號 ； 猥褻物品 ； 風化概念 ； 晶晶書庫 ； 傷害原則 ； 納思邦 ； 噁心羞恥 ； 性少數族群 ； 硬蕊色情 ； 性自主

並列摘要

What is the meaning of “obscene material or objects” in the article 235 of the criminal code? Actually, the concept of “obscene” in itself is unclear. The two interpretations of the justice of the constitutional court (J.Y. Interpretation No. 407 and No. 617) tried to answer this question. They defined the concept of obscene to avoid violating the principle of clarity and definiteness. However, both of them can’t solve this question successfully. What’s more, their effort they made in this issue may even cause more problems when applied in real cases, like, the controversial Gin Gin gay bookstore case.
This thesis will indicate that all of the problems and difficulties mentioned above actually result from the legal interest that the article 235 of the criminal code intends to protect, the “social decency”, which the definition of the concept of obscene is involved in and can’t be divided easily. In order to avoid this traditional myth, this thesis here won’t try to find out the best definition of “obscene material or objects”. Instead, it will deal with the most fundamental issue: Whether it is reasonable to use the criminal law to remain the social morality, or better to say, the sexual morality. This thesis will use the famous “Hart- Devlin Debate”, to discuss in which condition the government has right using criminal law to restrain the personal liberty and thereby derive the “harm principle” of liberalism as the limitation of personal liberty and the line between criminal norm and moral norm. However, when the harm principle is applied, it might sometimes not be so clear, especially in the case of “sexual morality harm”, typically result in the ashamed or disgusting feeling of average people, which is generated by the obscene material or objects. Could these feelings also be recognized as harm?
To answer the question, this thesis will adopt the analysis in Martha C. Nussbaum’s book “Hiding from Humanity: disgust, shame and the law”, and point out some feelings, like shame and disgust, are not appropriate to be considered as the harms on criminal law. For this reason the protected legal interest “social decency”, which based on these feelings above, is also not legitimate-- otherwise the criminal code would just be taken as an instrument to oppress and discriminate against the sexual cultural minority. This thesis will also review the “hard core pornography”, which is absolutely forbidden in J.Y. Interpretation 617, to prove that it is harmless by facing its context of sexual culture.
Finally, this thesis will use the theories mentioned above to respond the main issue in Gin Gin gay bookstore case. I would like to make the conclusion by stating that the criminal code’s regulation of sexually explicit language or material should be based on the protected legal interest of “sexual autonomy” instead of the “social decency”, and we should not use the word “obscene” in criminal law for the sake of it in itself is already discriminated.

並列關鍵字

Article 235 of the criminal code ； J.Y. Interpretation No.407 and No.617 ； obscene material or objects ； social decency ； Gin Gin gay bookstore ； harm principle ； Martha C. Nussbaum ； disgust and shame ； sexual cultural minority ； hard core pornography ； sexual autonomy

參考文獻

王環珍 (2005)，《言論自由的限度：從自由主義觀之》，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文

何春蕤 (1998)，《好色女人》，台北：元尊文化

張宏誠 (2006)，〈法律人的同性戀恐懼症─從「晶晶同志書庫」案簡評及其聲請釋憲的現實考量〉，載於《司法改革》，2006年2月

黃榮堅 (2007)，〈對於性交易的刑法觀點─兼評大法官釋字第623號解釋〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第23期，2007年12月

謝世民 (2006)，〈猥褻言論、從娼賣淫與自由主義〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》， 第16期，2006年3月