《摘要》 如何在保障媒體新聞自由與個人名譽法益間尋求平衡，一直是現代民主法治國家刻不容緩的課題，為了進一步保障新聞自由，大法官會議於民國八十九年七月七日公布了大法官釋字第五０九號解釋，正式將美國施行已久的「真正惡意」法則納入我國誹謗法制中，然而隨後「真正惡意」法則的擴張使用，卻也讓新聞自由與個人名譽法益的衝突日深。本研究聚焦探討此一重要課題，根據我國法律對於誹謗罪的相關規定，蒐集自大法官釋字第五０九號解釋公布後，至民國九十七年七月之前的誹謗判例，運用案例研究分析，從中了解司法體系對於誹謗案件「真正惡意」法則適用情形，以及相關現象的發展趨勢。 研究結果發現，各級法院在審理誹謗案件時，並沒有適用「真正惡意」法則的一致標準。本研究以為，「真正惡意」法則的適用，應該根據涉案人的身份，以及所涉言論內容性質，而有不同程度的適用，以避免一體適用時，反而無法確保審判的周全性、合理性、公平性。

《Abstract》 The controversy between the freedom of the press and libel has always been an important issue in media law. It was not until July 7, 2000, has the “actual malice principle” been introduced to Taiwan criminal law system. The purpose of this study is to exam applications of the “actual malice principle” to the media libel cases in Taiwan. One hundred and fifty-three cases between July 7, 2000 and July 31, 2008 were collected and analyzed in which 32 cases were directly related to media. The result shows that the introduction of the “actual malice principle” did improve the protection of the freedom of the press in Taiwan. Only 2 out of the total 32 media libel lawsuits lose their cases. Nevertheless, judges in Taiwan tend to not only apply the “actual malice principle” to media libel cases but also to general libel cases. Further researches are needed to examine whether this new application of “actual malice principle” is to improve or endanger the protection of the freedom of the press.