臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：去類型化猥褻性言論之理論建構--美國法之比較研究
書刊名：臺北大學法學論叢
作者：張陳弘 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chang, Chen-hung
出版日期：2012
卷期：83
頁次：頁43-98
主題關鍵詞：猥褻；色情；性言論；個案權衡方法；定義式衡量方法；法律明確性原則；釋字第617號解釋；刑法第235條；Obscenity；Pornography；Vagueness；Ad hoc balancing test；Definitional balancing test
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:180
  • 點閱點閱:120
我國釋憲實務在處理猥褻言論管制合憲性的問題上，採取了與美國法院實務類同之定義式衡量方法，類型化了猥褻性言論而僅給予憲法言論自由的低度保障，故而僅對政府的管制行為為寬鬆審查。然而，本文基於下述理由採取反對立場，而主張應暫時回歸個案利益權衡方式為處理。首先乃類型化猥褻性言論的正當性基礎問題。本文否定抽象的社會公共善得一般性地凌駕於猥褻言論價值，而得出憲法低度甚或不保障此類型言論的主張；至於常見主張此類言論的行使，有造成他人具體傷害的可能（例如青少年身心發展健康，不願受干擾之人及受性歧視之人的權利），本文仍主張在此些傷害與猥褻性言論之因果性連結，尚有爭議的情形下，不宜以此為由而一般性地降低此類型言論受憲法保障的程度。其次，本文雖接受定義式利益權衡方式連結至雙階理論的操作方式，仍是處理言論自由案件較佳的方法論，但前提是須能夠有明確的標準足以界定（或定義）該言論類型。倘若尚不具備此一明確標準，則為免對於利益保障偏倚任何一端，宜避免事先一般性地劃定某類型言論的價值，而應轉採用個案利益權衡方式解決之。總此，本文主張應放棄類型化猥褻性言論，於一般法院個案審判中進行個案的利益權衡；而反映在法規範制定上，立法者對於與性相關之言論（性言論）的規範，仍應面臨較為嚴格的違憲審查檢驗。
When be asked to determine constitutionality on regulations of obscene speech, the Taiwan Constitutional Court tends to follow the U.S. court standard-“definitional balancing approach” to categorize obscene speech, wherein obscene speech will be categorized and usually minimum level of freedom of speech protection are offered when examining government regulations in this respect. However, this essay adopts a different position that “ad hoc balancing approach” shall be more appropriate in dealing with the above issue. The reasons are as follows: 1. First, regarding the legal basis of the “definitional balancing approach”, this essay will provide a view that public interest shall not automatically be considered that it would weigh more than the value of obscene speech and it is also unjustified to conclude that certain types of speech shall desire very minimum or no protection under the Constitutional Law. There are allegations that certain types of speeches would lead to or likely to bring about damages in some respects, such as negative influence to children/ teenagers’ development, disturbance to persons that want to avoid unwanted speeches and to sex discriminations etc. However, before the causation linkage between the obscene speech and the alleged damages can be adequately proved, it is unjustified to generally reduce the degree of protection of freedom of speech. 2. I agree that the “definitional balancing approach” works better for freedom of speech disputes. Nonetheless, it should be first ascertained that all kinds of speeches can be properly defined or categorized. If no clear definition can be established, it would be better not to pre-judge the value of any speeches to avoid bias against to certain values and to bring in the “ad hoc balancing approach” in resolving the relevant disputes. To sum up, I would propose to abolish the “categorizing obscene speeches” approach and to apply “ad hoc balancing approach” to determine the dispute on a case by case basis. When it comes to sex oriented speeches, the governments’ regulations shall still be subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
期刊論文
1.劉靜怡(20051100)。言論自由：第五講 言論自由、誹謗罪與名譽權之保障。月旦法學教室，37，36-46。  延伸查詢new window
2.許育典(20051200)。多元文化國下色情管制的憲法正當性--以中央大學性／別研究室動物戀網頁案為例。東吳法律學報，17(2)，1-92。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.李仁淼(20031200)。網際網路與表現自由--自表現自由的觀點，思考網路色情資訊規制問題。月旦法學，103，138-165。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.林志潔(20070600)。誰的標準？如何判斷？--刑法第二三五條散布猥褻物品罪及相關判決評釋。月旦法學，145，80-95。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.陳子平(20080600)。刑法第二三五條散布猥褻物品等罪之合憲論與違憲論（下）--釋字第六一七號解釋與日本實務及學說。月旦法學，157，182-201。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.李建良(19970300)。基本權利理論體系之構成及其思考層次。人文及社會科學集刊，9(1)，39-83。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.許宗力(20030900)。基本權利：第六講．基本權的保障與限制。月旦法學教室，11，64-75。  延伸查詢new window
8.Chen, I-Chung(2009)。色情管制爭議中的言論自由。人文及社會科學集刊 \ Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy，21(3)。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Huang, Rong-Jian(2006)。棄權又越權的大法官釋字第六一七號解釋。台灣本土法學 \ Taiwan Law Journal，89。  延伸查詢new window
10.Liu, Jing-Yi(2005)。政治性言論與非政治性言論。月且法學教室 \ Taiwan Jurist，30。  延伸查詢new window
11.Liu, Jing-Yi(2005)。一個自由主義女性法學者的憲法反思：錯亂「淨化」價値觀下的 情色言論規範框架曾否改變?。律師雜誌 \ Taipei Bar Journal，313。  延伸查詢new window
12.Barton, Jill(2008)。Runaway Grand Jury: Activists Attempt to Redefine Obscenity Law Kansas。UMKC L. Rev.，77，249。  new window
13.Boyce, Bret(2008)。Obscenity and Community Standards。Yale J. Int’L L.，33，299。  new window
14.Calvert, Clay、Richards, Robert D.(2007)。Stopping the Obscenity Madness 50 Years after Roth v. United State。Tex. Rev. Ent. & Sports L.，9，19-21。  new window
15.Cohen, Daniel Mark(2003)。Thirty Years Since Miller v. California: The Legacy of the Supreme Court s Misjudgmeni on Obscenity。ST. THOMAS L. REV.，15，545, 552-574。  new window
16.Community Standards(1975)。Class Actions, and Obscenity Under Miller v. California。Harv. L. Rev.，88，1838。  new window
17.Deutsch, Norman T.(2006)。Professor Nimmer Meets Professor Schauer (and Others): An Analysis of “Definitional Balancing' as a Methodology for Determining the “ Visible Boundaries of the First Amendment'。Akron L. Rev.，39，483。  new window
18.Emerson, Thomas I.(1984)。Pornography and the First Amendment: A Reply to Professor Mackinnon。Yale Law & Policy Reivew，3，130。  new window
19.Farber, Daniel A.(2009)。The Categorical Approach to Protecting Speech in American Constitutional Law。IND. L. J.，84，917, 924。  new window
20.Hefner, Marion D.(1996)。“Roast Pig” and Miller-Light: Variable Obscenity in the Nineties'。U. ILL. L. Rev.，1996，843, 845。  new window
21.Koppelman, Andrew(2005)。Does Obscenity Cause Moral Harm?。COLUM, L. Rev.，105，1635, 1654。  new window
22.MacKinnon, Catharine A.(1985)。Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech。Harv. C.R.-CL.L. Rev.，20，1, 70。  new window
23.Newman, Cara L.(2003)。Eyes Wide Open, Minds Wide Shut: Art, Obscenity, and the First Amendment in Contemporary America。DePaul L. Rev.，53，121。  new window
24.Post, Robert(2000)。The Constitutional Status of Commercial Speech。UCLA Lt REV.，48，1。  new window
25.Robbins, H. Franklin、Mason, Steven G.(2003)。The Law of Obscenity - Or Absurdity?。St. Thomas L. Rev.，15，520-528。  new window
26.Romero, Javier(2005)。itutional Vagueness and Restrictiveness in the Contextual Analysis of the Obscenity Standard: A Critical Reading of the Miller Test Genealogy。U. Pa. J, Const. L.，7，1207, 1209-1216。  new window
27.Schauer, Frederick(1981)。Categories and the First Amendment: A Play in Three Acts。VAND. L. REV.，34，265, 267-282。  new window
28.Schauer, Frederick(2003)。The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary exploration of Constitutional Salience。Harv. L. Rev.，117，1765, 1771。  new window
29.Schlag, Pierre J.(1982)。An Attack on Categorical Approaches to Freedom of Speech。UCLA L REV.，30，671,672。  new window
30.Stevens, Pamela J.(1982)。munity Standards and Federal Obscenity Prosecutions。S. Cal. L Rev，55，693。  new window
31.Stone, Geoffrey R.(2007)。Sex, Violence, and the First Amendment。U. Chi. L. Rev.，74，1857。  new window
32.Sullivan, Kathleen M.(2007)。Post-Liberal Judging: The Roles of Categorization and Balancing。U. COLO. L. Rev.，63，306-307。  new window
圖書
1.Sunstein, Cass R.(1995)。Democracy and the problem of free speech。New York：Free Press。  new window
2.Stone, Geoffrey R., Louis M. Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, Mark V. Tushnet、Pamela S. Karlan(2003)。The First Amendment。New York, NY：Foundation Press。  new window
3.陳慈陽(200511)。憲法學。臺北：陳慈陽。  延伸查詢new window
4.許育典(2010)。憲法。元照出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.Carter, T. Barton(2005)。The First Amendment and the Fourth Estate--The Law of Mass Media。  new window
6.Choper, Jesse H. et al.(2006)。Constitutional Law。  new window
7.MACKINNON, CATHARINE A.(2007)。SEX EQUALITY。  new window
8.Lin, Zi-Yi(2002)。言論自由與內亂罪。言論自由與新聞自由 \ Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.How Pornography Harms Children。  new window
圖書論文
1.林子儀(1997)。言論自由的限制與雙軌理論。現代國家與憲法。月旦出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.林子儀(2002)。言論自由之理論基礎。言論自由與新聞自由。臺北：元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.林子儀(20020000)。言論自由導論。臺灣憲法之縱剖橫切。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1215（臺灣：1203，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67775448
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上