:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:廣播電視上規避法律廣告之探討--以菸害防制法之規範為例
書刊名:新聞學研究
作者:林承宇 引用關係
作者(外文):Lin, Cheng-yu
出版日期:2002
卷期:72
頁次:頁147-172
主題關鍵詞:廣告脫法行為規避法律菸品廣告廣播電視菸害防制法AdvertisementTV and radioEvasive actEvasive advertisementTobacco productsDerivative productsTobacco hazards control law
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(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(2)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:1624
  • 點閱點閱:26
     本研究從具體廣告內容出發,以MILD SEVEN TIMESDVIDOFF COFFEE二支電視 廣告為例,探討其是否與現行菸害防制法第九條第一項規定相悖。研究結果顯示,MILD SEVEN手錶與DAVIDOFF咖啡電視廣告內容與本身菸品品牌具有高度關聯性;同時,歷年 來所花費之廣告成本與廣告商品(手錶、咖啡)進口數量相較時,歷年來所花費之廣告成本 與廣告商品(手錶、咖啡)進口進量相較下,非但無利可圖,虧本額度之大,極不符合常理, 而今上述廣告仍以巨額今本在電視上大作廣告。 本研究提出此類以延伸性產口作為規避相關法律規定之廣告,表面上雖未違法,然與法 約上「說法行為」法理相似一亦即菸商以此等手法運用廣電媒體以規避菸害防制法所規範之 廣告內容。最後,本研究回歸法律層面探討,並提出解決此問題之可行方案。
     This research investigates the advertisements of derivative products to see whether they violate the present law regulating tobacco products. According to Article 9 I (1) of Tobacco Hazards Control Law, it is forbidden to advertise tobacco products on TV and radio. However, tobacco producers use derivative products to promote cigarette on TV and radio. Two obvious examples are the advertisements of MILD SEVERN TIMES and DAVIDOFF COFFEE. This research finds that the MILD SEVEN TIMES advertisement lacks balance between its priced and the costs of advertisement. The other advertisement DAVIDOFF COFFEE shares the same result. This research also finds that two advertisements belong to the so-called "evasive advertisements". In other words, it is an evasive act aiming at evading the Tobacco Hazards Control Law. This research also discusses the ways to deal with these evasive advertisements.
期刊論文
1.尹章華(19910800)。論脫法行為與隱藏行為。法律評論,57(8)=1286,2-6。  延伸查詢new window
2.李郁強(19970300)。「菸害防制法」--有關菸品廣告限制規定之再說明。衛生報導,7(3)=73,38-40。  延伸查詢new window
3.馬起華(19820100)。脫法行為對於法律挑戰(選舉中之脫法行為)。中國地方自治,34(9),10-11。  延伸查詢new window
4.黃宜芳(19971000)。任重道遠之社會責任--從菸害防制法談起。流通世界,82,29-33。  延伸查詢new window
5.Correia, E. O.(1997)。State and local regulation of cigarette advertising。Journal of Legislation,23,1-42。  new window
6.Kushner, J. A.(1998)。Tobacco regulation, litigation, and the proposed Mega-Settlement: America's policy of ethnic cleansing。Southwestern University Law Review,27,673-677。  new window
7.McCullough, J.(1997)。Lighting up the battle against the tobacco industry: New regulations prohibiting cigarette sales to minors。Camden Rutgers Law Journal,28,709-748。  new window
8.Noah, B. A.(1998)。Constitutional qualms concerning governmental restriction on tobacco product advertising。Toledo Law Review,29,637-652。  new window
9.Pinto, C. F.(1998)。Measures to Control Tobacco Use: Immunity, Advertising Restrictions, and FDA Control as Proposed in the Failed Tobacco Settlement。Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy,15,307-356。  new window
10.方鵬程(19870100)。自力教濟與脫法行為。中央月刊,20(1),65-68。  延伸查詢new window
11.楊志新(1999)。香煙及肺癌。癌症新探,9,14-15。  延伸查詢new window
12.Jeruchimowitz, H. K.(1997)。Tobacco advertisements and commercial speech balancing: A potential cancer to truthful, nonmisleading advertisement of lawful products。Cornell Law Review,82,432-478。  new window
13.Vladeck, D. C.、Sims, J. C.(1998)。Why the Supreme Court will uphold strict controls on tobacco advertising。Southern Illinois Law Journal,22,651-676。  new window
14.李建良(20000400)。菸品標示「吸菸有害健康」的憲法問題。臺灣本土法學雜誌,9,97-102。  延伸查詢new window
15.吳信華(19971100)。菸害防制法的合憲性--基本權利受侵害的合憲性思考。月旦法學,30,79-87。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.吳信華(19971200)。菸害防制法的合憲性--基本權利受侵害的合憲性思考。月旦法學,31,93-100。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.Bassuk, G. D.(1997)。Advertising rights and industry fights: A constitutional analysis of tobacco advertising restrictions in a Federal Legislative Settlement of tobacco industry litigation。Georgetown Law Journal,85,715-749。  new window
18.Meyer, S.(1996)。New players for the old tobacco game: The Czech Republic and Romania; it's time to change the rules。Journal of International Law & Business,17,1057-1090。  new window
19.Paralusz, K. M.(1998)。Ashes to ashes: Why FDA regulation of tobacco advertising may mark the end of the road for the Marlboro Man。American Journal of Law & Medicine,24,89-122。  new window
20.Redish, Martin H.(1996)。Tobacco advertising and the First Amendment。Iowa Law Review,81,589-636。  new window
21.Turriciano, A.(1998)。The FDA sends smoke signals to big tobacco: Will the FDA suffer backlash, will alcohol be regulated next, and will the health of Americans prevail?。Pepperdine Law Review,25,617-646。  new window
學位論文
1.林溢根(1996)。不實廣告法制之研究(碩士論文)。東海大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.黃敦硯(1999)。我國菸害防制法執行之研究(碩士論文)。國立中興大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.方錦源(1993)。引人錯誤廣告法制之研究(碩士論文)。東海大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.馬藹屏(2000)。臺灣地區青少年對菸害防制法之認知、遵行意願及遵行行為之研究(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.王澤鑑(1995)。民法實例研習:民法總則。臺北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
2.城仲模(1992)。行政法之基礎理論。臺北:三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.黃茂榮(1982)。民法總則:判解評釋。臺北:根植出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳春生(1996)。行政法之學理與體系--行政行為形式論。臺北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
5.林錫堯(1998)。行政法要義。台北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
6.范建得、莊春發(1994)。不實廣告。台北:漢興。  延伸查詢new window
7.林奇青(1988)。行政法學上公害對策之研究。台北:五南出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.陳清秀(1993)。稅法之基本原理。台北:三民書局。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.陳櫻琴(1999)。「比較廣告」理論與案例。台北:翰蘆圖書。  延伸查詢new window
10.羅明宏(1995)。不實廣告案例解讀。台北:月旦出版社。  延伸查詢new window
11.Kotler, P.、Armstrong, G.、方世榮(2000)。行銷學原理。台北:東華書局。  延伸查詢new window
12.尤英夫(1998)。廣告法之理論與實務。台北:尤英夫。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.沈榮寬、謝杞森(1993)。虛偽不實廣告標示行為之探討。行政院公平交易委員會。  延伸查詢new window
14.陳新民(1995)。行政法學總論。臺北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
15.Cohen, J.、Gleason, T.(1990)。Social Research in Communication and Law。Newbury Park, CA:Sage。  new window
16.Denzin, N. K.、張君玫(1999)。解釋性互動論。台北:弘智文化。  延伸查詢new window
17.吳庚(2001)。行政法之理論與實用。吳庚。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.翁岳生(1998)。行政法。翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
19.陳敏(1998)。行政法總論。台北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
20.施啟揚(1996)。民法總則。臺北:三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
21.林紀東(1990)。行政法。台北:三民書局。  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
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE