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：美國誹謗法所稱「真正惡意」法則之研究
書刊名：國立中正大學法學集刊
作者：吳永乾 引用關係
作者(外文)：Wu, Joe Y. C.
出版日期：2004
卷期：15
頁次：頁1-97
主題關鍵詞：表現自由；誹謗；真正惡意；真實抗辯；公正評論；免責特權；公眾人物；公共事務；合理確信；懲罰性損害賠償；Freedom of expression；Defamation；Actual malice；Defense of truth；Fair comment；Privileges；Public figure；Public concerns；Reasonable belief；Punitive damages
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(12) 博士論文(2) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:11
  • 共同引用共同引用:85
  • 點閱點閱:104
美國誹謗法所稱真正惡意法則的精義，就是把普通法設定由被告提出並舉證的真實抗辯，轉變成由原告(控方)證明被告「明知陳述不實或完全不在乎其真偽」的誹謗成立要件。從訴訟程序立論，這無疑是舉證責任的轉換，而轉換舉證事項則是誹謗陳述真偽性的認識問題，證據說服強度也由一般民事訴訟所要求的「證據優勢」提升到「確實清楚」。蘇利文案所建立的此一法則，原本是針對具有公務員身分的民事原告而設，不過聯邦最高法院在後來的一些誹謗案例裹，陸續將適用範圍擴大到刑事誹謗、公眾人物、甚至於非公眾人物就涉及公共事務的誹謗言論請求懲罰性損害賠償的情況。 其他民主憲政國家並不認同美國以原告身分區別名譽保護程度的作法，因此拒絕全盤移植真正惡意法則。絕大多數國家在維持真實抗辯制度的前提下，從減輕被告對誹謗陳述真實性的舉證責任或擴張解釋免責特權的範圍著手，提供媒體及一般人民更寬廣的表現自由空間。我國大法官釋字509號解釋所採取的合理確信原則，旨在減輕被告的真實舉證責任，法理上應一體適用於民、刑事誹謗，且不宜有被告為媒體或非媒體之分。
The actual malice rule as applied under American defamation law has largely replaced the common law defense of truth, which has to be pleaded and proved by a defendant in defamation cases, with a requirement that the plaintiff show the statement was published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. From a procedural perspective, this rule effectively shifts the burden of proof regarding the truth or falsity of a libelous statement from defendants to plaintiffs. The proof of actual malice must be clear and convincing, an unusually high standard of proof in civil actions where normally proof on the balance of probabilities suffices. As first established in Sullivan, the actual malice rule was applied to public-official plaintiffs in civil libel. Gradually, however, the U. S. Supreme Court has extended the application of the rule to criminal libel, public-figure plaintiffs, and private figures who are suing for punitive damages based on speech concerning public matters. Other modern democracies can hardly appreciate the American approach in differentiating the extent of protection for reputational interests based on the identity of the plaintiff: and hence have refused to adopt the actual malice rule straightforwardly. While maintaining the truth defense, most jurisdictions, unlike the U. S., provide the media and the general public with better protection for freedom of expression either by lessening the rigidity of proving the truth of factual statements or by broadening the scope of privileged speech. The ROC Judicial Yuan has adopted a reasonable belief test in its Interpretation No. 509 that aims at relaxing the defendant's burden of proving the truth. As the analysis hereof may command, this test should be applicable both to civil and criminal defamation cases with no distinction between media defendants and nonmedia defendants.
期刊論文
1.法治斌(19930900)。新聞報導與誹謗罪:一個憲法觀點。政大法學評論，48，183-194。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.段重民(19970500)。媒體之新聞報導與誹謗--報導與評論之界限？。全國律師，1(5)，47-52。  延伸查詢new window
3.張訓嘉(19980200)。言論自由與公眾人物之名譽權。律師雜誌，221，12-31。  延伸查詢new window
4.甘添貴(20000900)。言論自由與妨害名譽。臺灣本土法學雜誌，14，112-119。  延伸查詢new window
5.Hayden, Paul T.(1993)。Reconsidering the Litigator's Absolute Privilege to Defame。Ohio State Law Journal，54，985-1057。  new window
6.Lovell, Colin Rhys(1962)。The ''Reception'' of Defamation by the Common Law。Vanderbilt Law Review，15，1051。  new window
7.Youm(2001)。Libel Law Emerging as Newfound Weapon Against the Korean Press。Tolley's Comm. L.，6，123。  new window
8.Youm(1995)。Libel Law and the Press: U. S. and South Korea Compared。Pacific Basin L. J.，13，231。  new window
9.Youm(1997)。Balancing Reputation with Press Freedom in South Korea。Comm. Law.，14(4)，3。  new window
10.Yanchukova, Elena(2003)。Criminal Defamation and Insult Laws: An Infringement on the Freedom of Expression in European and Post-Communist Jurisdictions。Colum. J. Transnat'l L.，41，861。  new window
11.Weaver、Bennett(1993)。Is the New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective。La. L. Rev.，53，1153。  new window
12.Vick、Macpherson(1997)。An Opportunity Lost: The United Kinddom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law。Fed. Comm. L. J.，49(3)，621。  new window
13.Vick、Macpherson(1996)。Anglicizing Defamation Law in European Union。Va. J. Int'l L.，36，933-956。  new window
14.Tingley, Charles(1999)。Reputation, Freedom of Expression and the Tort of Defamation in the United States and Canada: A Deceptive Polarity。Alberta L. Rev.，37，620。  new window
15.Thwaite、Brehm(1994)。German Privacy and Defamation Law: The Right to Publish in the Shadow of the Right to Human Dignity。Eur. Intell. Prop. Rev.，8，336-339。  new window
16.Surkin(1986)。The Status of the Private Figure's Right to Protect His Reputation Under the United States Constitution。Dick. L. R.，90，667。  new window
17.Stern(2000)。Private Concerns of Private Plaintiffs: Revisiting a Problematic Defamation Category。Mo. L. R.，65，597。  new window
18.Steenson(2000)。Defamation Per Se: Defamation by Mistake?。William Mitchell Law Review，27，779。  new window
19.Smolla(1987)。Dun & Bradstreet, Hepps, and Liberty Lobby: A New Analytic Primer on the Future Course of Defamation。Geo. L. J.，75，1519。  new window
20.Smith(1993)。Reporting the Truth and Setting the Record Straight: An Analysis of U. S. and Japanese Libel Laws。Mich. J. Int'l L.，14，871。  new window
21.Shiffrin(1978)。Defamatory Non-Media Speech and First Amendment Methodology。UCLA L. Rev.，25，915。  new window
22.Schauer(1980)。Social Foundations of the Law of Defamation: A Comparative Analysis。J. Media L. & Prac.，1，3。  new window
23.Prosser(1966)。More Libel Per Quod。Harv. L. Rev.，79，1629。  new window
24.Pownell(1989)。Defamation and the Nonmedia Speaker。Fed. Com. L. J.，41，195。  new window
25.Ourvan(2002)。Damage Control: Why Japanese Courts Should Adopt a Regime of Larger Libel Awards。N. Y. L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L.，21，307。  new window
26.Note(1985)。Leading Cases。Harv. L. Rev.，99，120。  new window
27.Nimmer(1975)。Introduction: Is Freedom of the Press a Redundancy: What Does it Add to Freedom of Speech。Hast. L. J.，26，639。  new window
28.Nicholson(2000)。McLibel: A Case Study in English Defamation Law。Wis. Int'l L. J.，18，1。  new window
29.Mulvihill(2000)。Irving v. Penguin: Historians on Trial and the Determination of Truth Under English Libel Law。Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J.，11，217。  new window
30.McNulth(1985)。The Gertz Fault Standard and the Common Law of Defamation: An Argument for Predictability of Result and Certainty of Expectation。Drake L. Rev.，35，51。  new window
31.Meltzer(1983)。Toward a New Standard of Liability for Defamation in Fiction。N. Y. U. L. Rev.，58，115。  new window
32.Mayton(1984)。Seditious Libel and the Lost Guarantee of a Freedom of Expression。Colum. L. Rev.，84，102。  new window
33.Matthews(1987)。American Defamation Laws: From Sullivan, Through Greenmoss, and Beyond。Ohio St. L. J.，48，513。  new window
34.Logan, David A.(2001)。Libel Law in the Trenches: Reflections on Current Data on Libel Litigation。Va. L. Rev.，87，503。  new window
35.King(2000)。The Misbegotten Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine and the "Gordian Knot" Syndrome。Hofstra Law Review，29，343。  new window
36.Keeton(1976)。Defamation and Freedom of the Press。Texas L. R.，54，1221。  new window
37.Kalm(1987)。The Burden of Proving Truth or Falsity in Defamation: Setting a Standard for Cases Involving Nonmedia Defendants。New York University Law Review，62，812。  new window
38.Harty、Foley(1990)。Employment Torts: Emerging Areas of Employer Liability。Drake L. Rev.，39，3。  new window
39.Fischer, Susanna F.(2002)。Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand, and England。George Washington International Law Review，34(1)，101-189。  new window
40.Harrington、Horelica(1999)。HIV Misdiagnosis: Possible Liabilities。T. Marshall L. Rev.，25，1。  new window
41.Eldredge(1966)。The Spurious Rule of Libel Per Quod。Harv. L. Rev.，79，733。  new window
42.Dragas, M. Linda(1995)。Curing a Bad Reputation: Reforming Defamation Law。U. Haw. L. Rev.，17，113。  new window
43.Docherty, Bonnie(2000)。Defamation Law: Positive Jurisprudence。Harv. Hum. Rts. J.，13，263。  new window
44.Dienes、Levine(1993)。Implied Libel, Defamatory Meaning, and State of Mind: The Promise of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan。Iowa L. Rev.，78，237。  new window
45.Cox、Callaghan(2002)。To Be or Not To Be, Malice Is the Question: An Analysis of Nebraska's Fair Report Privilege From a Press Perspective。Creighton L. Rev.，36，21。  new window
46.Colvert(1995)。Awareness of Meaning in Libel Law: An Interdisciplinary Communication & Law Critique。N. Ill. Univ. L. Rev.，16，111。  new window
47.Collins、Drushal(1978)。The Reaction of the State Courts to Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.。Case W. Res.，28，306。  new window
48.Christie(1981)。Underlying Contradictions in the Supreme Court's Classification of Defamation。Duke L. J.，1981，811。  new window
49.Chestermen(1995)。The Money or the Truth: Defamation Reform in Australia and the USA。UNSW L. J.，18(2)，300。  new window
50.Cavico(1999)。Defamation in the Private Sector: The Libelous and Slanderous Employer。Dayton L. Rev.，24，405。  new window
51.Bryant(1991)。Section 2(b) and Libel Law: Defamatory Statements About Public Officials。Media & Communic. L. Rev.，2，335。  new window
52.Brown(1994)。First Amendment: Criminal Libel Statute Held Unconsitutional as Applied to Public Statements Involving Public Concerns: State v. Powell。N.M.L. Rev.，24，495。  new window
53.Brenner, Susan W.(2003)。Complicit Publication: When Should the Dissemination of Ideas and Data Be Criminalized?。Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology，13，273。  new window
54.Boivin(1997)。Accommodating Freedom of Expression in the Common Law of Defamation。Queen's L. J.，22(2)，230。  new window
55.Bennett(1998)。Defamation Claims Arising Out of the Employment Relationship。Tort & Insurance Law Journal，33(3)，857-889。  new window
56.Adler、Pierce(1996)。Encouraging Employers to Abandon Their "No Comment" Policies Regarding Job Reference: A Reform Proposal。Washington and Lee Law Review，53(4)，1381。  new window
57.陳和慧(19710400)。誹謗罪之比較研究。刑事法雜誌，15(2)，21-34。new window  延伸查詢new window
58.姚淇清(19731000)。英美法上誹謗責任之研究。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，3(1)，79-110。new window  延伸查詢new window
59.林山田(19950300)。論誹謗罪。軍法專刊，41(3)，1-4。new window  延伸查詢new window
60.林世宗(20030100)。建構「真實惡意法則」之言論與新聞自由。目擊者，32，17-18。  延伸查詢new window
61.Youm(2002)。Freedom of Expression and the Law: Rights and Responsibilities in South Korea。Stan. J. Int'l L.，38，123。  new window
62.Whitten(2001)。The Economics of Actual Malice: a Proposal for Legislative Change to the Rule of New York Times v. Sullivan。Cumb. L. Rev.，32，519。  new window
63.Maurer(1983)。Common Law Defamation and the Fair Credit Reporting Act。Geo. L. J.，72，95。  new window
64.鄭逸哲(20020400)。解剖誹謗罪之構成要件--評析臺灣高等法院八十七年度上易字第六二二九號判決。月旦法學，83，238-247。new window  延伸查詢new window
65.廖正豪(19761000)。妨害名譽罪之研究。刑事法雜誌，20(5)，36-68。new window  延伸查詢new window
66.廖正豪(19760800)。妨害名譽罪之研究。刑事法雜誌，20(4)，1-39。new window  延伸查詢new window
67.林子儀(19970500)。新聞自由與誹謗--一個嚴肅的憲法課題。全國律師，1(5)，35-46。  延伸查詢new window
68.詹文凱(19980200)。公眾人物--新聞自由與隱私權的界限。律師雜誌，221，32-41。  延伸查詢new window
69.法治斌(19860600)。論美國妨害名譽法制之憲法意義。政大法學評論，33，81-114。new window  延伸查詢new window
70.王兆鵬(19990700)。刑事舉證責任理論--由英美法理論出發。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，28(4)，167-191。new window  延伸查詢new window
71.法治斌(20001000)。保障言論自由的遲來正義--評司法院大法官釋字第五○九號。月旦法學，65，148-155。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.李念祖(20030926)。釋字五○九號解釋對誹謗罪構成要件之再界定--兼論社會變遷中言論自由憲法解釋對刑法之影響。第四屆「憲法解釋之理論與實務」學術研討會，(會議日期: 民國92年9月26日)。中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.范立達(200006)。新聞誹謗之研究(碩士論文)。中國文化大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.謝國廉(1999)。美國商業廣告與言論自由權之研究(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.李學燈(1998)。證據法比較研究。  延伸查詢new window
2.蔡墩銘(20011000)。刑法各論。臺北：三民。  延伸查詢new window
3.Strong, J.(1992)。MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE。  new window
4.王澤鑑(2001)。侵權行為法。台北。  延伸查詢new window
5.Zuckman, H.(1999)。MODERN COMMUNICATION LAW。  new window
6.Welsh, T.、Greenwood, W.(1999)。MCNAE'S ESSENTIAL LAW FOR JOURNALISTS。  new window
7.Spilsbury, S.(2000)。MEDIA LAW。  new window
8.Sack, R.、Baron, S.(1994)。LIBEL, SLANDER, AND RELATED PROBLEMS。  new window
9.Robertson, G.、Nicol, A.(1992)。MEDIA LAW。  new window
10.Richard, J.、Robertson, S.(1985)。THE CHARTER AND THE MEDIA。  new window
11.Pember, D.(2001)。MASS MEDIA LAW。  new window
12.Paraschos, E.(1998)。MEDIA LAW AND REGULATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: NATIONAL, TRANSNATIONAL AND U. S. PERSPECTIVES。  new window
13.Martin, R.(1997)。ESSENTIALS IN CANADIAN LAW: MEDIA LAW。  new window
14.Lahav, P.(1985)。PRESS LAW IN MODERN DEMOCRACIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY。  new window
15.Keeton, W.(1977)。PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS。  new window
16.Haiman, Franklyn S.(1981)。SPEECH AND LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY。  new window
17.Gillmor, D.、Barron, J.(1979)。MASS COMMUNICATION LAW。  new window
18.Fuller, L.、Eisenberg, M.(2001)。BASIC CONTRACT LAW。  new window
19.Eldredge, L.(1978)。THE LAW OF DEFAMATION。  new window
20.Carter-Ruck, P.、Starte, H.(1997)。CARTE-RUCK ON LIBEL AND SLANDER。  new window
21.Carey, P.(1997)。MEDIA LAW。  new window
22.Barendt, Eric、Lustgarten, Laurence、Norrie, Kenneth、Stephenson, Hugh(1997)。Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect。  new window
23.羅志淵(1982)。美國政府及政治。  延伸查詢new window
24.薩孟武(1996)。政治學。  延伸查詢new window
25.Lewis、蘇希亞(1999)。不得立法侵犯：蘇利文案與言論自由。  延伸查詢new window
26.張永明(2001)。新聞傳播之自由與界限。  延伸查詢new window
27.Holsinger, R.、Dilts, J.(1994)。MEDIA LAW。  new window
28.法務部(1996)。名譽權保護之研究。  延伸查詢new window
29.褚劍鴻(19981200)。刑法分則釋論。臺灣商務。  延伸查詢new window
30.Emerson, Thomas I.(1970)。The System of Freedom of Expression。New York：Vintage Books。  new window
31.林山田(19990900)。刑法各罪論。台北：台大法學院圖書部：林山田。  延伸查詢new window
32.甘添貴(19960000)。刑法之重要理念。臺北：瑞興圖書股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
33.望月禮二郎、郭建(1999)。英美法。五南。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.羅明通(19970730)。讓媒體發揮監督政府的基本權利。  延伸查詢new window
2.羅明通(19970906)。記者應無「證明其報導為真實」義務。  延伸查詢new window
3.(19970907)。保障新聞自由--大法官責無旁貸。  延伸查詢new window
4.林子儀(19990515)。避免媒體寒蟬效果--找尋名譽權與新聞自由平衡點。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Sanford、Houpt(1994)。The Libel Curtain: A Comparison of Canadian and American Libel Law。CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE MEDIA。  new window
2.Martin(1989)。Does Libel Law Have a Chilling Effect in Canada?。A SOURCEBOOK OF CANADIAN MEDID LAW。  new window
3.Horibe、Middleton(1997)。Japan。INTERNATIONAL MEDIA LIABILITY: CIVIL LIABILITY IN THE INFORMATION AGE。  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

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1214（臺灣：1180，外國：34） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1473665 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67277461
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