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：從美國法『公眾人物理論』論我國民事侵害名譽權法之『公眾人物概念』
書刊名：東吳法律學報
作者：呂麗慧 引用關係
作者(外文)：Lu, Li-hui
出版日期：2011
卷期：22:3
頁次：頁51-93
主題關鍵詞：公眾人物概念；公眾人物理論；全面性公眾人物；限制性公眾人物；公務員；侵害名譽權法；言論自由；名譽權；真實惡意；The public figure concept；The public figure doctrine；All-purpose public figure；Limited-purpose public figure；Public official；Defamation law；Freedom of speech；Individuals' reputation interests；Actual malice
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(3) 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:167
  • 點閱點閱:172
「公眾人物概念」在我國民事侵害名譽權法的發展，係因言論自由的介入，自美國法「公眾人物理論」而來，惟我國與美國法的公眾人物或有本質上與文化上的差異，故我國「公眾人物概念」的建構與運用，應以我國法的角度思考與研究，方能允當。 尋上開目標，歸結本文四項研究重點如下：(1)解析比較美國法之「公眾人物理論」與其爭議，作為開啟我國民事侵害名譽權法「公眾人物概念」研究之前引。(2)肯定「公眾人物概念」，進而提出「四種關係」，從不同面向深入探究「公眾人物概念」之基礎理論。(3)突破美國法對公眾人物認定之困境，提出我國侵害名譽權法公眾人物類型之擬設。分析我國實務目前運作現況，指出其缺失併給予建議。 本文期望藉由上述研究，促使我國民事侵害名譽權法之「公眾人物概念」，不論在法理上與實務運作上，都有更清楚與確切的依循參考，俾使「公眾人物概念」在我國法之發展更臻妥適完備。
”The public figure concept” was originally developed in ”the Public Figure Doctrine” in the American law of defamation. Arising out of the need to protect freedom of speech, ”the public figure concept” has been developed in Taiwanese Civil Defamation Law. Since the United States and Taiwan have different legal and cultural backgrounds in defining a public figure, it is important for Taiwanese Civil Defamation Law to see those differences and to develop its own ”public figure concept” suitable for Taiwanese law. To accomplish this goal, this paper will: analyze the ”public figure concept” in the United States and its related controversial issues to inspire the development of ”the Taiwanese public figure concept;” admit the value of ”the public figure concept” and provide ”four relationships” to identify this concept in advance; overcome the difficulties of determining who is a public figure under the defamation law in the United States and create ”the public figure categories” for Taiwanese Civil Defamation law; and evaluate ”the public figure concept” applied in Taiwanese civil defamation cases and reveal the flaws that arise when courts apply this concept in such cases. Through the explorations in this paper, it is expected that the development of ”the public figure concept” in Taiwanese defamation law will make greater progress and will provide a much clearer standard for courts to apply.
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.Watkins, John J.、Charles W. Schwartz(1984)。Gertz and the Common Law of Defamation: Of Fault, Nonmedia Defendants, and Conditional Privileges。Texas Tech Law Review，15，823-885。  new window
3.Walton, Mark D.(1995)。The Public Figure Doctrine: A Reexamination of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. in Light of Lower Federal Court Public Figure Formulation。Northern Illinois University Law Review，16，141-174。  new window
4.許家馨(20060500)。釋字第五○九號解釋應否適用於民事案件？--為最高法院新新聞案判決翻案。月旦法學，132，102-127。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.楊敦和(19840100)。論妨害名譽之民事責任。輔仁法學，3，127-157。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.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
7.王澤鑑(20061200)。人格權保護的課題與展望(3)--人格權的具體化及保護範圍(4)：名譽權。臺灣本土法學雜誌，89，31-49。  延伸查詢new window
8.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
9.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
10.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
11.王澤鑑(20070800)。人格權保護的課題與展望（3）--人格權的具體化及保護範圍（6）：隱私權。臺灣本土法學雜誌，97，27-50。  延伸查詢new window
12.林鈺雄(20030300)。誹謗罪之實體要件與訴訟證明--兼評大法官釋字第五０九號解釋。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，32(2)，67-104。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.呂麗慧(20081200)。我國民事侵害名譽權「公共性」因素之考量--以「個案判斷」與「類型化」為中心。法學新論，5，35-52。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.王澤鑑(2007)。人格權保護的課題與展望. 3 : 人格權的具體化及保護範圍 (4)--名譽權。台灣本土法學雜誌，90。  延伸查詢new window
15.法治斌(2002)。當表意自由碰到名譽保護時, 歐洲人怎麼辦?。憲政時代，27(3)。  延伸查詢new window
16.吳永乾(2004)。美國法所稱「真正悪意法則」之研究。中正法學期刊，15。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.林世宗(2002)。名譽誹謗與新聞言論自由之界限--闡釋大法官五○九號解釋之法理與適用。全國律師，6(6)。  延伸查詢new window
18.許家馨(2008)。美國誹謗侵權法歸責體系初探--以歸責內涵與查證義務為中心。月旦法學雜誌，154。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.陳雅慧(2001)。釋字509號解釋於民事侵權行為適用趨勢--最高法院裁判觀察分析ー。台灣法學雜誌，119。  延伸查詢new window
20.黃正一(2002)。以應態邏輯解析名譽概念。全國律師，6(6)。  延伸查詢new window
21.Watkins, John J.、Schwartz, Charles W.(1984)。Gertz and the Common Law of Defamation of Fault, nonmedia defendants, and Conditional Privilege。TEX. TECH L. REV.，15。  new window
22.Willner, Carl(1983)。Defending a Public Controversy in the Constitutional Defamation Law。VA. L. REV.，69。  new window
23.Wolfson, Nicholas(1991)。Free Speech Theory and Hateful Words。U. CIN. L. Rev.，60。  new window
24.Beazanson, Randall P.(1988)。The Libel Tort Today。WASH. & LEE L. REV.，45，538。  new window
25.Chadwick, James(1991)。Comment, A Conflict in the Public Interest: Defamation and the Role of Content in the Wake of Dun & Bradstreet Greenmoss Builders。SANTA C LARA L. REV.，31。  new window
26.Franck, Marc A.(1987)。Constitutional Libel Law : The Role of Content。UCLA. L. REV.，34。  new window
27.Franklin, Marc A.、Bussel, Daniel J.(1984)。Defamation and the First Amendment : New Perspectives--The Plaintiff’s Burden in Defamation。WM. & MARY L. REV.，25。  new window
28.Harrv Kalvan(1964)。The New York Times Case : A Note on “The Central Meaning of the First Amendment'' 1964 SUP CT。SUP CT. REV.。  new window
29.Langvardt, Arien W.(1987)。Media Defendants, Public Concerns, and Public Plaintiffs: Toward Fashioning Order from Confusion in Defamation Law。U. PITT. L. REV.，49。  new window
30.Lewis, Don(1987)。Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, and Speech on Matters of Public Concern: New Directions in First Amendment Defamation Law。Indiana Law Review，20。  new window
31.Wolfson, Nicholas(1991)。Free Speech Theory and Hateful Words。U. CIN. L. REV.，60。  new window
32.Schauer, Frederick(1984)。Defamation and the First Amendment : New Perspectives-Public Figures。WM. & MARY L. REV.，25。  new window
33.Walker, Erik(1996)。Comment, Defamation Law: Public Figures-Who are they?。BAYLOR L. REV.，45。  new window
圖書
1.Sanford, Bruce W.(1991)。LIBEL AND PRIVACY。New York：Aspen Publishers。  new window
2.Amponsah, Peter N.(2004)。LIBEL LAW, POLITICAL CRITICISM, AND DEFAMATION OF PUBLIC FIGURES。New York：LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.。  new window
3.Franklin, Marc A.、Rabin, Robert L.(2001)。TORTS LAW AND ALTERNATIVES CASES AND MATERIALS。New York：Foundation Press。  new window
4.Wills, Garry(1999)。A necessary evil: A history of American distrust of government。NY：Simon & Schuster。  new window
5.Meiklejohn, Alexander(1948)。Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-government。New York, NY：Harper & Brothers Publisher。  new window
6.陳計男(2006)。民事訴訟法論。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
7.李惠宗(2002)。憲法要義。臺北：元照出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
8.林子儀(19990000)。言論自由與新聞自由。臺北：元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.陳榮宗、林慶苗(2004)。民事訴訟法。台北：三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
10.林山田(2006)。刑法各罪論。林山田。  延伸查詢new window
11.Barron, Jerome A.、Dienes, C. Thomas(2004)。First Amendment Law in a Nutshell。  new window
12.Carter, T. Barton、Dee, Juliet Lushbough、Zuckman, Harey L.(2007)。Mass Communication Law。  new window
13.Franklin, Marc A.、Anderson, David A.、Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett(2005)。Mass Media Law。  new window
14.Burnham, William(1999)。Introduction to the Law and the Legal System of the United States。  new window
15.Franklin, Marc A.、Rain, Robert L.、Green, Michael D.(2006)。Tort Law and Alternatives。  new window
16.Lewis, Anthony(1991)。Make No Law-The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment 197。  new window
17.Meiklejohn, Alexander(1965)。Political Freedom : The Constitutional Powers of the People。  new window
18.Welsh Tom、Greenwood, Walter、Banks, David(2007)。McNae's Essential Law for Journalists。  new window
19.法治斌(2003)。保護言論自由的遲來正義--評司法院大法官釋字第509號解釋。法治國家與表意自由。台北。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Tofel, Richard(1986)。Private Affairs and Public People : The Next Horizon。  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：838（臺灣：832，外國：6） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1695817 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67504172
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