美國近年來有兩個法案，剝奪了原本著作權公共領域的部分內容，而受到質疑。一個是1998年美國的著作權期間延長法，另一個則是1994年的烏拉圭回合協議法第514條。而這兩個案例，都有人從憲法的角度，來質疑國會立法的合憲性。但是，美國聯邦最高法院在2003年的Eldred v. Ashcroft案，判決認為，著作權保護期間之延長，並沒有違反美國憲法的智慧財產權條款中「有限期間」之規定，也沒有侵害言論自由問題。在該案中，最高法院提及，只有在修法時改變著作權的傳統輪廓，才需進行言論自由審查。而從2007年開始的Golan案，爭執的關鍵，就在於1994年的烏拉圭回合協議法第514條，被認為改變了著作權法的傳統輪廓，而需進行言論自由審查。但該案上訴到最高法院，2012年最高法院作出判決，仍認為其未改變傳統輪廓，不需進行言論自由審查。本文將詳細研究美國相關爭議，並以2007年起至2012年的Golan案為中心，詳細研究法院對於剝奪公共領域是否需進行言論自由審查，採取的觀點。最後，本文也將學理分析的角度，探討剝奪著作權公共領域，應進行何種言論自由審查。

In recent years, there were two congressional legislation about copyright in the United States be discussed from the point of free speech. The two legislations were said to deprive the copyright public domain. First is 1998 U.S. Copyright Term Extension Act, another is section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 1994. There were people using the constitutional point of view to question the constitutionality of the two congressional legislations. However, in 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Eldred v Ashcroft case held that the extension of the duration of copyright doesn't against the ”limited period” of intellectual property provisions in U.S. Constitution, and not invasion the freedom of expression. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the legislation would be receiving free speech review only if it changed the traditional contours of copyright. From 2007 on, the Golan case began to litigate because section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 is considered to change the traditional contours of copyright law, so have to be receiving free speech review. The Golan cases was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruling in 2012, but still think it did not change the traditional contours, and there is no need to do free Speech review. This article will research related controversies in the United States, especially the Golan case from 2007 until 2012. Finally, we will also learn the academic point of view, and find what kind of free speech review should be carried out.