English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25784387      Online Users : 215
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98001

    Title: 言論自由與名譽權的探戈——我國名譽侵權法實務與理論之回顧與前瞻
    Other Titles: How to Balance Free Speech and Reputation?-Reflections on the Interpretation No. 509 after a Decade of Confusion
    Authors: 許家馨
    Hsu, Jimmy Chia-Shin
    Keywords: 釋字第五0九號解釋;釋字第六五六號解釋;言論自由;名譽權;真正惡意;舉證責任;合理查證;歸責原則;違法性;故意過失
    Interpretation No. 509;Interpretation No. 656;Right to Reputation;Freedom of Speech;Actual Malice;Burden of Proof;Burden of Persuasion;Fault;Polarized Politics;Politics of Rumors
    Date: 2012-08
    Issue Date: 2016-06-17 15:51:31 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文分析釋字第五0九號解釋公布後最高法院名譽侵權實務的動態發展, 指出名譽侵權法制的未來方向. 本文主張: 第一, 過去學術實務爭論的焦點, 在於釋字第五0九號解釋應否適用於民事案件. 但此議題其實並非關鍵. 仔細分析最高法院判決, 可以看出該解釋的「相當理由確信真實」原則早已在言論具備高度公共性的案件中發揮影響力. 真正的議題在於, 在此模糊的標準下, 到底應該如何界定公共性, 並設計相應的過咎標準? 第二, 關於「相當理由確信真實」原則的詮釋, 最高法院這十年來在「真正惡意」模式(約相當於「故意」)以及「合理查證」模式(比較接近「過失」)之間擺盪. 但經歷劇烈震盪後, 近幾年來朝向接近「過失」的「合理查證」原則靠攏. 第三, 下一階段最高法院應採取類型化的方法, 發展較為明確的「公共性」判準, 以建立完整侵權體系, 不應僅僅點出考量因素, 留諸下級法院個案綜合判斷. 本文提出未來發展方向, 參考並修正林子儀大法官釋字第六五六號解釋部份不同意見書的見解, 區分高公共性、中公共性、無公共性三種案件類型, 分別對應「重大過失」、「抽象輕過失」、「推定過失」三種注意義務程度以及舉證責任分配.
    The Interpretation No. 509 of Taiwan’s Constitutional Court was a landmark decision that revolutionized Taiwan’s criminal libel law in favor of more freedom of speech. It caused huge ripple effects on the tort of defamation, but it also left unresolved the specific fault standards regarding falsehood. This article proposes a blueprint for future development, based on the insights gained from in-depth analysis of decisions rendered by Taiwan’s Supreme Court Civil Panels since 2000. It is discovered that the Supreme Court went through twists and turns on the fault standards, Since early 2007 the Supreme Court Civil Panels have gradually reached the consensus that negligence is the rule, while finetuning toward more protection of speech in cases involving public interests. This article argues that the Supreme Court is heading toward the right direction, but the fault standards need specification. In Interpretation No. 656, Justice Lin Tzu-yi issued a dissenting opinion, which contains the most promising system of fault standards regarding falsehoods in years. This article refines Justice Lin’s opinion by further instantiating the allocation of burden of proof. Ultimately, this article hopes that the blueprint offered will offer guidance to the future development of this field of law.
    Relation: 法學評論, 128,203-260頁
    Chengchi law review
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    128(203-260).pdf1193KbAdobe PDF263View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback