言論自由的兩難──從誹謗案件「真正惡意」法則的適用看新聞自由的保障問題

馬立君

究竟誹謗性言論該不該受到言論自由的保障？民國八十九年七月七日公布的大法官釋字第五０九號解釋，無疑開創了我國保障新聞自由的里程碑。一方面，該號解釋將美國施行已久的「真正惡意」法則正式引進我國誹謗法制中，擴大了對新聞自由的保障範圍；但是另一方面，卻也因為該號解釋並沒有明訂「真正惡意」法則適用的對象與範圍，引發新聞自由與個人名譽權法益衝突的爭議。究竟這樣擴張適用「真正惡意」法則加強了對新聞自由的保障？抑或戕害了個人名譽權？本研究聚焦探討此一重要課題，蒐集自大法官釋字第五０九號解釋公布後，至民國九十七年七月共八年之間的誹謗判例共一百五十四件案例，運用案例研究分析，從中了解司法體系對於誹謗案件「真正惡意」法則適用情形，以及對新聞自由保障的問題。
研究結果發現，各級法院在審理誹謗案件時，由於「真正惡意」法則的一體適用，無論誹謗案件的被告身份是否為媒體，整體被告勝訴比例提昇至七成七，雖然增進新聞自由的保障；但是對於不涉及媒體被告，且案例性質無涉公共利益的私人誹謗案件而言，這樣的擴張使用「真正惡意」法則，對一般私人身份原告的名譽權保障明顯不足。本研究建議，「真正惡意」法則的適用，應該根據涉案人的身份，以及所涉言論內容性質，而有不同程度的適用，以避免一體適用時，雖加強了新聞自由的保障，卻同時戕害了個人名譽權。

That whether the “actual malice principle” should be applied to media libel cases has always been a controversial issue in media law. The “actual malice principle” has not been introduced to Taiwan criminal law system until July 7, 2000. This study mainly focuses on examining the applications of the “actual malice principle” to the media libel cases in Taiwan. One hundred and fifty-four libel cases were collected and analyzed in which 31 cases were directly related to media.

The result reveals that the introduction of the “actual malice principle” did improve the protection of the freedom of the press in Taiwan. Only 5 out of the total 31 media libel lawsuits lose their cases. Nevertheless, the applications of the “actual malice principle” also bring impacts on general libel cases. Judges in Taiwan tend to not only apply the “actual malice principle” to media libel cases but also to general libel cases. Further researches are needed to explore whether this new application of “actual malice principle” is to improve the protection of the freedom of the press or endanger the protection of individual right.

大法官釋字第五０九號解釋，新聞自由，真正惡意，刑法，誹謗，妨害名譽，案例分析

actual malice principle， freedom of the press， fair comment， chilling effect， criminal law， defamation， libel， case study

2009.07.07

已授權

T46-言論自由的兩難──從誹謗案件「真正惡意」法則的適用看新聞自由的保障問題.pdf