English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 43312/67235
Visitors : 2020870      Online Users : 4
RC Version 5.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU/NCHU Library IR team.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nchuir.lib.nchu.edu.tw/handle/309270000/104705

標題: 以法社會學之觀點論網路仇恨言論
Hate Speech Online- A Socio-Legal Perspective
作者: 林玟堯
Lin, Wen-Yao
Contributors: 張長樹;李復甸
高玉泉
中興大學
關鍵字: 仇恨性言論;歧視言論;言論管制;批判種族理論;言論自由;種族平等;反仇恨法;反歧視法;司法違憲審查;憲法釋義學
hate speech;Internet;racism;anti-Semitism;revisionism;Holocaust denial;holocaust;speech regulation;human rights;human dignity;free speech
日期: 2010
Issue Date: 2012-09-04 13:55:39 (UTC+8)
Publisher: 科技法律研究所
摘要: 本研究以民國九十七年國家通訊委員會所擬之通訊傳播管理法草案中第八章第148條增例頻道事業所提供的節目或廣告嚴禁「煽動族群仇恨或性別歧視」為出發點,欲透過法社會學之觀點探討歐盟人權法院及其他歐系法院(本研究以德國法院為主軸)對於種族仇恨性言論的管制與立法,並就我國對此種言論之管制提供立法方向。

種族仇恨性言論之問題在二十世紀初便已開始討論,但隨著歷史事件、學說發展的演變,至今卻也未有定論。追根究柢而論,其理論上的難題在於平衡自由與平等兩個價值的衝突。歐美國家早就陸續訂定「反仇恨法」、「劫難否認處罰法」等類似法律,以監督仇恨性的言論。台灣社會雖多元化的發展,但亦仍欠缺「族群平等」文化。長久以來,族群議題經常被利用在政治性的媒體炒作,而使族群和諧被撕裂。通訊傳播管理法草案中對於族群仇恨言論的禁止,指出了此種言論對於台灣社會現階段所造成的危機。

觀察歐盟人權法院及其他歐系法院對於種族仇恨性言論管制之相關判決及立法目的,本研究發現歐盟人權法院及歐盟國家之判決結果一致傾向保障人性尊嚴及種族平等的態度。本文認為這樣的立法精神源於大多歐系國家經歷二次世界大戰時納粹大屠殺的歷史背景,進而於其立法基礎中對於人性尊嚴產生高度保護。歐盟國家 (本文以德國為首要之研究國家) 對於反種族仇恨法之法令可謂十分嚴峻。以德國法院執行劫難否認處罰法為例,相較於憲法上的言論自由,德國法院認為保障人民之人格不被侵犯或歧視為首要。明顯地,歐系國家對於種族仇恨性之言論有其特殊之理史背景與意義。本研究主張:對於禁煽動族群仇恨或性別歧視宜採用概括性之規定。對於台灣本土有關族群仇恨或是針對外籍新娘之歧視,該於國內法規中納入反仇恨言論之規範。
On September 20th 2007, the National Communication Commission (NCC) of Taiwan held its second hearing, to discuss the second draft of a new communication act. According to article 148 of the draft, it prohibits the contents and advertisements provided by broadcast corporations which abet conflicts between ethics groups. Taking article 148 as a point of departure and a targeted subject matter, the Article attempts to focus on the constitutionality of such regulation and possible justification for viable regulation on racial hate speech or discriminatory speech by taking a socio-legal perspective in reviewing and comparing legislative intents and court opinions from human right courts established under the European Union (hereafter E.U.) and its member states and the United States.

Racial hate or discriminatory speech have persisted with contentious controversies since the early 20th century, though, it have temporary lulled. The Internet has resurrected its proliferation and hibernation.. And, the underlining difficulty still stands within material conflict between two fundamental rights: freedom of speech vs. racial equality. In these ancient and historical issues, foreign democracies in Europe and Canada have already promulgated regulations like “anti-hate law”, “holocaust denial law” and other relevant laws as to censor hate speech. Taiwan as a civil society has grown with diversification throughout the decades, but its culture is crippled in assembling a solid perspective in regards to racial or ethnic equality. Racial issues continue to be exploited in political propaganda by mass media, which substantially lacerate ethnic harmony in Taiwan. The ban on broadcastings that contain racial hate or discrimination speech proposed in Article 148 of Taiwan's new communication act significantly indicates that such hateful speech places an immediate harm to Taiwanese society.

By examining precedence, regulations and historical accounts involving racial hate or discriminatory speech, the Article observed that the European courts primarily emphasize a supreme protection on infringements of human dignity. Germany's “Holocaust Denial Laws” in particular, exemplify general inclination of the German courts' decisions to strike down expressive denial on the Holocaust. On the other hand, the U.S. courts' favorable disposition on free speech holds its historical backgrounds and legislative foundation; however, the value of racial equality shall not be oppressed or undermined. It is quite apparent that the American and European apply distinct approaches in term of speech regulations which are embedded with each nation's historical significance when scrutinizing the clash between free speech and racial equality. In the views of these representative democracies, the Article advocate that speech censorship of racial or discriminatory speech shall be consider for policy-making as to promote a non-discriminatory attitude shared amongst different ethnic groups in Taiwan.
Appears in Collections:[依資料類型分類] 碩博士論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
index.html0KbHTML790View/Open


 


學術資源

著作權聲明

本網站為收錄中興大學學術著作及學術產出,已積極向著作權人取得全文授權,並盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益。如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員,將盡速為您處理。

本網站之數位內容為國立中興大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用。

聯絡網站維護人員:wyhuang@nchu.edu.tw,04-22840290 # 412。

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