Items with full text/Total items : 43312/67235
Visitors : 2138617
Online Users : 9
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Hate Speech Online- A Socio-Legal Perspective
hate speech;Internet;racism;anti-Semitism;revisionism;Holocaust denial;holocaust;speech regulation;human rights;human dignity;free speech
|Issue Date: ||2012-09-04 13:55:39 (UTC+8)|
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: