研究生: |
陳乃瑄 Chen, Nai-Hsuan |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
內容虛偽不實或具誤導性之商業性言論之違憲審查 Constitutional Review of Untruthful or Misleading Commercial Speech |
指導教授: |
陳仲嶙
Chen, Chung-Ling |
口試委員: |
彭心儀
Peng, Shin-Yi 黃銘輝 Huang, Ming-Hui |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
科技管理學院 - 科技法律研究所 Institute of Law for Science and Technology |
論文出版年: | 2012 |
畢業學年度: | 100 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 88 |
中文關鍵詞: | 商業性言論 、虛偽不實 、誤導性 、違憲審查 |
外文關鍵詞: | Commercial Speech, Untruthful, Misleading, Contitutional Review |
相關次數: | 點閱:2 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
摘 要
商業性言論有別於其他言論類型,其主要目的係為追求商業利益,被認為不
具備言論自由所欲追求之價值,因而無論美國或我國實務,早先對於此種言論多採不保障或低度保障之態度,但隨學說發展以及實務觀點轉變,已逐漸肯認此種言論自身價值,並賦予一定程度之保障。然觀察釋憲實務,可發現受保障類型仍僅限於於「促進合法交易活動」及「其內容又非虛偽不實或不致產生誤導作用者」。對於「虛偽不實或具誤導性之商業性言論」則無相關審查標準,將可能導致以下兩個問題:其一,可能因此使言論發布者自我審查而導致寒蟬效應;其二,若發生相關案件,將無所適從。
前述問題反應於現行實務,其具體態樣即為不實廣告,惟目前現行法規所採
取之管制手段與罰則,是否能有效達成各法規之設置目的?其限制手段上是否有侵害言論自由之虞?在現行釋憲實務無任何審查標準可依循之情形下,將完全無從檢驗。故本文欲針對此種實務尚未處理之言論類型進行討論分析,藉由參照研究美國相關實務見解與法規範,與我國法規範做一整理比較,望能從美國實務分析中,推導出適合我國對於內容虛偽不實或具誤導性之商業言論審查標準。
關鍵詞:商業性言論、虛偽不實、誤導性、違憲審查
Abstract
Commercial speech is different from other types of speech because its main purpose, pursuing commercial interests, is not considered as the main value of freedom of speech. Thus both the United States and our practices give no or low protection in the past. With the change in doctrine development and the practical view, the value of commercial speech has been recognized and given a certain degree of protection. However, by observing the practices of constitutional interpretation, it can be found that the protected types are still limited to the "promotion of legitimate trading activities" and "the contents of non-deceptive or non-misleading". For "Untruthful or misleading commercial speech," there was no relevant standard of review, and may lead to two following problems: First, cause of the chilling effect due to publisher self-review; Second, no standard can be followed when relevant cases show up.
The aforementioned problem reflected in current practice is false advertising. Without relevant constitutional review standard, it cannot be determined whether the regulatory instruments and penalties of current laws and regulations can effectively achieve the set purpose of the regulations, or whether the regulatory instruments infringe the freedom of speech. In this thesis, analysis on the untruthful or misleading commercial speech is done by comparing the practical insights of the United States with our laws and regulations. The goal is to find the suitable standard of constitutional review for untruthful or misleading commercial speech.
Key Words:Commercial Speech, Untruthful, Misleading, Constitutional Review
一、 中文資料
(一) 書籍
1. 李惠宗,憲法要義,元照出版公司,2008年9月。
2. 林子儀,言論自由與新聞自由,元照出版公司,1999年初版。
3. 林子儀等合著,台灣憲法之縱剖橫切,元照出版公司,2002年12月初版第1刷。
4. 郭志崧譯,自由論,城邦文化發行,2004年。
5. John Stuart Mill撰;郭志嵩譯,論自由及論代議政治,協志工業,1961年。
(二) 期刊
1. 宋佩珊,產品置入的言論形態與管制兼論美國商業言論發展,世新法學,第一卷第一號,2007年,頁169-198。
2. 李念祖,菸品標示管制與言論自由之限制─釋字第五七七號解釋之研究,東吳學報,第十七卷第一期,2005年,頁1-30。
3. 李建良,藥物廣告的限制及其合憲性,台灣本土法學雜誌,第二十八卷,2001年11月,頁75-89。
4. 林子儀,言論自由之理論基礎,台大法學論叢,第十八卷第一期,1988年,頁227-275。
5. 林子儀,商業性言論與言論自由,美國月刊,第二卷第八期,1987年12月,頁23-33。
6. 張永健,論藥品、健康食品之廣告管制,法令月刊,第五十六卷第五期,2005年5月,頁31-56。
7. 張長樹,簡介美國律師廣告之法制及其經濟分析(上),律師通訊,第一百六十二期,1993年3月,頁11-21。
8. 張長樹,簡介美國律師廣告之法制及其經濟分析(下),律師通訊,第一百六十四期,1993年5月,頁34-44。
9. 張長樹,簡介美國律師廣告之法制及其經濟分析(中),律師通訊,第一百六十三期,1993年4月,頁22-29。
10. 陳仲嶙,商業性言論憲法解釋十年回顧與評析,中原財經法學,第二十七期,2011年12月,頁102-150。
11. 黃銘傑,美國法上的言論自由與商業廣告─兼論司法院大法官會議釋字四一四號解釋,台大法學論叢,第二十七卷第二期,1998年,頁347-393。
12. 蔡震榮,論比例原則與基本人權之保障,警政學報,第十七期,1990年6月,頁41-71。
13. 賴祥蔚,商業言論與憲法的言論自由保障,台灣政治學刊,第十四卷第一期,2010年,頁159-199。
14. 謝國廉,規範菸酒廣告之法令與言論自由權保障之衝突─橫跨健康傳播與人權理論之分析,新聞學研究,第六十一期,1999年,頁223-245。
(三) 學位論文
1. 王泰翔,廣播電視之商業置入性行銷:從言論自由之角度出發,國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文,2011年。
2. 林承宇,菸品廣告規範之研究,國立政治大學廣播電視研究所,2003年。
3. 邱祥麟,廣播電視置入性行銷管制正當性之探討,國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2009年。
4. 孫立行,商業性言論與言論自由,東吳大學法律學系法律專業碩士班碩士論文,2000年。
5. 陳澤榮,國家對商業性言論的管制界限─以強制菸品警示說明與禁止廣告為中心,國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文,2003年。
6. 黃治蘋,有線/衛星電視頻道節目廣告化規制之研究,國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所,2009年。
7. 蔡允文,美國關於虛偽不實廣告管制之研究:兼論我國公平交易法有關虛偽不實廣告之管制,文化大學美國研究所碩士論文,1994年。
8. 謝文正,論香菸廣告規範與言論自由,國立台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文,2004年。
9. 謝國廉,美國商業廣告與言論自由權之研究,國立台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文,1998年。
10. 羅明宏,不實廣告之規範及相關執行問題,國立政治大學法律學研究所,1993年。
(四) 網路資料
1. 衛星廣播電視法修正草案總說明
http://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=1764&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=14139(最後參訪日期:20120603)
2. 立法院法律系統
http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lglaw?@59:1804289383:f:NO%3DE02549*%20OR%20NO%3DB02549$$10$$$NO-PD(最後參訪日期:20120507)
二、 外文資料
(一) 判決
1. 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association, 517 U.S. 484(1996)
2. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209(1977)
3. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616(1919)
4. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350(1977)
5. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Co., 463 U.S. 60(1983)
6. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582(1971)
7. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557(1980)
8. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568(1942)
9. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761(1993)
10. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643(1931)
11. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323(1947)
12. Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437(1971)
13. In re Pfizer. Inc., 81 FTC 23(1972)
14. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412(1978)
15. In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191(1982)
16. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301(1965)
17. Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697(1931)
18. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964)
19. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S.713(1971)
20. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92(1972)
21. Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451(1952)
22. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Company, 514 U.S. 476(1995)
23. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. FTC., 258 F. 307(1919)
24. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
25. Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52(1942)
26. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748(1976)
27. Warner Lambert Company v. FTC, 562 F. 2d 749(1977)
(二) 書籍
1. ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, THE LAWBOOK EXCHANGE, LTD. (December 27, 2011)
2. DANIEL A. FARBER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT (2d ed. 2003)
3. JEROME A. BARRON & C. THOMAS DIENES, FIRST AMENDMENT LAW (4th ed. 2008)
4. DARIEN A. MCWHIRTER, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY, Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press (1994)
(三) 期刊
1. Alexander Meiklejohn, The First Amendment Is an Absolute, 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245 (1961)
2. Angela J. Campbell, Restricting The Marketing of Junk Food to Children by Product Placement and Character Selling, 39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 447 (2006)
3. Ann K. Hagerty, Embedded Advertising: Your Rights in The TIVO Era, 9 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 146 (2009)
4. Ann K. Wooster, Protection of Commercial Speech Under First Amendment—Supreme Court Cases, 164 A.L.R. Fed. 1 (2000)
5. Benjamin R. Mulcahy, That’s Advertainment!, 29-MAY L.A. Law. 44 (2006)
6. Burt Neuborne, A Rationale for Protecting and Regulating Commercial Speech, 46 Brook. L. Rev. 437 (1980)
7. C. Edwin Baker, Commercial Speech: A Problem in the Theory of Freedom, 62 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1976)
8. Daniel A. Farber, Commercial Speech and First Amendment Theory, 74 Nw. U. L. Rev. 372 (1979)
9. Daniel Hays Lowenstein, Commercial Speech and The First Amendment: "Too Much Puff": Persuasion, Paternalism, and Commercial Speech, 56 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1205 (1988)
10. Emerson, Thomas I., First Amendment Doctrine and the Burger Court, 68 Cal. L. Rev. 422 (1980)
11. J. Howard Beales III, Symposium on the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1990's: Facing Health Care reform, Regulation, and Judicial Controls FDA Regulation of Pharmaceutical Advertising, 24 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1370 (1994)
12. Jacob J. Strain, Finding A Place For Embedded Advertising Without Eroding The First Amendment: An Analysis of The Blurring Line Between Verisimilar Programming and Commercial Speech, 24 BYU J. Pub. L. 167 (2009)
13. James Weinstein, Fool, Knaves, and the Protection of Commercial Speech: A Response to Professor Redish, 41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 133, 139(2007).
14. Lee C. Bollinger, Free Speech and Intellectual Values, 92 Yale L.J. 438 (1983)
15. Lee M. Weiner, The Ad Substantiation Program: “You Can Fool All of the People Some of the Time and Some of the People All of the Time”, But Can You Fool the FTC?, 30 AM.U.L.REV. 429 (1981)
16. Martin H. Redish, Commercial Speech, First Amendment Intuitionism and the Twilight Zone of Viewpoint Discrimination, 41 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 67 (2007)
17. Martin H. Redish, The First Amendment in the Marketplace: Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression, 39 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 429 (1971)
18. Mary B. Nutt, Trends in First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech, 41 Vand. L. Rev. 173 (1988)
19. Matthew Savare, Where Madison Avenue Meets Hollywood and Vine: The Business, Legal, and Creative Ramifications of Product Placements, 11 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 331 (2004)
20. Nicole B. Cásarez, Don’t Tell Me What to Say: Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment, 63 MO. L. REV. 929 (1998)
21. Richard Kielbowicz & Linda Lawson, Unmasking Hidden Commercials in Broadcasting: Origins of the Sponsorship Identification Regulations, 56 Fed. Comm. L.J. 329 (2004)
22. Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1 (1971)
23. Ronald H. Coase, Advertising and Free Speech, 6 J. Legal Stud. 1(1977).
24. Scott Joachim, Seeing Beyond The Smoke and Mirrors: A Proposal For The Abandonment of The Commercial Speech Doctrine and An Analysis of Recent Tobacco Advertising Regulations, 19 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 517 (1997)
25. Stanley Ingber, The Marketplace of Ideas : A Legitimizing Myth, 1984 Duke, L.J. l (1984)
26. Stephen T. Raptis, Guns For Hire, Commercial Speech and Tort Liability Making A Case For Preserving First Amendment Free Speech Rights, 97 W. Va. L. Rev. 215 (1994)
27. Steven Shiffrin, The First Amendment and Economic Regulation: Away from a General Theory of the First Amendment, 78 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1212 (1983)
28. Vincent Blasi, The Pathological Perspective and The First Amendment, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 449 (1985)
(四) 網路資料
1. American Bar Association, available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html(最後參訪日期:20120629)
2. Daniel J. Popeo & David Price, Washington Legal Foundation, Re: Product Placement on Television, to Donald Clark, Secretary, Federal Trade Commission﹙Mar. 2004﹚, available at http://www.commercialalert.org/WLFproductplacement.pdf(最後參訪日期:20120629)
3. Letter from Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission﹙Sep. 2003﹚, available at http://www.commercialalert.org/ftc.pdf(最後參訪日期:20120603)
4. Letter from Mary K. Engle, Associate Director for Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission, to Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert, 6﹙Feb. 10, 2005﹚, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/050210productplacemen.pdf(最後參訪日期:20120603)
5. Sponsorship Identification Rules & Embedded Advertising, 73 FR 43194-02, proposed July 24, 2008, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/07/24/E8-16998/sponsorship-identification-rules-and-embedded-advertising#p-3(最後參訪日期:20120611)