指導教授：湯德宗臺灣大學：國家發展研究所俞百羽Yu, Bai-yuBai-yuYu2014-11-282018-06-282014-11-282018-06-282014http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/262987釋字第 509 號藉由轉化刑法誹謗罪之文義，以限縮誹謗罪成立之 空間，調和言論自由與個人名譽間之衝突，而達到保障言論自由之目 的，該號解釋在我國言論自由之發展史上，顯然具有重要意義。 然而該號解釋在做成後亦衍生出諸多疑義，本文第一章概述之；其中該號解釋所謂：「行為人有相當理由確信其為真實者」，是否即為美國法上之「真正惡意原則」，爭議已久，本文考量我國刑法之固有體系，認為「合理查證原則」始為該號解釋之正解，於第二章中將為解析；為達憲法保障言論自由之目的，釋字第 509 號之意旨是否得類推適用於民事事件？本文立於民刑事「實體法」與「訴訟法」基本結構不同之認知下，採取肯定看法，此見於本文第三章；而釋字第 509號對於言論自由與名譽權之調和案件，並未闡明其類型區分，而本文認為我國實務應有更細緻之類型化操作，此於第四章探討之。 總結前述各章內容，本文認為目前實務對於言論自由與名譽權調和案件之處理上不盡合理，故將案件依所涉不同之「人物」與「事項」，區分為民事法及刑事法各四種不同類型，參酌大法官解釋、學者見解及比較法上判決，於第五章提出本文之處理方式。As our country’s democracy transits, Interpretation No.509 obviously has a significant position in the history of the development of freedom of speech in Taiwan. This Interpretation was elaborated by transforming the meaning of the criminal law of defamation provisions, by reconciling the conflict between freedom of speech and personal reputation,and by lessening the defamation provisions in order to achieve the purpose of protection of freedom of speech. However, this Interpretation has been derived into many issues that chapter one will introduce. One of the disputes of this Interpretation was this sentence:“as long as the accused has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true when disseminated and has proffered evidence to suppose the belief, the accused must be found not guilty of criminal defamation.”Did the meaning of this sentence equal to the doctrine of“actual malice”in America’s laws of defamation? I think this Interpretation has adopted the doctrine of reasonable investigation. In chapter two I will analyze this. In chapter three, I will compare the different structures between civil law and criminal law to discuss whether the Interpretation No.509 can be applied to tort of defamation in order to protect freedom of speech. Interpretation No.509 did not clarify the sort for those cases that reconcile between freedom of speech and reputation , but I argue that courts should have manipulated cases by classification, presented in chapter four. Summarizing the preceding chapters, I believe that the current practice for operating cases of reconciling freedom of speech and reputation are not quite reasonable, so I will divide civil law and criminal law cases into each of four different types and put forward approach in chapter five.第一章 緒論...........................................1 第一節 研究動機 .....................................1 第二節 研究目的暨問題提出...........................3 第三節 研究範圍暨研究方法...........................12 第四節 文獻回顧 .....................................13 第五節 本文架構 .....................................14 第二章 釋字第509號解釋之解構...........................15 第一節 基本權衝突問題.................................15 第二節 訴訟制度面上之問題 .............................20 第三節 法條結構面之問題................................22 第四節 將言論區分為「事實」與「意見」是否妥適？........29 第三章 民事訴訟上言論自由與名譽權之調和問題.............33 第一節 概說...........................................33 第二節 現行實務見解之分析.............................34 第三節 民、刑事法律之基本結構差異分析.................49 第四章 言論自由與名譽權調和方式之類型化區分.............63 第一節 我國實務見解...................................63 第二節 比較法上之類型化區分............................69 第三節 被告身份是否應予區別...........................92 第四節 我國學說上之類型區分...........................95 第五章 結論............................................100 參考文獻................................................1082185860 bytesapplication/pdf論文公開時間：2016/08/17論文使用權限：同意有償授權(權利金給回饋本人)釋字第 509 號言論自由名譽權誹謗罪真正惡意原則合理查證原則[SDGs]SDG16thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/262987/1/ntu-103-R97341030-1.pdf