2019-01-012024-05-18https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/700321摘要：錯誤宣稱或仇恨言論？－－論否認滅絕罪的證成 在2016年國內外重大事件裡，不實資訊甚至不實新聞(fake news)四處流竄，讓人防不勝防。在資訊爆炸的當代網路社會裡，「後真相」成為2016年歷史縮影的現實，徹底粉碎了古典言論自由學者對於「治癒虛假與謬誤的方法是透過更多言論，而非強迫沈默」的信念。而回首環顧二十世紀史，立法者對於錯誤言論管制的最著名嘗試，當屬否認滅絕罪(punishment of genocide denial)。所以本研究計畫就選擇以否認滅絕罪作為錨點，透過不同法院判決論證的分析，對錯誤事實宣稱(false statement of fact)的言論自由保障進行全面而深入的理論探索。 綜觀相關法院判決，可以看到一組極為有趣的論證對比：德國聯邦憲法法院曾以「錯誤事實宣稱不受憲法保障」為由，主張否認尤太滅絕言論的處罰並不違憲，而西班牙憲法法院則以「單純事實宣稱不具煽動效果」的論證，得出否認滅絕言論的處罰規範違憲的結論。這兩則判決不僅在結論上針鋒相對，從基礎理論的觀點來看，更各自代表了語意學(semantics)層次上的真理理論和語用學(pragmatics)層次上的仇恨言論論證。為了徹底檢視仇恨言論論證和言論自由理論中的追求真理說，並以之分析否認滅絕言論管制的合憲性，本計畫將以兩年為期，分別進行下列議題的研究： 1. 錯誤事實宣稱的憲法保障？德國聯邦憲法法院否認尤太滅絕判決和歐洲人權法院Perin&#231;ek v. Switzerland判決的分析與比較 本計畫試圖從後真相時代中的真理論者角度出發，針對「言論自由保障是否及於錯誤事實宣稱」的問題提出回應。並將該回應適用於否認滅絕言論的管制證成，續而評析德國聯邦憲法法院否認尤太滅絕判決和歐洲人權法院Perin&#231;ek v. Switzerland判決的論理。 2. 否認滅絕言論作為特殊形態仇恨言論的理論構成：兼及西班牙憲法法院第235/2007號判決與歐洲人權法院論證演變的分析 本計畫第二年將對仇恨言論論證進行深入剖析，並藉此得出否認滅絕言論並非單純以過去歷史事實為內容的錯誤宣稱，而是意圖透過歷史的扭曲產生正當化種族歧視思維之現時效果的言論。依據否認滅絕言論在具體時空脈絡下的煽動和仇恨效果，本計畫並得以分析西班牙憲法法院第235/2007號判決、歐洲人權法院在相關案件中的論證演變，以及前述2008年歐盟理事會種族主義框架決議的適當性。<br> Abstract: False Statement or Hate Speech? On the Justification of Criminalizing Genocide Denials At the end of 2016, it may be fair to say that our belief in the free marketplace of ideas and the remedy of more speech has been completely shaken. The fact that some European Congresses are going to put restrictions on the dissemination of fake news is therefore of no surprise. However, the intent to ban false information is hardly new. There is a massive and still ongoing movement toward punishing a specific kind of false statements since 1960s: the criminalization of genocide denials. On this basis, punishment of genocide denials offers an excellent starting point for studying the justification of false statement prohibitions. From the perspective of comparative free-speech law, we can find an intriguing antithesis between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Spanish Tribunal Constitutional: While the former held punishment of Holocaust denial constitutional by claiming false statements of fact not protected, the latter firmly held that genocide denials should not be punished, because bare assertions of fact aren’t incitements. These decisions not only contradict in their judgments, also represent different theoretical approaches: semantics and pragmatics. In this sense, this current project will address the following questions in two years: 1. Constitutional Protection for false statement of fact? Analysis and Comparison of the German FCC’s Holocaust Denial Decision and the ECtHR’s Perin&#231;ek v. Switzerland. 2. Understanding genocide denials as a special kind of hate speech: A Comment on the Spanish Tribunal Constitonal’s No. 235/2007 decision and the Evolution of ECtHR’s relevant arguments.否認屠殺錯誤言論仇恨言論genocide deinalfalse statementhate speech