公共論壇／場域理論與言論事前限制──未竟其功的釋字第734號解釋

The Public Forum Doctrine and the Prior Restraint: Comments on J.Y. Interpretation No. 734

釋字第734號解釋係自釋字第634號解釋後再次確認商業言論或經濟性言論應不僅受到低度之違憲審查，而至少應受到中度以上之違憲審查保障，對於經濟性言論或商業言論自由之保障發展具有重要之提升意義。惟本號解釋就言論自由之事前限制及公共論壇／場域理論之意義及建立，則均未能明確予以釐清與處理。其中就事前限制而言，本號解釋原能至少指明涉及言論內容之事前限制時，應推定違憲。而關於公共場域，本號解釋則未能如美國聯邦最高法院細分傳統之公共場域（traditional public forum）、指定之公共場域（designated public forum），以及其他非公共場域之政府財產（non-public forum/all remaining public property），而分別適用不同之違憲審查密度，大幅削弱本號解釋有意提及「公共場所」之美意。本號解釋就事前限制及公共場域均僅於理由書第三段以極為隱喻之方式「併此指明」，留下許多疑義，殊為可惜。本文希望藉由相關議題之介紹，對於本號解釋之相關理解及延伸，能更為助益。

Like the J.Y. Interpretation No. 634, the J.Y. Interpretation No. 734 reaffirmed that the commercial or economic speech should be subject to at least intermediate judicial review. This interpretation has a very important meaning to the increased protection of commercial or economic speech. However, the Interpretation No. 734 failed to clarify the meaning of prior restraint and public forum principle. Regarding the prior restraint, the Interpretation No. 734 could have at least specified the content-based prior restraint should be presumed unconstitutional. As to the public forum, the Interpretation No. 734 did not specify traditional public forum, designated public forum, and non-public forum/all remaining public property, and distinguish different judicial scrutiny like the U.S. Supreme Court, which wastes its efforts to allude to the “public space” in this case. The Interpretation No. 734’s use of “[w]e hereby also noted” to deal with the prior restraint and the public forum leaves many questions unresolved. The author intends to further understand the Interpretation No. 734 by analyzing the relevant topics.