論有害兒少身心之傳媒內容申訴共管機制

Study on Co-Regulatory Mechanisms of Complaints for Protection from Media Impact on Minors

系所名稱：法律學系研究所 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：103年 指導教授：張永明 傳媒內容共同管制的基本概念是指國家直接管制退居補充地位，在法規範的框架下，採以媒體業界自訂的自律規範形塑間接管制之模式，意近於我「國家通訊傳播委員會」不次強調之三律共管——自律、他律、法律：業者先行自律，公民部門等協助他律，法律為最後手段。申言之，共管是一種折衷均衡的中間模式，而這樣的模式是不是會比直接管制好？兩相比較如果存在可能的效益，那麼又應該如何來建構？才能維護憲法所保障的基本權利，特別是兒少保護的普世價值。在傳播平台匯流的必然趨勢下，相同內容露出不同平台的思維邏輯，有無內容監理統一化之必要？在自律與他律的管制鐘擺下，能否透過共管模式尋求更妥適的規制？洵屬本研究之動機。本研究係以兒少人格權做為申訴共管機制初建之律則性標的。在兒少保護之國家任務建構上，首要闡述者乃應確定兒少保護之法益價值，是否與言論自由同為憲法規範地位，為國家應予保護而免於第三人危害之基本權利；再者，論理基礎究為法學釋義之邏輯辨證，從法規範體系本身以「外」來研究法制與社會其他體系間的互動、或是從經驗事實的角度來研究法制，其必要性實不容忽視。基此，本研究第二章除了憲法釋義學與與現行媒體法制之探討外，並輔以醫學、心理學及社會學等實證研究支持並強化兒少保護限制言論自由之科學基礎。我國於2012 年3 月依兒童及少年福利與權益保障法第45 條，正式啟動新聞紙申訴共管機制，迄累積不少審議決定與評價原則，目前乃相對其他傳播媒介唯一符合本研究範圍定義之共管機制；電視與網路媒介雖分別具有草案框架及運作外觀，然欲真正落實共管仍有相當大的距離。同一內容露出於不同平台，管制不一、裁處不一、主管機關認定標準不一，不僅業者難以適從，於閱聽眾權益之保障亦有不周；內容監理齊一化為本研究之基礎態度，則深入檢視現行申訴機制，以之延伸形塑數位匯流下，不同管制密度之媒介各自運作、但相同內容相同管制之整合模式，乃本研究之核心論述。故而第三章多元平台之申訴機制部分，本研究則深入介紹其規範與運作現況、審議決定與評價原則，並鳥瞰數位匯流發展與新興視聽平台之類型，進以延伸第四章整合共管機制相關命題之開展——傳媒內容之水平式監理、外國模式之本土省思、強化自律組織之充分條件，以及未來性議題：消費轉向數位媒介之挑戰與因應，復依該章節之命題脈絡提出建議，於第五章扼摘本研究重要論述歸結。

The initial concept of co-regulation means an indirect approach to regulation, which takes the place of legal force in the legislative act so as to reduce the legislation burden, of which the form is nearly the measures to electronic media supervision by NCC authority in Taiwan: triple sections for regulation——media industry, social organisation, and legal force. Under the framework of co-regulation and selfregulation, how to set the mechanisms for complaints against protection from impact on minors, meanwhile to consider and ensure the exercise of speech freedom right. Partically in the convergence digital age of mass media, we face the same matter or concept which exposing on different media platforms. Would it be necessary to intergrate all of the issues to in the media sector into the co-regulation measures? What kind of social parties could be in charge of it? Is it a“better lawmaking”forthe development of alternative methods of settling disputes? Above all, effective performance of the regulatory process is signficanlty concerned, which is involved a proper and fair evaluation and sufficient presence by the supervisory bodies.Taiwan authorties have considered and adopted the EC framework in co-regulation, including practical applicaion in newspaper media, and draft plans in TV media. In order to realize the state of co-regulaion in EC, the Charpter 4 of the study particularizes the conditions of criterion-referenced members of EC: Briatin and Germany. Additionally, the study attempted to analyze and compare the performaces and differiences among. At the end of the study, there are specific suggestions for establishing native models among the paper, borcasting, and telecommunication network media.The study aims to launch the co-regulation mechanisms and the mass media impacts, which has two motives: giving consideration to both sides under two proportions——minors protection and speech freedom, increasing administrative efficiency and obeying the constitional principles. Taking a view from human society and history, a perfect system of governance isn’t existd at all. It was the beginning for co-regulation in media area in Taiwan, although, it should be encouraged that an approach based on the deepening of partnerships in which all actors have an active role to play——refer to EC Green Paper 2001.