限制菸品廣告與菸品贊助之違憲審查──美國、加拿大判決與釋字794號解釋

Unconstitutional Review of Restrictions on Tobacco Advertising and Tobacco Sponsorship: U.S. and Canadian Judgments and Interpretation No. 794

各國菸品控制法規，均規定菸商不得以菸品名稱或菸商名稱贊助活動，以促銷菸品促銷或提升菸品形象。菸害防制法第9條第8條似乎禁止以菸品名稱贊助活動，但因該條文寫的並不明確，禁止範圍是否包含菸商名稱，產生爭議。2020年8月大法官做出釋字794號解釋，認為該規定符合法律明確性原則，對菸商廣告之限制不侵害言論自由。本文比較美國、加拿大法院對菸品廣告與贊助限制問題的憲法判決，分析其所採取的審查標準，與具體的審查操作及結果。透過比較，更能清楚看出大法官釋憲操作與美國之不同處。其中，法律明確性原則之操作，過於寬鬆。而言論自由之審查，雖然表面上使用美國審查標準之用語，但實際操作更接近加拿大之操作，相對寬鬆。

The tobacco control laws of various countries all stipulate that tobacco manufacturers shall not sponsor activities with the name of the tobacco product and/or the name of the tobacco manufacturer in order to promote tobacco products or enhance the image of the tobacco products. Article 9(8) of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act seems to prohibit sponsoring activities under the name of tobacco products, but due to the wording of the article 9(8) is not clear, whether the scope of the prohibition includes the name of the tobacco manufacturer is controversial. In August 2020, the Justices issued Interpretation No. 794 Interpretation, which held that this provision complies with the principle of clarity and definiteness of law, and the restrictions on tobacco sponsorship do not infringe the freedom of speech. This paper compares the US and Canadian courts’constitutional judgments on tobacco advertising and sponsorship restrictions, and analyzes the review standards adopted by them, as well as the specific review operations and results. Through comparison, we can clearly see the difference between Justice’s constitutional interpretation operation and that of the United States. Among them, the operation of the principle of clarity and definiteness of law is too loose. Regarding freedom of speech, although the language of American censorship standards is used on the surface, the actual operation is closer to that of Canada and is relatively loose.