論菸品廣告限制之合憲性——兼評釋字第794號解釋

A Constitutional Study on Restrictions of Tobacco Advertising: Also on Judicial Interpretation No. 794

商業廣告長久以來在我國釋憲實務上被視為典型之商業性言論，並受到憲法第11條言論自由之保障。觀察歷年大法官解釋，資訊提供、意見形成及自我實現為商業性言論受到憲法言論自由保障的三大主要依據。釋字第794號解釋涉及菸商對特定活動所為的贊助行為，並非直接針對特定商品或服務的描述或促銷。相反地，藉由對於某類公益性活動的財務資助表達支持立場，進而提升企業整體形象應才是主要目的。據此，其是否具備促進真實資訊流通與言論自由的意見形成作用，從而亦應受到言論自由的保障？此外究竟應將經濟性獲利作為顯名贊助之唯一目的，又或者應將其所贊助的活動性質一併納入審查標準考量？最後，我國釋憲實務就商業廣告限制或禁止案件，長久以來呈現「重言論自由，輕職業（營業）自由」之現象，即使兩種自由權未必導向不同之實質合憲性判斷，基於違憲審查體系完整性之考量，仍非無商榷餘地。

Commercial Advertisement is regarded as a classical form of commercial speech, which serves as a tool of“offering information regarding product or service to the public”. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 794 launched in 2020 involves the issue of sponsorship from a tobacco industry in an event of social welfare foundation. In contrast to other cases of commercial advertisement, an identification or a description over the product or service does not exist. Therefore, this article will investigate, upon which reason a commercial advertisement shall be protected by the right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, it is not less problematic, whether the sponsorship from a tobacco industry shall fall into the scope of the right to freedom of speech. Last but not least, it is clear that the constitutional court emphasizes exclusively the significance of the right to freedom of speech in the relevant previous cases, while the right to profession does not play any role in the progress of judicial review.