Justice Frankfurter as the Pioneer of the Strict Scrutiny Test－Filling in the Blank in the Development of Free Speech Jurisprudence

Frankfurter大法官作為嚴格審查的先驅──填補言論自由審查標準的缺口

本文以案例分析為研究方法， 主張Frankfurter大法官對於言論自由嚴格審查基準的發展有正面影響，上述貢獻因其著名的「司法消極主義」主張而受到世人忽略；同時，本文也發現Frankfurter大法官影響了在進步的華倫法院扮演主要角色的Brennan大法官的法學理論。 當聯邦最高法院向麥卡錫主義退讓時，Frankfurter大法官對於限制疑似共產黨人活動所生的影響深表關切，並率先使用「威懾」與「寒蟬效應」描述限制言論自由對一個開放社會的負面影響。在Sweezy v. New Hampshire一案中，Frankfurter大法官主張，只有重大迫切的國家利益始可正當化對政治自由之限制。Brennan大法官延續Frankfurter大法官的理論，在言論自由領域發展出重大迫切利益的審查標準。儘管Frankfurter大法官相較於Brennan大法官，在認定寒蟬效應以宣告言論自由限制違憲時，需要更堅實的證據。然而，本文依然確認了Frankfurter大法官以其敏感度，使美國聯邦最高法院注意到限制政治自由的負面效應，對言論自由違憲審查基準的建立產生正面影響。

This article shows Justice Frankfurter’s positive influence on the development of the jurisprudence of free speech, which has been overlooked in the shadow of his judicial passivism. Reading the decisions of that time carefully, this article finds the theoretical relationship between him and Justice Brennan, who played the main role in the progressive Warren Court. As the Supreme Court began to yield to the hysteria of McCarthyism, Frankfurter’s deep concern about the wide discouraging effect of the restraint came to the forefront. It was Frankfurter who began to use the terms “deter” and “chill” to describe the negative effect of restrictions on speech. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, Frankfurter demanded that the State interest be “compelling” to justify the intrusion on political liberties. Brennan succeeded in developing the compelling interest test in following decisions. It is true that Frankfurter needed more evidence than Brennan to recognize the deterrent effect enough to make restrictions unconstitutional. However, this article confirms that Frankfurter helped the restart of the Supreme Court with his keen sensitivity to the negative potential of restrictions on political liberties.