政府言論原則之研究──從美國聯邦最高法院Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans案談起

The Study on Government Speech Doctrine-- From Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Case

在美國所謂之「政府言論」原則提出政府本身之言論得以免於憲法增修條文第1條之審查，然而為何觀點差別待遇可以在這個領域被禁止，但在另一個空間完全免責？政府言論原則是如此地新穎，也更受到關注，美國聯邦最高法院在2015年Walker v Texas Division, Sons ofConfederate Veterans案之審理，全體大法官均同意全案爭點在於特殊汽車牌照上之訊息究竟為政府言論或私人言論，4位保守派之大法官主張其屬於「公共論壇」中之私人言論，因此州政府之行為屬於觀點差別待遇而受到憲法增修條文第1條所禁止，然多數意見則斷言其應歸類為政府言論，Walker案之判決擴展了政府言論原則適用之範圍，卻未處理對於私人利用政府資產進行表達產生之爭議，以致於政府言論原則之框架更形模糊，美國之政府言論原則未來之發展及影響其司法實務之效應，相當值得觀察。

The Government’s own speech is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny, even when it has the effect of limiting speech. Why is viewpoint discrimination flatly forbidden in one area of First Amendment law and entirely exempt from scrutiny in another? Government speech doctrine is new, and become cause for concern. In Walker v Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans case of 2015, All of justices agree that the question was whether the message on the plate was government speech or private speech. The four “conservative ” justices said it was private speech, the majority insist it was government speech. The Court’s decision broaden the scope of the government speech doctrine and failed to figure out in situations where a private individual speaks while utilizing government property. And makes the contour more blurred. The development and influence of government speech doctrine is worthy to watch.