刑法防衛民主之正當性──反滲透法之刑事立法評析

Legitimacy of Defending Democracy Using Criminal Law: Review of Criminal Legislation of Anti-infiltration Act

德國20世紀的憲政經驗，創設了一個永久維護民主的有效機制，即所謂的防衛性民主，用以避免國家社會主義的死灰復燃，其後，也被認為是圍堵共產主義與極端主義的利器。防衛性民主固然有其時代背景及現實上的需求，但是，防衛性民主機制意味著集會自由與言論自由受到限制，正好陷於以民主之名對抗民主的弔詭之中。
近來，不論是國際上的經驗，抑或是我國國內選舉過程，確實出現境外勢力以各種形式企圖干預民意形成及選舉的情形，因此，反制性的措施也就成為重要的議題，我國的反滲透法應運而生，藉由刑罰作為主要的制裁手段來維護民主，然而，單純以維護民主為由限制政治上的選擇自由，此一立法所造成的弔詭，恐怕比防衛性民主來得更高。
本文認為，要脫離上述的弔詭陷阱，必須要回到自由民主憲政秩序的出發點，國民具有授權者之地位，因此，國民的言論與思想的自由，無論其內容為何，涉及國民的自我決定，此乃為民主之基礎所在，原則上不得予以箝制，因為，每個國民都有平等的政治自由，任何人不得剝奪他人政治決定之權限，但若僅是對於現有民主制度具有敵意性的主張與倡導，此本即為言論自由與民主競爭之本質所在，當不能僅以民主之名予以剝奪。

In view of Germany’s 20th-century constitutional experience, the so-called defensive democratic mechanisms were established to avoid a resurgence of the Nazis and to combat communism and extremism. A defensive democracy, however, means that freedom of assembly and speech is restricted, which removes important fundamental elements that make up a democratic system, creating the paradox of opposing democracy in the name of democracy.
Recently, whether it is international experience or the domestic election process, foreign forces have indeed attempted to interfere in the formation of public opinion and elections in various forms. Anti-infiltration Act uses punishment as the main sanction method to maintain democracy. However, the paradox caused by the regulation of people’s political freedom of choice through criminal sanctions may be higher than that of defensive democracy.
This article argues that we must return to the starting point of the liberal democratic constitutional order, that citizens have the status of empowerment, and that the freedom of speech and thought of citizens, regardless of their content, involves the self-determination of citizens. Therefore, in principle, there should be no restrictions on this dissident political speech, but only in response to anti-democratic attacks.