| 英文摘要 |
This article introduces the history and legal practice of American outdoor assembly, and discusses the issues of impaired assembly right as well as damaged public order due to the inadequate legal protection and ineffective law enforcement in Taiwan. Since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of permit requirements in 19th century, the right of freedom of assembly has been restricted. However, thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Supreme Court and its subordinate affiliated courts, a variety of principles and rules of law, such as “Content-Neutral Restrictions (Two-Track Theory)”, “Imminent Lawless Action Test”, “Public Forum Doctrine”, etc. were established to help stabilizing and clarifying the right. Compared with the American counterparts, we also have often been blamed by strict legal restrictions on freedom of assembly. Nevertheless, as for the conformity between these restrictions and their enforcement, there is a huge gap between them. After recognizing the disruptive nature of outdoor assembly, three possible solutions may be considered. First of all, the current laws and regulations are severely strict and do not comply with the requirements of people today. Secondly, the exercise of police power should be quick while in compliance with proportionality to respond any substantial crime and violence during the assembly event. Thirdly, the assembly law could impose an affirmative obligation on the government to protect assemblies from external and internal violence.
|
