| 英文摘要 |
As the means of preventive and prior restrain measure on the freedom of assembly and procession, the reporting system, when compared to the approval system, may cause less interference and damage to the freedom, which appears to be more mitigating and is able to achieve the same goals as the approval system does. The academia and the administrations as well as other relevant amendments have long been in favour of the approval system as it is considered a better method. In J.Y. Interpretation No. 744, with the most stringent standard of “strict scrutiny,” the Constitutional Court, reacting to the prior censorship of drug advertisements, adopted the standard that a severe interference with the freedom of speech shall be presumed unconstitutional, implying that the approval system is not apparently probable in proper protection of the freedom of expression. However, issues such as whether or not the reporting system meets the requirements of the protection of the freedom of assembly and procession constitutionally, the need for discussing progressive procedures for the reporting system, or the feasibility of the adoption of the approval system for assembly and procession remain unresolved. Therefore, this article investigates the abovementioned issues and conducts further research. |
