第三帝國陰影下的言論自由保障：論德國聯邦憲法法院在政治極右言論案件中的立場演變

Freedom of Speech under the Shadow of the Third Reich:On the Evolution of German Federal Constitutional Court's Decisions regarding Extreme Right-wing Speech

基於不同的歷史背景和司法實務爭議，德國言論自由理論的起點和發展路徑都與美國大為迥異。一言以蔽之，德國的言論自由法學一直都在第三帝國的陰影之下，不斷糾結於如何在「法治國vs.反納粹」或是「自由理念市場vs.轉型正義」的價值衝突之間尋求平衡。由於德國聯邦憲法法院的判決對德國言論自由理論的形塑極為關鍵，加上法院經常在極右派言論之憲法保障的難題中決定言論自由理論的走向，因此本文即選擇以極右派言論的相關判決為對象，介紹並分析德國聯邦憲法法院在不同時期中對於言論自由保障的見解演變。從1920年代的理論提出、1958年Lüth判準的確立、1960年代以降的反納粹條款引入以及Lüth判準的傾斜，直至2009年正面處理法治國原則和轉型正義衝突的Wunsiedel判決，本文的論述一方面呈現了聯邦憲法法院近六十年來對於言論自由理論內涵的精細化，同時也更反映出抽象法學理論和現實時空脈絡的緊密連結：誠然基本法隨著時間流逝而更能信任公民社會的自我防衛能力，但太過深刻的歷史傷痕則依然是不可觸碰的言論禁忌。

On the basis of different historical contexts and legal issues, the evolution of theory of freedom of speech in Germany has a different starting point and path in comparison with that in the USA. In a nutshell, the German jurisprudence of freedom of speech has been struggled, under the dark shadow of the Third Reich past, to achieve the balance between conflicting values such as the rule of law and anti-Nazism or free marketplace of ideas and transitional justice. Like their US-American colleagues, decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) play an important role in shaping the theory of freedom of speech in Germany. It is therefore reasonable to explain the development of the FCC’s opinions regarding the protection of freedom of speech by virtue of analyzing its decisions on extreme right-wing speech, when the Court usually issues critical decisions in such cases. This article divides the development of the FCC’s opinions on theory of freedom of speech and protection of extreme right-wing speech into four phases: formulation of basis theories in the 1920s, the Lüth-Standard for assessing the “generality” of legal regulations in 1958, enactments of anti-Nazi regulations and distortion of Lüth-Standard since 1960s, and the Wunsiedel-decision in 2009 which, for the very first time, engages itself theoretically in the delicate dilemma between rule of law and transitional justice. The comprehensive analysis here not only reveals sophistication of the German FCC’s argumentation about freedom of speech over time, but also reflects the close connection of abstract legal theories to concrete time-space context: Certainly, the German Basic Law would entrust the civil society to self-defense more in the process of time, those deep historical wounds that constitute the national identity still remain to be untouchable communicative taboos nowadays.