言論自由事前審查之審查標準──釋字第744號解釋與美國審查標準比較

Scrutiny-Standard of Prior Restraint Doctrine: Interpretation No. 744 and U.S. Scrutiny-Standard Comparison

大法官在釋字第744號解釋就言論自由事前審查，參考美國判決，以及受到林子儀大法官釋字第644號解釋協同意見書之影響，對言論自由事前審查提出了更嚴格審查標準。多位大法官並預告，未來會將此標準適用於所有言論自由事前審查，並默默地推翻釋字第414號解釋商業言論之事前限制標準、釋字第445號解釋之事前限制中的時間地點方式管制之標準。本文研究發現，大法官們對美國言論自由事前限制之審查標準與內容，理解有所錯誤。雖然美國法院仍保留「高度推定違憲」這句話，但並非都採嚴格審查，而是回到各種言論類型管制的各種多元審查標準。真正美國法院對言論自由事前審查採取一致標準的，是要求行政事前審查的判準必須具體明確，還有提供即時司法救濟。本文說明，美國法院無法對所有言論自由事前限制採取嚴格審查標準的理由：一、言論自由事前限制的類型多元，無法將對新聞自由之禁制令之嚴格審查適用到其他類型。二、當言論自由保護範圍擴展到政府管理之公共論壇或其他指定公共論壇時，政府之管理仍然必須存在，也不可能都原則違憲。

In interpretation No. 744, Grand Justices in R.O.C. take the U.S. cases as reference, and be influenced by Justice Lin concurring opinions in interpretation No. 644, adopting a more stringent scrutiny-standard on expression-prior-restraint issues. Several Justices announce in advance that, in the future the new scrutiny-standard will applied in all expression-prior-restraint issues, Interpretation No. 414 standard on prior restraint of commercial speech and Interpretation No. 445 standard on time-place-and –manner regulation will be overruled quietly. This research has found that, Grand Justices had misunderstood the Scrutinystandard and contents of Prior Restraint Doctrine in the U.S. Although courts in U.S. usually said that “prior restraint of expression bearing a heavy presumption against it constitutional validity”, actually they didn’t take the strict scrutiny in all times, but turn back to the categorical approach on different contents and forms of expression. If there were any uniform standards in prior restraint doctrine, they may be: 1. there should be narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, and 2. prompt judicial review. This paper will explain why U.S. courts can’t apply strict scrutiny in all cases: 1. prior restraint cover different categorical cases, the strict standard developed from the injunction on press is not suited for other situations; 2. In regard to public forums and designated public forum, some kind of administration is needed, and the administration can’t be unconstitutional in principle.