論新聞自由與公眾人物隱私權之衝突與調和─以歐洲人權法院卡洛琳公主訴德國案（VONHANNOVER v. GERMANY）為中心

The Conflict and Reconcilation of Freedom of Press and Public Figures’ Right of Privacy - A Case Study of European Court of Human Rights Case of “VON HANNOVER v. GERMANY”

系所名稱：法律研究所 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：97年 指導教授：程明修 不僅在台灣，即使在號稱民主先進的歐美各國，小報也總是可以占有一席之地。雖然，我們也許會認為造成今日腥色羶新聞當道，狗仔隊應是「幕後英雄」，然而不容否認地，大眾的好奇心卻往往是狗仔文化始終盛行（或猖獗）的最大推手。當我們自身隱私受到侵擾時，對狗仔文化的批判固不待言。但對那些隱私遭受侵犯的受害者的心情，我們又有多少程度的感同身受？而當這種「危機意識」不高時，我們就有可能選擇沈默以對。於是，人民一方面有或者主張「知的權利」，希望多知道一點他人的事，但另一方面卻又要極盡地防止他人知道自己的事情。換個角度說，其弔詭之處就在於，大眾也許一方面斥責狗仔橫行，但另一方面卻對「欣賞」或「窺伺」狗仔們所獵取的各式各樣的名人照片或新聞表現出高度的興趣。這樣的舉動不但相互矛盾，也是助紂為虐。而媒體為了滿足大眾越來越鹹重的胃口，態度只會更趨之若鶩，手段也將更變本加厲。英國王妃黛安娜的死，像是丟給所有買過小報的人一顆良心的手榴彈。在這種微妙的情緒之下，小報也很容易把責任推給讀者，表示他們對名人隱私的窺探不過是因應市場的需求罷了。當媒體為了滿足普羅大眾「知的權利」，其所受到「第四權」光環加持而高擎的「新聞自由」大旗便很容易和公眾人物的「隱私權」發生基本權的衝突、碰撞。本文的目的即在探討新聞自由與公眾人物隱私權發生衝突時如何調和之問題，全文共將分為六章，內容簡述如下：第一章從介紹近年來發生在國內外的諸多新聞事件出發，這些事件中的當事人有公眾人物，也有原非公眾人物，卻因某突發事件而成為公眾人物。但他們之間的共同點都是其所認為可主張的隱私權和新聞自由發生衝突。由於此二種權利均為同受憲法保障的基本權，行使時所造成的碰撞該如何處理，遂構成本論文的寫作動機。第二章介紹歐洲人權法院卡洛琳公主訴德國案之發展經過。包括本案背景，和當事人從德國各級法院以至聯邦憲法法院所為之主張和其判決結果，以及當事人卡洛琳公主最後向歐洲人權法院提出訴訟的判決結果。除針對法院判決重點加以整理外，亦提出本文對判決的想法。第三章從新聞自由的法理基礎開始，進而探討新聞自由之保護領域、可限制性，及如何審查對新聞自由限制之合憲性。其中包括何以要保障新聞自由，新聞自由的保護領域所涵蓋的範圍為何，德國、美國及我國各以何根據來保障新聞自由。此外，如果肯定新聞自由的可限制性，則如何加以合理而不過當地限制。而在審查公權力對新聞自由之限制是否合憲之類型化審查模式上，德國從聯邦憲法法院判決中逐漸建構出不同層次或不同密度的審查標準；美國也由法院在處理個案中發展出「三重基準」的審查標準。至於我國，則至今尚未建立一套完整的審查標準。本文亦在歸納整理德、美兩國學說後，嘗試提出所支持的見解及理由。第四章所要探討的是公眾人物隱私權之保障與限制。除對隱私權及公眾人物之定義與範圍加以介紹外，也如同前章去探討德國及美國學說是如何從基本法或憲法形塑隱私權之內容，以及我國對隱私權保障所採取之法理依據，並論述對公眾人物隱私權之限制及其限制之正當性。第五章則討論新聞自由與及公眾人物隱私權衝突時之權衡及調和方式。將先就反應基本權衝突的多種學說介紹開始，進而介紹權衡及調和衝突基本權之學說。其後，將以卡洛琳公主訴德國案判決之時點為分水嶺，分別介紹德國聯邦憲法法院和歐洲人權法院判決數例，以呈現各該法院對公眾人物隱私權及新聞自由衝突時所採取之解決模式，並觀察卡洛琳案後各該法院是否以及如何受到該判決之影響。其後以我國司法院大法官釋字第509號解釋及法院判決所提出的衝突解決模式分析整理，進而歸納出各判決的主要觀點及本文之意見。第六章則綜合整理以上各章內容做為本文之結論。

There are disputes between “right of privacy” and “freedom of press”. When Princess Diana died, the paparazzi was accused being responsible to cause the accident. But who urged them to chase the car for taking pictures? When we buy the “tabloid” disclosing the private life of the celebrity, we may all play a role in violating the privacy of others. It is a human nature that people are curious about others’ private life but wishing to keep our own. However, if we demanded the media reporting more about the celebrity, the “right to know” conflicts with their privacy. Thus, this dissertation addresses this issue from the experiences, acts and regulations in different countries to define the boundary between the public figures’ right of privacy and the freedom of press, and then offers a possible resolution for situations in Taiwan.In Chapter one, a few recently news affairs were cited for conficts between right of privacy and freedom of press. In Chapter two, the case “Von Hannover v. Germany” of the European Court of Human Rights was introduced and analyzed.In Chapter three, the author discussed theories of “freedom of press” in Germany and United States, stated the constitutional basis of “freedom of press”, provided the rationale of why “freedom of press” should be protected, defined the area of protection of “freedom of press” and the restrictability of “freedom of press”, and presented ways to test the government’s regulations on “freedom of press”. Based on the cases of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, a model of categorical tests containing different levels or standards, was built in Germany. Similarly, the “triple standard” from case law was developed in the United States. However, in Taiwan, we still have no test standards yet. The author provides potential standards more suitable for Taiwan after collecting and comparing the theories of other countries.In Chapter four, the author introduced the protection and the restriction of public figures’ “right of privacy”. First, the definition of “public figure” was given and then the author described the theories of “right of privacy” in Germany and United States including its content and constitutional basis. Then, discussion exclusively for situations inTaiwan was given. At last, justification for the restriction of public figures’ right of privacy was stated.Chapter five focused on the models for the balancing and the reconcilation between “freedom of press” and “public figures’ right of privacy”. First of all, the author introduced the theory of the conflicting constitutional rights and the balancing and the reconcilation of the conflicting constitutional rights. Secondarily, few cases of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the European Court of Human Rights before and after the case of Von Hannover v. Germany were described and compared for changes in models of both courts for the cases of conflicting constitutional rights. The possible influences from the case of Von Hannover v. Germany on both courts were given. At last, the author collected cases of Taiwan’s Constitutional Court for interpretation No. 509, and also few trials of regional courts to conclude.Chapter six is the final conclusion of this dissertation regarding the boundaries between the public figures’ right of privacy and the freedom of press and the possible solutions in Taiwan.