論選舉不實訊息的刑事規制：以公共性原則之保護為中心

On Criminalization of Disinformation in Campaign: Focusing on The Protection of The Principle of Publicity

系所名稱：法學院法律學系
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：110
指導教授：周漾沂
假訊息／假新聞對民主制度的危害已為世界主要民主國家所注意。不過，基於言論自由的保障，欲以刑罰加以制裁，仍有重重限制。相對於此，我國立法者卻早在民國65年即在《動員戡亂時期公職人員選舉罷免法》第92條即規定不實訊息的處罰。立法理由謂：「為端正選風，維護優良競選風度，公平競爭起見，特訂定本條，對散佈虛構之事實以使特定候選人當選或不當選為目的者加以處罰」。其後雖有增刪文字但規範結構大體不變。或謂我國立法者深謀遠慮，在假訊息／假新聞於網路時代開始肆虐前，即已設定處罰規定。不過，實務見解對之為保守解釋，亦即解為候選人名譽權保障之規定，而屬誹謗罪之特別規定。由此可見，立法者欲以該條文保護民主選舉之目的，因司法者之詮釋將之解為個人名譽保障而落空。此亦反應了最高法院在防衛民主制度上的謹慎，原無可厚非。但如後文所述，實務見解仍具形式上之矛盾與實質上之缺乏理據。
本文目的在試圖奠基或證成以刑法保護民主選舉免於假訊息／假新聞攻擊的正當性。研究客體即是現行有效的《公職人員選舉罷免法》第 104 條：「意圖使候選人當選或不當選，或意圖使被 罷免人罷免案通過或否決者，以文字、圖畫、錄音、錄影、演講或他法，散布謠 言或傳播不實之事，足以生損害於公眾或他人者，處 5 年以下有期徒刑 」與《總統副總統選舉罷免法》第 90 條：「意圖使候選人當選或不當選，以文字、圖畫、錄 音、錄影、演講或他法，散布謠言或傳播不實之事，足以生損害於公眾或他人者， 處五年以下有期徒刑 」。
首先，本文藉由對妨害投票罪章的體系性研究，將系爭二條文定位於超個人法益之保護，亦即建構民主選舉的自由論辯體制的公共性原則。公共性原則旨在確保政治共同體中的每個成員都有參與理性政治論辯的機會與權利。也只有保障了每個公民參與機會的政治論辯程序，方才能藉由言說論證的人際統合效果產生溝通權力，此種溝通權力由於是全民參與的產物，故有國民主權之地位。故系爭二條文因此即是對國民主權的刑事保護，而能嵌入於普通刑法的妨害投票罪體系中。基此，不實訊息或謠言即是使信以為真之公民，由於與其他公民抱持不同事實信念，而無法開啟尋找共同行動之應然準則的政治辯論。此即使信以為真的公民被迫脫離作為價值辯論的理性政治辯論程序而侵害公共性原則。不過，本文立場並非對公共性原則之一般性保護，毋寧是支持線索保護架構民主選舉前階段政治論辯的公共性原則，亦即僅保護有民主選舉關聯性的公共性原則，故同時也是政治論辯合規則性意義下的投票結果正確性之保護。
再者，本文將散布行為定義為，在「質」上行為人已失去對於其不實言論或謠言傳遞範圍的掌控；在「量」上該等言論觸及各該選舉中並非不重要的公民數量。而事實陳述與價值論辯之差異即在於言說的客觀目的取向，亦即目的在描述性狀態或規範性狀態的共識形成。而法院作為事實辯論的場地，即是確認事實陳述不具備充分理據的場地，亦即由法院判斷是否具備行為人知識標準之人將認為行為人所掌握之證據不足支撐其事實陳述。最後，事實陳述內容必須具備政治上重要性，亦即法院依據政治社群的固有政治文化與歷史，及當前政治論辯動向，可以認為政治社群在意的價值命題奠基於該等言論所涉及的事實主題 。
本文將系爭二條文定性為潛在危險犯。潛在危險犯乃是以禁止非容許風險之創設為規範目的，其具體規制對象則是狀態的具體危險性。在假訊息刑事規制的事實關係中，該作為判斷對象的狀態即是指不實訊息或謠言覆蓋為數足夠公民之狀態。再進而對此狀態判斷是否具備具體危險性，且超過法所容許的風險範圍。就具體危險性之判斷，本文亦提出具體的判斷標準。首先，應具備注意力吸引事實、可信性奠基事實，而不存在注意力轉移事實，且於相當期間內無有效的反對言論觸及接受不實訊息的公民。符合上述標準即具備對公共性原則侵害之具體危險，再進而為該等風險是否超過法的容許範圍之判斷，亦即檢驗是否逾越當前政治辯論中，可合理期待於公民個人查證的資訊範圍；以及是否逾越事實檢證機構現實上的即時查證與澄清能力範圍。若逾越上述二範圍，狀態所內含的具體危險性即屬於非容許風險。最後，仍須判斷是否在迫近的未來將產生一個奠基在不實訊息或謠言所涉及的事實主題上的公共政治辯論，亦即法益客體進入非容許風險作用範圍。此時在時點上應根據行為結束時個案情況可以預測該等政治公共領域將在（被判斷為未在相當期間內呈現之）可及性反對言論呈現前產生。
在主觀構成要件上，本文認為系爭二條文之意圖規定屬於行為人動機，亦即立法者將公共性原則之刑事保護限縮於以「選人」為中心的選舉制度前階段之公共政治論辯程序。本文並且支持該等主觀要素要有對應的非成文客觀構成要件，亦即不實訊息或謠言之內容應具備候選人人身關聯性，亦即其內容應直接或間接地指涉到特定候選人的政治立場。本文並於最後為立法論上之建議。

The threat of Disinformation or fake news to democracy has come to notice of
democratic nations. However, due to constitutional protection of freedom of speech, it is difficult for these nations to regulate the phenomenon through criminal law. In contrast, Republic of China (Taiwan) has already taken measure to punish the act of spreading rumors or disinformation during campaign. Article 92 of Civil Servants Election and Recall Act during National Mobilization of 1976 had already made it a crime to spread disinformation. The text of the law, although amended several times afterwards, remains mostly the same. The legislator’s intention was to protect the integrity of democratic elections. But the Supreme Court interprets it in another way. The Supreme
Court views it as the protection of the reputation of candidates.
The purpose of this master thesis is to justify the regulation of spreading disinformation through criminal law. The object of this study are Article 104 of Civil Servants Election and Recall Act and Article 90 of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election and Recall Act, which are both currently valid. The former states: “Anyone who disseminates rumors or spreads false sayings by text, picture, audio tape, video tape, speech or any other method for the purpose of making a candidate elected or not elected or making the proposal of recall adopted or vetoed and thus causing damages to the public or others shall be condemned to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 5 years.” The later states: “Anyone who diffuses rumor or spread false saying by text, picture, audio tape, video tape, speech or other method for the purpose of making a candidate elected or not elected and thus causing damages to the public or others shall be condemned to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 5 years.”
First, through systematic study of Chapter 6 of Criminal Code of Republic of China “Offenses of Interference with Voting”, this thesis concludes that the two above mentioned criminal articles as the protection of the Principle of Publicity. The purpose of the Principle of Publicity is to guarantee the right and opportunity of every member in the political community to engage in the rational political discourse procedure. The popular engagement in this rational political discourse procedure generates communicative power, which is the embodiment of Popular Sovereignty. Therefore, the two above mentioned articles are the protection of Popular Sovereignty and can thereby be integrated into the system of Chapter 6 of Criminal Code. The spreading of disinformation is an offense to the Principle of Publicity, because it robs the citizen who believes it off the opportunity of engaging in the rational political discourse procedure. It does so by making him share different factual belief from other citizens and thus the political discourse, which is based on factual consensus, as the procedure of reaching consensus about intersubjectively valid practical rules cannot begin. This affects the outcome of the election and therefore should be viewed as a crime.
Furthermore, this thesis qualitatively defines the act of spreading as the offender’s losing control of the circulation of the factual information and qualitatively as the factual information reaching a non-trivial number of voters in each campaign. The difference between factual statement and opinion of value is the objective purpose of utterance: generating descriptive or prescriptive consensus. The court then acts as the venue of discourse to test facts. A factual statement is false if a rational citizen who is of the same intelligence and education level of the offender, taking into account of the evidence and information the offender has, also views the factual statement as void. And finally, the content of the factual statement must have political significance, which means by considering the history and political culture and the current political debate of the political community, the court may think the content of disinformation touches on the important concerns of the community.
This thesis views the two above mentioned articles as crimes constituted by potential endangerment of legal interest. The regulative purpose of it is to forbid the generation of legally unpermitted risks. The regulative object is the concretely dangerous state. In the context of regulating disinformation, the object of judging is the state of disinformation reaching a non-trivial number of citizens. The standards of judging the existence of concrete endangerment are as following. First, the existence of attention attracting factors and the credibility grounding factors and the non-existence of attention distracting factors and accessible counterspeech for a significant length of time. Second, the issues that the disinformation touches overstep the scope of fact-check that can be legitimately expected from individual citizens and other fact-checking institutions. Finally, it is also necessary that a political discourse based on the factual issues on which the disinformation touches can be prognosed as imminent.
In subjective constituent elements, this thesis views the element of subjective intention as motive of the offender. And it corresponds to the unwritten objective constituent elements, which is that the content of disinformation should refer to the actual political stands of the candidates in the campaign. In the end of this thesis the legislative proposal is also made.