沒有「言論」的言論自由──言論自由作為對抗特定管制的權利

Freedom of Speech Without“Speech”:Freedom of Speech as Right Against Rules

美國言論自由法學存在兩種理解方式：言論自由作為保障特定行為的權利，或是言論自由作為對抗特定管制的權利。本文先從案例與學說切入，分別說明這兩種路徑的基礎何在，並主張言論自由作為對抗特定管制的權利是更合理而融貫的詮釋。觸發言論自由的關鍵問題並非「何謂言論？」，而是系爭管制的兩種特徵：管制的不當動機疑慮，以及管制對整體溝通環境的影響。接下來本文從規範性觀點指出，這樣的觸發模式是「政府不適格」和「言論的不定性」兩條件下的最佳方案，也可能是對民主憲政體制來說普遍有效的基礎模型，即便從我國的言論自由法制脈絡來看，亦不失為值得參考的模式。

Two interpretations of the jurisprudence of freedom of speech exist in the United States: viewing freedom of speech as a right protecting actions or as a right against rules. This article commences with an examination of cases and theories to elucidate the underpinnings of these two approaches. It contends that construing freedom of speech as a right against rules presents a more coherent and reasonable interpretation. The pivotal question initiating free speech considerations is not“What is speech?”but rather the two features of the disputed regulation: its potential for illicit motives and its ramifications on the communicative environment. From a normative perspective, this article suggests that in the face of“governmental incompetence”and“indeterminacy of speech”, this triggering model emerges as an optimal solution, arguably serving as a universally effective foundational model for democratic constitutional systems. Even when considering the unique context of freedom of speech in our country, this model retains its value as a viable reference point.