untitled

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "untitled"

幸郜
9 years ago
Views:

1 路論 Posting One s Naked Self-Pictures to Internet On The Regulation of Obscene Speech and Criminal Law 235. 律樓北 234 [email protected] 路露女行路行不 235 路路路行 235 路論量論路論臨年路論論了不論年路更良刺理論不理不論年 235 論不 235 立列論 18 不論量 235 行論 235 Abstract It will not be necessarily illegal if an internet user uploads his naked self-pictures on websites. It depends on whether the self-picture is the so-called obscene speech and whether his behavior violates Sec. 235 of Criminal Law. And, since the speech to realize the individual self-fulfillment or self-expression is protected by the free speech clause, the naked self-pictures token and uploaded to the internet for the sake of the individual self-fulfillment or self-expression shall be protected by the constitution even though its content is the picture 2004 路 (TANET) 見匿見

2 of the naked body. However, the interest of protecting the freedom speech right of that internet user might be outweighed by that of protecting the mental development of the children and teenagers. On the other hand, the critiques or opinions on the internet user s uploading his naked self-pictures/videos on websites reflect the long-term argument on the issue whether we shall impose the criminal penalty on the production and dissemination of the obscene speech. To some extent, it is not plausible to criminalize the production and dissemination of the obscene speech because it violates the moralities of the society, possibly stimulates the sexual crimes and discriminates women. Also, if the end of criminal law 235 is to keep the healthy metal development of teenagers and children and to keep obscene speech away from those who are not willing to see that speech, its means prohibiting both the production and dissemination of obscene speech broadly is not proper to its goal. Therefore, it is argued that Criminal Law 235 shall be amended. Or it will be better to decriminalize the production and dissemination of the obscene speech and regulate it by administrative regulations whose goal is to protect the mental development of teenagers and children and to discourage the obscene speech from being an offense to those who are unwilling to see it. Keywords: self-picture obscene speech Criminal Law 235. 路數年來路路來露女行類路不律度來女行露路不論路路行不論論路來論論論路論論路行念論路 235 論路 ( ) 路路數路行路路路路路行不類類利路路利路利 1 類不利路量參見陸易落 TVBS 2004 年 3 31 available at (visited April 7, 2004) 2 參見來了聯 2004 年聯 2003 年 E4 裸女路聯 2003 年參見了女 ET Today 2003 年 12 3 available at

3 行 4 路 5 6 路類類不露女行不路例來流行路 7 類律不律聯類露女行路類律 235 論 8 路論列類路論路露女行路 ( ) 路路例 MSN Chat Yahoo Messenger 類 P2P www 路路路略路讀略路度略度略度略路路類 20 路 (visited April 7, 2004) 4 例了不理路 2004 年 5 GLAD 列了露路來 235 參見 2004 年 4 1 available at (visited May 28, 2004) 不力 2004 年 5 2 available at ( visited May 28, 2004) 裸 2004 年 6 13 available at ( visited June 24, 2004) 路 TVBS 2004 年 6 12 available at ( visited June 24, 2004) 5 參見 2003 年裸不濫聯 2003 年 B4 6 參見不聯 2003 年 B4 7 參見路流行 ET Today 2004 年 3 29 available at (visited April 7, 2004) 8 例行律論論連戀兩連聯 2003 年 9 11 A7 露路刺 2003 路 RESET available at (visited Feb. 25, 2004)

4 理 Yahoo Messenger 行識度略路路 ( ) 路路 235 論良路路路不利易女路路不年路論 ( ) 論 1. 論念行論例年行 27 年 558 切行行不不行行論 85 年 407 論 85 年 407 論切刺惡論不論論念論論例論 ( 例行 ) 不論 2. 論論度論論什論論 9 Thomas I. Emerson 論 9 臨論論行行類論論論

5 (1) (2) 識理 (3) 參 (4) 10 來說論利理類類論類論來 11 說 -- 論論不 12 (1) 理說 -- 論理理論理不論見論 13 (2) 說 -- 論論見 14 例論論來論 15 論論論不來不論 16 論論度 414 論論度理不論論理論度不論度論論論理 ( ) 論論見 235 列 (1) (2) (3) (4) 列 (5) 不論行參見林 1999 論理論錄論北 THOMAS I. EMERSON, TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT 3 (1963). 11 T. BARTON CARTER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FIFTH ESTATE REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MASS MEDIA 15 (2003). 12 林 1999 論理論錄論北 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, (1942) Samuel Roth v. United States of America, 354 U.S. 476, (1957) Marvin Miller v. State of California, 413 U.S.15, 33 (1973).

6 (6) 84 年 6294 例 145 不數見度數數數數數立年 6294 例 235 數不 235 列 84 年 6294 例立量 2. 路 235 路不 235 路論路路 235 不女行露論路立刺例行來路路不路不良良女令惡 407 論論念路不論 235 路利路路行 235 不利路行不 235 不論不 84 年 6294 例來良度 235 列 17 路不不 235 路利路量 235 路利 Yahoo Messenger 識路北 62-64

7 數不不 235 路 235 路論 235 行 ( ) 路路路了 235 不路論 407 切刺惡 [ ] 論論念路刺更離來說論論論念路不類行來不論路列論路不列論論利利見論見 509 更論 11 利度列論理 414 論見流 509 論不度論論 2. 論不論論論論論不論 414 論 18 李 2001 北 168

8 論度理不論論度論論路論路路論來論路論理論不論不絶利利 23 論利不律論行利利例論不惡列路不年年路 509 論量年路論年路論路年不路年類類年不路不路例路理 -- 露不 ( ) 路不 235 路路路行 235 論路論論臨年路論 19 路見不類路不論利度 20 立林隆類路 19 論不路律 See John H. Sommer, Against Cyberlaw, 15 BERKTLJ 1145, (2000) 年立 88 年 7 86 年 6

9 路 21 行利律論力 22 露刺 23 列論論不更來路論論 ( ) 論理論論列 1. / 良論理來良例利論 24 論量良例量 84 年流良 509 良寧立 2. 年論論年例論 Ginsberg v. New York(1968 年 ) 25 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation(1978 年 ) 26 年論 / 論了良年量 509 論論念了論量良年 3. 了列理論論來女不路參見路 available at (visited March 26, 2004) 路露參見 21 見露路例參見路露六 TVBS-N 2004 年 3 11 available at (visited March 18, 2004) 21 來路不立令露 2003 年 Supra note Id 論北 Sam Ginsberg v. Sate of New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). 26 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

10 論女女女行女了女 27 列數論來論刺 28 ( ) 論省論論理路更論不理 1. / 良論理了利例行 29 論了 -- / 良論不論不論烈不利論不論 30 例裸露類列論見論 235 不良 235 行良不數論不數略了數論論見力論論流不論論 31 論論利不數 / 良來論行不類理力不良論禮路更了列論路利路行不路不見論不路 27 Andrea Dworkin Catharine A. MacKinnon (pornography) 女 Catharine A. MacKinnon, Pornography, Civil Rights, And Speech, 20 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 1, 22 (1985). 28 參見 1993 論錄論 ( ) 北 John Tehranian, Sanitizing Cyberspace: Obscenity, Miller, And The Future Of Public Discourse On The Internet, 11 JIPL 1, 6 (2003). 30 See David Cole, Playing by Pornography s Rules: The Regulation of Sexual Expression, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 111, 128 (1994). 31 見力力見論 / 見

11 度略路路例例 20 行不論路不論路路行行路 2. 女女女論不論樂論論論論不 32 例年利 14 女了老女女 33 論力論論論女女論類論不論論理路更論理路路不利易女路例女行路 34 女不 3. 年不路不年論年不見 1950 年不良年不 35 論不不良年讀行不行路年易年率 80% 36 不不論路不年年了 A 32 David Cole, supra note 參見 2001 " 老 " 識讀 2001 年 2 1 available at (visited Sep.18, 2004) 34 參見 3 35 S. GLUECK & E. GLUECK, UNRAVELING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY xiv-xv (1950) 論年 ACI-FIND 行例 95% 例 83% / ACI-FIND (2003) available at (visited Sep 17, 2004)

12 行 37 年不了行不年力行令論年年論不不論量不年論例 A 年路不年 235 論不 4. 刺論論行不 38 說說暴力論不行聯論行聯 39 論念來 40 路見刺見路刺例女論論 ( ) 論 / 良年刺了不論年論理路更說了不論年來 235 論不 235 列論來論易論論了不論年論令論論 235 立量 235 行年 6 女行六女聯 2004 年 6 16 A 年 2 北年狼 A 聯 / 2004 年 2 28 A8 38 See Gordon HAWKINGS & FRANKLIN E. ZIMRING, PORNOGRAPHY IN A FREE SOCIETY (1998) cited in Gretchen Witte, Internet Indecency And Impressionable Minds, 44 VILL. L. REV. 745, 759 n.81 (1999). 39 See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY 324 cited in id., 760 n 參見論

13 立 235 列 (1) 論 (2) 行行不數 ( 數 ) 見 (3) 行列行數度來 235 量行列年年立年 18 年不論列利 18 年不論行列 18 年易易例 235 列行行行例不年行行列不論不易不行行不立行例 235 立 18 列行列不例 2. 量 235 行了 235 立量 235 行 235 立理年年利 26

14 不年暴力錄錄路不年年利 27 1 路年 2 列年列 3 立路理錄路理路 41 路 42 路論類理年 43 錄路理錄行錄不列不 44 列錄不不 45 來行 18 年年利論立行年利年不年利年不不論 235 不論律理料例行料料利路論行了理料 46 理料論 235 行不論年立行理論路路行不 235 行 41 路理錄理料 18 23

15 路路路行 235 路論論更來路行行論論露女行路來了不論年路更論理不理不論年來 235 論 235 列論來論易論論了不論年論令論論 (1) 235 立 (2) 量 235 行立 18 年不論列利 18 年不論量 235 行行例年利理料不論年立行理六參料 [1] 2002 路北 [2] 李 2001 北 [3] 2001 論北 [4] 李 2003 路路 [5] 李 2003 路立路立 [6] 林 1999 論理論錄論 1-59 北 [7] 林 1999 論理論錄論北 [8] 1993 論錄論 ( ) 北 [9] 2000 論論 [10] 1998 論

16 [11] 劉 1998 路論女 [12] [13] 路 RESET (2003) (visited Feb. 25, 2004) [14] 2001 " 老 " 識讀 2001 年 2 1 available at (visited Sep.18, 2004) [15] 2001 路律 (visited March 18, 2004) [16] SHARON K. BLACK, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW IN THE INTERNET AGE (2002). [17] T. BARTON CARTER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FIFTH ESTATE REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MASS MEDIA (2003). [18] THOMAS I. EMERSON, TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1963). [19] GERALD R. FERRERA ET AL., CYBER LAW: TEXT AND CASES (2001). [20] Mark C. Alexander, The First Amendment And Problems Of Political Viability: The Case Of Internet Pornography, 25 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL Y 977 (2002). [21] Debra D. Burke, Cybersmut And The First Amendment: A Call For A New Obscenity Standard, 9 HARV. J. L. & TECH. 87 (1996). [22] David Cole, Playing by Pornography s Rules: The Regulation of Sexual Expression, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 111 (1994) [23] Jennifer Q. Crews, Note, Regulating Pornography on The Internet : Cyberporn Reignites First Amendment Battles, 20 LAW & PSYCHOL. REV. 179 (1996). [24] Patrick T. Egan, Virtual Community Standards: Should Obscenity Law Recognize The Contemporary Community Standard Of Cyberspace?, 30 SUFFOLK U.L. REV. 117 (1996). [25] Yuval Karniel & Haim Wismonsky, Pornography, Community And The Internet-Freedom of Speech And Obscenity on The Internet, 30 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 105 (2004). [26] Gyong Ho Kim & Anna R. Paddon, Cybercommunity Versus Geographical Community Standard For Online Pornography: A Technological Hierarchy In Judging Cyberspace Obscenity, 26 RUCTLJ 65 (1999). [27] Barbara N. Ryra, Comment, Cyberporn: Contemplating The First Amendment in Cyberspace, 6 SETON HALL CONST. J.L. 221 (1995). [28] Glenn E. Simon, Cyberporn And Censorship: Constitutional Barriers To Preventing Access To Internet Pornography By Minors, 88 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1015 (1998). [29] John H. Sommer, Against Cyberlaw, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1146, (2000). [30] John Tehranian, Sanitizing Cyberspace: Obscenity, Miller, And The Future Of Public Discourse On The Internet, 11 JIPL 1 (2003). [31] Catharine A. MacKinnon, Pornography, Civil Rights, And Speech, 20 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L.

17 REV. 1 (1985). [32] Jaewan Moon, Obscenity Laws In A Paternalistic Country: The Korean Experience, 2 WAUGSLR 353 (2003). [33] Russell B. Weekes, Cyber-Zoning A Mature Domain: The Solution To Preventing Inadvertent Access To Sexuality Explicit Content On The Internet?, 8 VAJLT 4 (2003). [34] Matthew K. Wegner, Note, Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks: Why Traditional Free Speech Doctrine Supports Anti-Child-Pornography Regulations In Virtual Reality, 85 MINN. L. REV (2001). [35] Gretchen Witte, Internet Indecency and Impressionable Minds, 44 VILL. L. REV. 745 (1999).