| 關 鍵 詞： |
不實謠言；虛假消息；言論自由；適性犯；危險犯 |
| 中文摘要： |
對於 2019 年 6 月新增之食品安全衛生管理法第 46 條之 1：「散播有關食品安全之謠言或不實訊息，足生損害於公眾或他人者，處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或新臺幣一百萬元以下罰金。」在憲法層次，就基本權利的限制利益衡量上是否必要，毋寧仍存有相當的違憲疑義。本文認為此一對於言論自由的限制，其不法性實可下降至民事法律或行政罰鍰層次。因此，食安法第 46 條之 1 對言論自由的附屬刑法如果不賦加主觀意圖等限制要件以為衡平時，即應予廢除，而將保障交由民事侵權行為或行政罰鍰加以保障即可。至於其他如食安法第 49 條第 2 項其他據此衍生出的變體構成要件性質之加重處罰類型，自然也失所附麗，而無處罰之必要。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Disinformation；Incorrect Information；Freedom of Speech；Crime of Danger；Eignungsdelikte |
| 英文摘要： |
For Article 46-1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation which added in June 2019: “A person who disseminates a rumor or incorrect information concerning food safety and thus causes damage to the public or others shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$ 1,000,000”, there is still doubt about unconstitutionality due to whether it is necessary to measure the interests of fundamental rights. This essay considers that the punishment of illegality for limiting freedom of speech could be declined to the level of civil cases and administrative fines. Besides, this essay also advocates that subsidiary criminal law which is aimed at freedom of speech in Article 46-1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, should be abolished if it does not impose restrictive elements such as subjective intentions as a matter of equity. Instead, entrusting the guarantee to civil torts and administrative fines is sufficient. As for Article 49-2 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, and other variable elements of aggravating penalties which derives from factors above, there is no need for punishment since it just loses the legal basis.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言－撲天蓋地的虛假消息
貳、言論自由的意涵
一、言論自由的意涵
二、言論自由的理論基礎
三、小結
參、言論自由限制的正當基礎
一、基本認識
二、限制所須的正當基礎
肆、食安法第 46 條之 1 的成立要件分析
一、兼容並蓄的保護法益？
二、具法益提前處罰性質的危險犯規定
三、欠缺主觀意圖的加持
伍、說的處罰比做的還難－代結語
一、以危險犯建構的犯罪前置化處罰有再思考的必要
二、比較法上的借鏡－多止於行政處罰
三、本罪之處罰能否跨越言論自由限制的紅線？
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|