| 摘要註: |
壹、摘要戰爭一詞在克勞塞維茨的戰爭論中所下的定義是「暴力無限制的行使」，然而時移勢遷新的定義是「從和平競賽到相互毀滅之過程」， 蔣介石認為戰爭是「以武力戰為核心所建構的政治、經濟、軍事、心理四大戰略」，在這一前提下有六大戰法的發展即群眾戰、組織戰、謀略戰、情報戰、宣傳戰、心理戰，其中宣傳戰與心理戰就與言論自由息息相關，尤其媒體言論是一個影響可以極大化與極小化的憲法所保障之權利，小到名譽、隱私所影響的是一個普遍公平的社會建構，大到國家意志形成，一如以色列猶太人在美國媒體業的投資，操控美國新聞，從歷史的衍流過程中，新聞事件的報導在「言論自由」領域，一直是個令當權者愛恨交加的名詞，也因此命定般的永遠得不到它安定無虞的保障，作者也曾研究沙烏地的麥加暴亂每日數十萬人的朝聖，發生了重大的群眾事件，然而全世界情治機關，均無法得知沙烏地是如何弭平暴亂，也無法透過情報交換得知沙烏地是如何弭平動亂，可知在動亂中言論自由的範圍亦會縮到極小甚至不見，這是作者企圖研究媒體新聞事件報導的界限的最初動機。作者以探尋一種相對而言、能夠獨立的國際事件中，選出四件有關媒體對新聞事件報導作為開始，指出媒體言論自由與國家利益的事有極大的關聯，並以蒐集資料，解釋資料等分類方法開始筆者的研究。在第二章開始，作者將從言論自由的定義開始，從外在的特徵，到言論自由的法律上概念，法律上的意義，在這一部份中作者將闡明言論自由的危險與保護必要性，以及經濟社會下商業性行為，在競爭下導致新聞事件在報導時的扭曲，社會價值被顛覆，國家利益受到挑戰。然後藉由個人權利衝突的極大與極小化，討論新聞事件報導的界限。第三章、第四章將敘述媒體言論自由在我國法制體系的發展，作者試圖以美國與德國的對應之道來看二國之處理方式，尤其因為美國多以媒體言論自由美干涉他國內政及為企業取得其利益，作者試圖建構美國聯邦法院大法官的思考邏輯方式，二分法在聯邦最高法院大法官的運用，來看美國的處理媒體言論自由的方式，然後依其分類來看我國的組織、法制，並找出相關案件的判決評析，大法官的見解作為結尾。第五章將美國對媒體新聞事件報導與我國作一比較，來討論我國對媒體言論自由的保護在事實與邏輯思考的問題缺失，並指出媒體新聞事件的報導，在披著憲法所保護的『言論自由』外衣下，社會規範的底線，國家利益的底線，以及新聞工作者的專業自尊和責任感的底線，提出結論與建議。 A Study on the Borderline of Media News CoverageABSTRACTThe term war, initially, according to the definition given by Clausewitz in On War, is "the use of unlimited force,” but the more updated version is “the process of shifting from peaceful competition to interactive annihilation.” Chiang Kai-shek, on the other hand, claimed that wars involve “political, economical, military, and psychological maneuvers that are developed based on military fight as the very core.” A priority derived from Chiang’s above statement is the development of the six military tactics: mass wars, organization wars, strategic wars, propaganda wars, and psychological wars. The propaganda and psychological wars are closely related to the freedom of speech, especially media speech, a right guaranteed by the constitution, has both the maximum as well as the minimum effects. On the one hand, it can be as trivial as on reputation and privacy by affecting the generally just social structure. On the other hand and to a greater extend, we can say that it shapes a nation's will. For example, the investment in the US’s media industry made by Jewish from Israel is an attempt to manipulate the news coverage in the US. The history has revealed that news coverage in the realm of the freedom of speech is a term both loved and hated by the authority, and as a consequence, it has never been given a secured and safe niche. The author had once studied the Mecca Riot, in which hundred thousands of pilgrims to Saudi Arabia brought a serious revolt. Surprisingly, international intelligence agencies had all failed to obtain any information on how the government of Saudi Arabia ended this riot. Moreover, there was not a single idea acquired from information exchange. It seems that the freedom of speech would shrink or even disappear during a turmoil period. And that is what motivates the author to examine the borderline of media news coverage.From several international events considered relatively independent, the author first selected four events related to media’s news coverage. According to these events, the author pointed out that there is a significant association between matters reported by the media and national interests. Therefore, the author initiated this research by collecting relevant information and analyzing the information categorically.The author began Chapter Two by defining the term freedom of speech; from the external characteristics to the legal concepts as well as the meaning. The author has stated in this section the danger nested in the freedom of speech and the indispensability of its protection. The author also discussed that socioeconomic commerce behaviors may twist the report of news events due business competition, which consequently, can subvert social value and challenge national interests. Last but not the least, the author argued the borderline of news coverage on the basis of maximum and minimum of conflicts in individual rights.In Chapter Three the ﹠Chapter Four, author has described the development of freedom of speech under our nation’s legal system. One of the attempts in this chapter is to carry out a comparison of corresponding channels adopted by the US and the German governments. It is an interesting issue since US is known for taking advantages of media’s freedom of speech to interfere with domestic affairs of other nations and to strip profits for its corporations. At here, the author tried to construct the logic thinking process of the federal court of justice of the US—dichotomy—to inspect the approach adopted by the US government on handling the media’s speech of freedom. Then according to the categorical outcome, the author inspected the organization and the legal system of our country; found judgments and analyses of similar cases; and used the grand justices’ interpretation to complete this chapter.In Chapter Five, the author compared media news coverage between the US and our country and discussed both the actual and the logic shortcomings of our country’s efforts on protecting the media's freedom of speech. The author also pointed out the bottom line in terms of social regulation, national interests, and professionalism and responsibility of journalists for media’s news coverage, which has been coated by the freedom of speech granted by the constitution. At the end of this chapter, the author presented a conclusion and some suggestions. |