公眾人物隱私權與新聞自由－以我國民事判決為中心

Abstract

「公眾人物」的法律概念，最早是為了解決美國新聞媒體的誹謗爭議，其定義、分類等是考量當時社會風氣，針對新聞自由與名譽權衝突之情況對於一方權利傾斜與選擇之結果，法律折衷的思維充斥其內。但時至今日，先不論社會情況早已和當初大相逕庭，不管是在權利意識高度發展的美國，或是對於權利概念仍在摸索自己方向的我國，都常常在新聞自由與隱私權衝突案件中提及「公眾人物」之概念，但二者情況是否真的雷同而得逕予援引究。其次，在公眾人物隱私權與新聞自由衝突之案件，「公眾人物」概念一直扮演一個特殊角色。在我國此類案件的判決中，法院經常會論及原告「公眾人物」之身分，但往往最後法院判決關鍵，卻非在「公眾人物」之身分要件上，而是在內容是否具有「公益」之面向。因此對於系爭爭議，許多學說認為「公眾人物」為不必要之判斷標準，僅以「公共利益」（或者正當之公共關切、新聞價值）為衡量原則已足。本文遂以研究我國民事判決見解為起點，探討「公眾人物」要件之必要性。本文最後結論，「公眾人物」要件應具有一定參考價值，並提出初步研究結果，嘗試以「公共利益」的有無為主要判斷基礎，並以「公眾人物」地位來輔助分配舉證責任，以解決實務上僅以「公益」來衡量權利衝突，往往難以預測且過於抽象之缺點。

At the beginning, the legal concept of 'public figures' was brought forward to solve the disputes of freedom of the press and libel in the United States. But today, the concept is often referred in the cases of the freedom of press and privacy. Is it really suitable to apply? In Taiwan, the concept of 'public figures' has always played a special role in the privacy cases. The concept of 'public figures' is usually mentioned, but it’s not the determining factor in such cases. Therefore, some people think that it is enough to use the term of “public interests” (or “legitimate public concern”, or“ newsworthiness”）to judge in such cases, and the concept of 'public figures' is not an essential standard. In my opinion, the concept of 'public figures' is a beneficial standard. We can adopt the guideline of 'public interests' as the primary basis of judgment, and allocate the burden of proof with the concept of 'public figures' in civil action.