內部新聞自由

Abstract

「內部新聞自由（innere Pressefreiheit）」要求報社內的民主化，希望藉由賦予編輯人員更大的自由發揮空間，遏阻報業集中化伴隨的言論多元欠缺。外國立法例的具體實踐內涵主要是賦予編輯人員就報社編輯事項、人事事項與經濟事項的共同決定權，並保障記者毋須反於其良心或確信撰寫稿件。儘管此概念對新聞從業人員至關重要，但台灣相關學理討論尚淺。本文試圖分析此概念於憲法上之定位，並對目前審議中之媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法(俗稱反媒體壟斷法)相關條文進行評析。 儘管德國通說對內部新聞自由採取較保留之態度，但本文認兩國所處傳媒脈絡不同，通說見解無法一概援用。而關於反壟斷法草案，考量我國集體權行使實況，本文認為與其引進編輯室公約，不如強化對新聞從業人員之良心保障，應更能保障新聞從業人員之專業自主。

“Internal Press Freedom (innere Pressefreiheit)” requires democratization and diversity inside a media company, and attempts to prevent the declining diversity of ideas by providing journalists more independence from publishers. Concrete contents of this concept include collaboration in editing, personnel, financial matters and protection for journalists’ conscience and conviction. Although this concept is important for journalists’ daily life, scholarly discussions about this topic is very little. This thesis attempts to analyze the position of “Internal Press Freedom” in Constitution and then comment on the draft of “Media Monopolization Prevention and Diversity Protection Law”, the so-called “Media anti-Monopolization Law”. Most German scholars suspicious of “Internal Press Freedom” does not necessarily mean we cannot embrace this concept, since the social context between these two countries is different. As for the draft of “Media Monopolization Prevention and Diversity Protection Law”, the author argues that protecting journalists’ conscience is more effective than signing redaction statute.