頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 民事訴訟上新聞記者關於消息來源祕匿之證言拒絕權=The Study of the Right of Testimonial Rejection about the Coverage Source Concealment of the Journalist in the Civil Action |
---|---|
作 者 | 劉玉中; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
卷 期 | 77 2011.03[民100.03] |
頁 次 | 頁263-317 |
分類號 | 586.131 |
關鍵詞 | 證言拒絕權; 消息來源之祕匿; 新聞自由; 兩段架構判斷模式; 比較衡量; A right of testimonial rejection; Coverage source concealment; Newspaper report freedom; Both stages structure judgment model; Comparison weighing; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 關於新聞記者可否於民事訴訟上以祕匿消息來源爲理由而行使證言拒絕權之問題,實爲涉及憲法上所保障上之新聞自由(出版自由、言論自由)與同爲憲法上所保障之當事人之人格權(名譽權或隱私權、人性尊嚴)、財產權或訴訟上真實發現及裁判公正之公益性相衝突之問題。似有必要建構一套判斷機制,區分不同之情形,決定新聞記者是否得以消息來源之祕匿爲理由而行使證言拒絕權,方屬妥當。本文於介紹相關基本概念後,並探索多國相關制度,參酌日本之判例理論,嘗試建構法院就消息來源祕匿(主要針對證言拒絕權)之判斷機制。 |
英文摘要 | The journalist has it by the reason of coverage source concealment in a civil action and can perform a right of testimonial rejection? This is really constitutional guaranteed newspaper freedom (publication freedom, expression freedom) and the personal rights (the honor right or a right to privacy, human instinct dignity) of the person concerned whom similarly is guaranteed in a constitution, a property right and a problem to collide, in addition, truly this is discovery and the public interest characteristics and a problem to collide of the trial fairness. That is why, every each situation, it seems that a standard to judge what the journalist does it by the reason of coverage source concealment, and can perform a right of testimonial rejection should be made. This article introduced a basic concept, and considered the system of many countries concerned again; starve, and refer to a Japanese precedent theory, and think to build a criterion about the coverage source concealment (mainly, right of testimonial rejection) in a court of law. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。