查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 什麼是仇恨言論,應否及如何管制:歐洲人權法院相關判決分析
- 集會及結社自由權:歐洲人權法院判決之分析
- 美國憲法關於人民表意自由(Freedom of Express)之保障
- Public Service, Free Expression and European Convention on Human Rights
- 歐洲人權法院--歷史、組織、職權及程序
- The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Health and Morals--The Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights
- 論奴隸制度、奴役制度與強迫勞動之禁止:以歐洲人權公約第四條為中心
- 當表意自由碰到名譽保護時,歐洲人怎麼辦?
- 歐洲人權公約之監督機構--國際人權最強而有力之監督者
- 憲法上「公平聽審權」於行政程序中之適用--以歐洲人權公約為中心
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 什麼是仇恨言論,應否及如何管制:歐洲人權法院相關判決分析=What is Hate Speech? Shall and How to Regulate?--Analysis of Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights |
---|---|
作 者 | 廖福特; | 書刊名 | 歐美研究 |
卷 期 | 45:4 2015.12[民104.12] |
頁 次 | 頁455-515 |
專 輯 | 「歐洲人權」專號 |
分類號 | 579.27 |
關鍵詞 | 仇恨言論; 歐洲人權公約; 歐洲人權法院; 表意自由; 結社自由; Hate speech; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; Freedom of expression; Freedom of association; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本文透過分析歐洲人權法院判決,關注何謂仇恨言論及應否與如何限制等議題,同時從政治爭議、宗教衝突、種族爭論、國家認同、性別認同等五個面向論述之。 歐洲人權法院沒有明確指出仇恨言論之定義,同時歐洲人權法院在納粹、法西斯、攻擊尤太人、提倡極端宗教思考及排除特定宗教人士之言論等領域適用公約第17條。本文認為,其實歐洲人權法院不需要先劃定「禁區」,也不必要強調適用公約第17條排除權利保障,而可以透過公約第10條第2項及第11條第2項之審查,決定締約國限制表意自由及集會結社自由是否違反比例原則。 |
英文摘要 | This article reviews issues including what constitutes hate speech and whether and how to regulate it through an analysis of the judg-ments of the European Court of Human Rights. The relevant cases are divided into five fields: political controversy, religious conflict, racial dispute, national identity and gender character. The Court does not explicitly define hate speech, but regards Na-zi, Fascist, anti-Jewish, extreme expression, exclusion of Muslims or members of a specific race, race-based threats, and appeals to violence as forms of hate speech. Some of these expressionsare excluded from protection because of Article 17 of the Convention. The Court also rules that a political party based on Sharia law can be dissolved; pre-ventive measure can be imposed due to an association with true threats; speech appealing to violence can be prohibited. This essay argues that the Court need not draw a “restricted zone,” nor emphasis the application of Article 17 of the Convention. It may, instead, focus on second paragraphs of Articles 10 and 11 to review whether the restrictions comply with the principle of propor-tionality. The essay also argues that the Court has to clarify why Sha-ria law does not stand with democratic principles. The Court should insist on its own relevant and sufficient pressing social need principle. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。