| Summary: | 碩士 === 銘傳大學 === 法律學系碩士班 === 96 === According to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that Awarding punitive damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. The Complainant must prove that the respondent’s false statements was made with "actual malice"--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
J.Y.Interpretation No. 509 held that Article 310, the first sentence of Paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code provides that “to the extent that a statement is defamatory, an accused must be found not guilty if the accused is able to show that the statement is true.” This provision prescribes the elements of a defense; that is, a perpetrator who originated or circulated a defamatory statement may be found not guilty of criminal defamation, if the statement is true. Nevertheless, it does not imply that the accused must carry the burden of proof that the defamatory statement is in fact a truthful statement. In the case where the accused has no way of showing the truthfulness of the statement, the court must find the accused not guilty when the evidence proffered for the court’s review shows that the accused has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true at the moment of dissemination.
What is the the meaning of the sentence that the accused has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true? Some scholars think that the sentence is similar to actual malice rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
The public or private prosecutor should prove that the accused made with Knowledge that statements are false. Some scholars think that accused should prove that he make a statements by checking with Justness. What is the difference between New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and J.Y.Interpretation No. 509? I will compare actual malice rule with J.Y.Interpretation No. 509 to explain this problem. According to Article 184 and Article 195 of Civil
Code, Our lawmaker didn’t legislate for any defense of defamation of tort liability. Some scholars and Some findings of the supreme court held that the justices of the Constitutional court created a defense of defamation of tort liability in J.Y.Interpretation No. 509.
Some findings of the supreme court considered that the justices of the Constitutional court didn''t talk about defamation of tort liability in J.Y.Interpretation No. 509. Article 184 and Article 195 of Civil Code are different to Article 310 of Criminal Code. J.Y.Interpretation No. 509 has no concern with defamation of tort liability.
I will research on the connection between J.Y.Interpretation No. 509 and defamation of tort liability.
|
|---|
