| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 新聞研究所 === 103 === Press freedom is the highest core for the journalists in democratic society; however, they also have to face the risk of defamation. In recent years, journalists are accused by public officials or public figures, which severely influenced their mentality and the rights of work. As Fourth Estate to superintend the government, even as Fifth Estate, which is independent from capitalists, news media should have the extraordinary protection in order to help the development of democratic society.
This study analyzes eleven civil defamation cases which appealed to supreme courts, trying to realize how the courts considering press freedom. It shows that some courts regard it as part of the freedom of speech; while others emphasize its specialty. The supreme courts affirm that news media should have the extraordinary protection since they account for supervision, which relate to public interests.
In these cases, the courts have adopted the rule raised in the Interpretation NO.509; that is, when the accused has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true, they must be found not guilty of defamation. This rule is explained as two standards, which are actual malice and reasonable investigation. The latter one equals to the concept of subjective negligence and supports by Supreme Courts Civil Panel. However, in Local Courts and High Courts, they also use the word actual malice but the concept is different from the principle used in U.S.A. Here it means that whether the media have bad motives and will be used to adjust the fault standards. It should, nevertheless, be declared more clearly to avoid the misunderstanding.
Emphasizing the function of media as a “watchdog”, the publicity in these cases is the key of using the rule in the Interpretation NO.509 in order to increase or decrease the obligatory of media. It is found that the definition of publicity is still too vague, which is difficult to know what type of speech and figures should require more or less protection.
When the news is not totally true, how the media investigate become the elements of considering whether they have falsehood. In this study, it sorts the standards of reasonable investigation used by the courts, which are reporting sources and its liability, balanced reports, the time benefits of report, the ability of investigation and the writing forms. Nevertheless, how these standards used are still decided by the subjectivity of judges which makes it more difficult for news media to follow.
|
|---|
