輔仁法學第63期

近年來，關於倫常條款是否需要被特別保護，究應撤廢或保留？支持者各有論據。我國刑事法制長期繼受日本與德國，其中日本與我最為相近，且風土民情類似，明治維新前大量吸收中華文化，並自詡為「小中華」，其歷代天皇皆須學習中國四書五經，德川幕府更以儒學中之朱子學為官方意識形態，派 儒生為將軍講學，幕府第五代將軍德川綱吉甚至在東京建孔廟來祭祀孔子，可知日本受傳統中華儒學文化影響之深。他山之石可以攻錯，藉由比較日本刑法中倫常規範之變遷，應有助於反思現行中華民國刑法中倫常規範應何去何從。最後歸結出：歷古以來，規範力量之發揮，透過倫常道德來維繫社會之存續，道德倫常依然附著在法秩序之上，但從未獲得清楚之定義，必須不停地對倫常概念予以闡釋，這毋寧人性內涵的建構與填充。倫常條款的儀式所彰顯的意義就在社會應該重視倫理道德，而這樣的意識，只有國家最適格擔任推動者腳色，並且透過規訓與治理來落實。

關鍵詞：倫常、倫常規範、殺直系尊親屬罪、通姦、親親相隱

In recent years, whether the Ethical Rules needs to be specially protected,should it be revoked or retained? Supporters have their own arguments.Taiwan’s criminal law has a long time mimicked Japan and Germany.Among them, Japan is the closest to our country. In addition, the customs are similar.Before the Meiji Restoration, they absorbed a lot of Chinese culture and called themselves "Little China". All the emperors of Japan must study the Four Books and Five Classics of China. The Tokugawa Shogunate took Zhu Zixue in Confucianism as its official ideology and sent Confucian scholars as generals to give lectures. The fifth general of the Shogunate Tokugawa Tsunayoshi even built a Confucian Temple in Tokyo to worship Confucius. Japan is deeply influenced by traditional Chinese Confucianism. Stones from other mountains can attack the mistakes. By comparing the changes in the ethical norms in the Japanese criminal law, it should help to reflect on the current criminal law of the Republic of China.

Keywords: The normal human relationship、Moral Norms、The murder of family members、To commit adultery、The immunity of mutual concealment among relatives

壹、緒說
貳、臺日兩國傳統刑法中之倫常規範
一、臺灣傳統刑法中之倫常規範
（一）傳統中國法之三剛五倫秩序觀
（二）唐律中之倫常規範
（三）清末立憲修法之爭辯
（四）本文觀察
二、日本傳統刑法中之倫常規範
（一）傳統日本法
（二）明治維新繼受外國法
參、日本現代刑事法中之倫常規範
一、殺、傷害直系尊屬罪
二、通姦罪
三、親親相隱
肆、日本倫常規範變革對臺灣之借鑑
一、天皇制對日本家族觀之影響
二、臺日法文化差異下之思考
三、檢討與反思—本文觀察
伍、刑事法倫常條款之存廢及倫常規範之發展趨勢—代結論
一、倫常條款之存廢
（一）日本法之研究分析結果
（二）臺灣法之研究分析結果
二、我國倫常規範之發展趨勢

當政府考量是否以擴大或加重既有追究個人散布假訊息之法律責任，防治假訊息之危害時，應審慎評估此舉與憲法言論自由保護間衝突關係的處理。本文藉由 United States v. Alvarez 案說明美國法院處理言論自由保護方法取向之差異，並說明言論人是否知悉言論內容為假，會影響言論價值之判斷，但言論人之言論目的則不應具影響言論價值之效果。針對政府限制不實言論之行為，由於涉及言論內容限制，美國法院多半採取嚴格審查標準檢驗該行為之合憲性，也因此大多做成違憲認定結果。然而，主要的言論自由理論，不論是思想市場說、民主自我統治說，或表現自我說，卻可能導向不支持讓不實言論免於政府審查的結果。理論與實務落差之關鍵在於：政府角色的不被信任；即便道理上應區分言論內容的真、假，但一旦將此辨別「真/假」的工作，託付予政府，對於言論自由造成的傷害風險，極有可能大於容許政府篩選真、假言論可能帶來的利益。也因此，倘若選擇以立法方式管制虛假言論，就必須嚴格控管此立法行為未違憲侵害言論自由保護。

關鍵詞：假訊息、假新聞、言論自由、言論內容限制、類型化 方法、美國訴阿爾瓦雷斯案

Whenever the government contemplates to impose more stringent liability on individuals who spread disinformation, the purpose of combating disinformation shall be properly balanced with the potential conflict with the freedom of speech. This article introduces United States v. Alvarez in illustrating the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding free speech matters. Among others, the main observation is that whether the person who made the speech is aware of the genuineness of the speech is one of the key factors when the Court decides the value of the speech made; as to the purpose of the speech, it shall not affect the value of the speech. Since the government’s action in restricting disinformation relates to content-based restrictions, the U.S. Court mainly adopts the strict scrutiny test in reviewing the constitutionality of said action and most actions have been determined to be unconstitutional. However, if other major theories of the freedom of speech were adopted in reviewing the government actions, such as the marketplace of ideas, democratic self-governance, or individual liberty and autonomy, it is likely to lead to a different conclusion that disinformation shall be exempted from government scrutiny. The gap between academic theories and court practices is that people do not trust the government. Even if it could not be more true that genuine information shall be treated differently from fake ones; however, if the role of determining whether the speech is true or false falls under the government’s discretion, the risk of harms to free speech can be significantly higher than the benefit brought by allowing the government to screen out disinformation. Accordingly, if laws are the tools in regulating disinformation, it is vital to ensure that such laws will not infringe the freedom of speech.

Keywords: disinformation, fake news, freedom of speech, contentbased restrictions, categorical approach, United States v. Alvarez

壹、前言
貳、假訊息之定義、威脅，與因應修法工程的啟動
一、假訊息之定義
二、假訊息傷害於今尤烈之因
三、假訊息之威脅與修法工程的啟動
參、說假的自由？—言論自由理論之思考
一、憲法言論自由是否保護說假的自由
二、處理言論自由保護的方法取向之爭—United States v. Alvarez
（一）Justice Kennedy 的複數意見書—類型化方法，採嚴格審查標準
（二）Justice Breyer 的協同意見書—類型化方法，採中度審查標準
（三）Justice Alito 的不同意見書—個案權衡模式，明知事實客觀為假之言論，不受憲法保障
（四）小結
三、言論目的與言論自由保護之關連—「目的(purpose)」與「知悉(knowledge)」之辨
（一）「知悉」與「目的」之差異
（二）「基於目的標準」的麻煩
（三）小結
四、言論自由理論與實務之落差與解釋
（一）傾向不保護虛假訊息之言論自由理論
（二）嚴格審查標準下，國家管制虛假言論通常違憲之判決結果
（三）言論自由理論與法院判決結果之落差與解釋
五、小結
肆、比較法之啟示—以民國108年修正通過之有關假訊息管制之災害防救法、食品安全衛生管理法、傳染病防治法為例說明
一、比較法啟示結合我國言論自由案件審查結構
（一）法律明確性部分：應指明不實言論之「內容」，蓋不實言論的可罰性主要源自言論內容
（二）違憲審查標準決定部分：應考慮言論人是否「知悉」訊息內容客觀為假
（三）違憲審查標準操作部分
二、以民國 108 年修正通過之有關假訊息管制之災害防救法、食品安全衛生管理法、傳染病防治法為例說明
伍、結論

歐盟法院（CJEU）最近審議了一系列關於宗教儀式與保護動物福利的案件。這些都是由大法庭根據歐洲聯盟運作條約第267條 (Article 267 TFEU)作出的判決在2018年確認了一項歐盟法規的效力，該法規要求未經致昏的宗教儀式只能在被批准的屠宰場進行。另外，歐盟法院在2019年禁止為來自宗教屠宰無事先致昏的肉類產品頒發有機認證，並在2020年維持了一項區域法令，指示宗教屠宰應實施可逆致昏。後兩個判決背離了佐審官的意見，這一事實突出了分歧的高度爭議性，又加劇了對這些里程碑判例的辯論。
鑑於這些特殊的發展，本文探討了判決背後的論點及其深遠的實際影響。除此之外，這片文章深思了所涉及各方當事人的合法利益，即宗教自由、貨物自由流動、動物福利、消費者保護和公共衛生。基於比較方法不僅面向歐盟法律的現狀還考慮到歐盟法律的歷史演變，該研究尤其揭露了一些轉換動物福利概念的變化參數，從而必需在歐盟框架內重新平衡利益競爭。
它的結果，本分析提供了寶貴的見識和建議，以解決歐盟相互衝突的價值觀、目標、原則和政策。而且討論增強了對歐盟與其成員國之間基本關係的理解，特別也注意到植入歐盟條約中的權力分配。作者從多維角度強調時間的重大影響因素，因此有助於更深入地察覺歐盟的動態本質。

關鍵詞：歐洲聯盟、歐盟法院、動物福利、宗教自由、貨物自由 流動、消費者保護、公共衛生、宗教儀式、屠宰、致昏

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently deliberated a series of consecutive cases concerning the protection of animal welfare in the context of religious rites. The preliminary rulings – all delivered by Grand Chambers according to Article 267 TFEU – in 2018 affirmed the validity of an EU wide regulation requiring religious rites without stunning be carried out in approved slaughterhouses, in 2019 prohibited the issuance of organic certifications for meat products derived from religious butchering without prestunning, and in 2020 upheld a regional decree prescribing reversible stunning for religious slaughter. The fact that the latter two decisions departed from the Opinion of the Advocate General accentuated the highly controversial nature and intensified ongoing debates about the justification and significance of these milestone judgments.
In the light of such extraordinary developments, this article ponders the arguments underlying the verdicts as well as their far-reaching practical implications. Moreover, the analysis reflects on the legitimate interests that were at stake for the parties, namely freedom of religion, free movement of goods, animal welfare, consumer protection and public health. Based on a comparative approach that takes into account not only the current status but also the historic evolution of EU laws, the study above all unveils a spectrum of changing parameters that have transformed the concept of animal welfare, thus warranting a rebalancing of competing interests within the legal framework.
As a result, this paper provides valuable insights and recommendations to resolve conflicting values, aims, principles and policies of the European Union. The discussion enhances a better understanding of fundamental relations between the Union and its Member States, notably in view of allocated powers and competences implanted in the EU Treaties. By highlighting the overriding impact factor of time from a multidimensional perspective, the author contributes to a deeper awareness of the dynamic nature of the EU.

Keywords: European Union (EU), Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), animal welfare, freedom of religion, free movement of goods, consumer protection, public health, religious rites, slaughter, stunning

1. INTRODUCTION
2. TRILOGY OF EU CASES CONCERNING RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER
2.1. Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW and Others v. Vlaams Gewest, C-426/16(2018)
2.2. Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation and Others, C-497/17 (2019)
2.3. Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others v. Vlaamse Regering, C-336/19 (2020)
3. PROTECTED LEGAL INTERESTS
3.1. Freedom of religion
3.2. Free movement of goods
3.3. Animal welfare
3.4. Consumer protection
3.5. Public health
4. REBALANCING EVOLVING INTERESTS
4.1. Distinguishing public interests from principles, aims and values
4.2. National deviation from EU minimum standards
4.3. Historic evolution and social trends
4.4. Equal legality and rebalancing
5. CONCLUSION

本文的主旨在探討德國當代重要的公法學者Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde(1930-2019)如何證立國家宗教與世界觀中立性誡命。本文指出，Böckenförde 建立一個現代性理論，並指出現代國家基於完成其任務，需要以宗教與世界觀的中立性為其結構性原則。Böckenförde援引德國哲學家Joachim Ritter的現代性理論，指出二元分立是現代社會的重要特徵。歐洲世俗化的歷史發展，讓歐洲社會產生了政治與宗教、個人與傳統、國家與社會以及法與倫理的四種二元分立。現代國家不再以宗教真理為其正當性基礎，改以維護和平秩序與個人自由為主要任務。基於這兩個任務，現代國家需要以國家中立性為其結構性原則。Böckenförde 也進一步指出，政治與宗教在現代社會中，有不同的任務與功能，因此不應該混淆兩者。Böckenförde不反對宗教出現在公共場域。他認為，基於民主政治的開放性，宗教可以出現在公共場域，但不應該想成為政治的指導者。Böckenförde支持德國憲法學中開放中立性的看法，認為國家在法制上，不需要刻意排斥宗教，但宗教仍應尊重國家法秩序。最後本文簡要說明如何以Böckenförde的理論回應當前德國公法學界對於宗教中立性的一些質疑。

關鍵詞：國家宗教與世界觀中立性、宗教自由、二元分立、世俗化、現代國家、歷史正當性、開放的中立性、民主倫常

This paper discusses how Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (1930-2019), a most famous contemporary German public law jurist, justified the principle of state neutrality in constitutional theory. Because of Influence of the philosophy of Joachim Ritter (1903-1974, founder of “Ritter School”), Böckenförde constituted a theory of modernity to prove the historical legitimacy of modern secular state. He pointed out, in the process of Secularization, the modern European states come out from the structures of bifurcation (Entzweiung) of modern society. There are four difference structures of bifurcation in modern European society: the distinction of politics and religion, the distinction of personality and tradition, the distinction of state and society, and the distinction of law and ethics. The modern European state no longer takes religious truth as the basis of its legitimacy, and instead takes the maintenance of peaceful order and individual freedom as its main task. For the maintenance of peaceful order and individual freedom, the modern state should obey the principle of state neutrality. In other words, without the principle of state neutrality, the modern can’t accomplish its tasks. The importance of the principle of state neutrality doesn’t disappear in democratic state, The state should keep its neutrality in the political process to enact the law which meets the standard of public welfare, as well as it should keep its neutrality to give the fair trials for the conflicts in the society. In Böckenförde’s constitutional theory, the principle of state neutrality is the necessary structure of modern state. Besides, Böckenförde also considered, in the modern society, the missions and functions of politics and religions are different. Therefore, the doctrines of any religion can’t provide the guideline for the political behaviors of the state. Böckenförde approved the doctrine of open neutrality in the Germany constitutional law. But He also tried to point out, the common religion can’t integrate the whole society.

Keywords: State Neutrality (for Religion and Worldview), Freedom of Religion, Bifurcation(Entzweiung), Secularization, Modern State, historical Legitimacy, Open Neutrality, Ethos of Democarcy.

壹、前言
貳、現代國家的歷史正當性：Böckenförde 憲法理論如何運用其現代性理論來證立國家宗教與世界觀中立性誡命
一、現代社會是一種二元分立社會：Joachim Ritter 哲學理論對於 Böckenförde 現代性理論的影響
二、二元分立與世俗化：由現代性的二元分立現象來證立國家的宗教與世界觀中立性誡命
參、基於現代性(二元分立)產生的國家任務與國家中立性誡命
一、現代國家的秩序觀點(Vorstellung)：國家與社會二元分立的產物
二、國家的宗教與世界觀中立性誡命是現代國家履行任務的前提
肆、宗教與世界觀中立性的另一個論證：政治與宗教不同功能造成制度的差異
伍、功宗教與世界觀中立性在憲法學存在之必要性: Böckenförde 的論證
一、Böckenförde 對於國家宗教與世界觀的中立性誡命內容的看法
二、Böckenförde 如何回應當前德國憲法學對宗教與世界觀的中立性誡命之質疑
陸、結論：世俗化國家下，形塑和平與自由秩序的國家宗教與世界觀中立性誡命