Volume 62 No.2 - 2016-06-30

The boundary of university student cyberspeech: reference from the case analysis of the freedom of campus speech in the United States

大學生網路言論的界線:以美國校園言論自由案例分析為例

Author：
Hsieh, Tzu-Ling / 謝紫菱
Keyword：
Higher education, Cyberspeech, Freedom of speech / 高等教育、網路言論、言論自由
  • Summary
  • Chinese Summary
  • Reference
  • Scholarly references
With the increase of cyberspeech among university students, university administrators face challenges to regulate student speech, which may cause the conflict with values of student speech right and university autonomy. This study analyzes standards for freedom of campus speech in legal cases of the United States, and related legal interpretation in Taiwan’s constitution and Grand justices. This study found that there are no legal cases about university student cyberspeech in Taiwan, but both Taiwan and United States have similar spirit of free speech protection such as the rules of the two level theory and Tinker test. In addition, university administrator should have more tolerability for university student speech compared with K-12 student speech. However, student cyberspeech is still a confused area of law, because the use of the internet for student expression brings the issue of jurisdiction when cyberspeech happened outside campus. This study suggests that university administrators have to review regulations of student cyberspeech and establish principles and processes to handle student inappropriate cyberspeech. By doing so, universities can balance university autonomy and student speech right.
由於大學生使用網路發表言論的比例日益增加，而大學基於教育目的需要對學生言論有所規範，但可能因此產生大學自治權與學生言論自由權衝突的情形。本文綜合分析美國法界對於校園言論自由的保護與判斷標準，以及台灣憲法與大法官釋字對於言論自由的保障，發現雖然台灣法界對於校園言論保障上並無相關判例，但對於言論自由維護的精神與美國仍有一致性，也就是台灣的法律規範中，亦含有美國校園言論保障所提出的雙階理論（The Two Level Theory）、廷克測試(Tinker test)與公共論壇(Public forum)的精神，且學校對於大學生的言論理應給予相對於高、國中生言論較大的容忍；惟若要將這些要點運用到網路言論上，會遇到網路言論的跨界性而增加了校園管轄權判斷的複雜度，本文建議各大學應重新檢視學校對於學生網路言論的規範，並且要建立處理網路不當言論的原則與標準程序，兼顧大學自治權與學生言論權的平衡。

王勝毅(2000)。網際網路上犯罪行為之研究。中國文化大學(未出版碩士論文)，台北。

[Sheng-Yi Wang(2000). The study of crime behavior on cyberspace (Unpublished master’s thesis. Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

李治安、賴穎穎(2010)。大學生不當網路言論之行為模式與規範對策。國立政治大學校務發展研究計畫，未出版。

[Jyh-An Li& Ying Ying Lai(2010). The standard and strategy of inappropriate cyberspeech behavioral types among college students, the project of administrative affairs development of National Chengchi University, Unpublished.]

周志宏(2002)。學術自由與高等教育法制，臺北市:高等教育出版。

[C.-H. Chou (2002). Academic Freedom & Higher Educational Law. Taipei, Taiwan: Higher Education. ]

周志宏(2011)。告別法治國家的原始森林？--大法官釋字第684號解釋初探，台灣法學雜誌，171，49-57。

[C.-H. Chou (2011). Farewell to virgin forest of rule of law? - the initial exploration of Grand Justice interpretation number 684.Taiwan Law Journal, 171, 49-57.]

林子儀(2002)。言論自由導論。載於李鴻禧(主編)，台灣憲法之縱剖橫切(頁103-179)，臺北市：元照出版社。

[Tzu-Yi Lin(2002). The introduction of freedom speech. In Hong-Hsi Lee (Eds.), the analysis of Taiwan Constitution (pp. 103-179). Taipei, Taiwan: Angle.]

林佳範（2006）。把大法官帶進校園—以解釋文為核心之言論自由課程與教材之試教研究。國科會專題研究計畫（NSC94-2413-H-003-004）。

[Jia Fan Li(2006). Bring the Grand Justice to school- the study of curriculum and teaching materials of freedom speech under the interpretation of Grand Justice. The research project of Ministry of Science and Technology(NSC94-2413-H-003-004).]

徐千偉(1999)。網際網路與公民參與：台北市政府網路個案分析(未出版碩士論文)，國立政治大學公共行政學系，台北。

[Chian-Woei Shyu(1999). Internet and Citizen Participation (Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

梁雅雯(2007)。台北市高中學生言論自由態度之調查研究(未出版碩士論文)，國立台灣師範大學，台北。

[Ya-Wen Liang(2007). Research on the attitude towards freedom of speech of the senior high school students in Taipei City (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

許育典（2011）。憲法（五版）。臺北市：元照。

[Yue-Dian Hsu (2011). Taiwan Constitution (5th ed). Taipei, Taiwan: Angle.]

許育典(2011)。大法官釋字第6 8 4 號所開的學生救濟之門，成功大學校刊，236，42-45。

[Yue-Dian Hsu (2011). The door of student administrative remedy under the Grand Justice interpretation number 684, Nation Cheng Kung University Magazine, 236, 42-45.]

許育典（2013），大專院校學生權利行使及學生申訴制度完備研究，台北：教育部。

[Yue-Dian Hsu (2013). The study of college student rights exercise and appeal system, Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]

許育典、林姁璇(2013)。大學自治下對學生基本權保障的探究，當代教育研究季刊，21(2)，36-67。

[Yue-Dian Hsu& Hsu-Hsuan Lin(2013). A study of the protection of the  fundamental rights of college students from the perspective of university autonomy, Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 21(2), 36-67.]

許汎宣(2014)。網際網路上妨礙名譽罪之研究(未出版碩士論文)，國立清華大學，新竹。

[Fan-Hsuan Hsu (2014). The Criminal Offences of Defamatory Statements on the Internet (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.]

許懷台(2014)。我國大學校園人權之研究－以大學學生自治權為例(未出版碩士論文)，國立台灣師範大學，台北。

]Huei-Tai Hsu (2014). A Studies on University Human Rights - An Example of University Student's Autonomy (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

楊勝雄(2005)。論網際網路上色情資訊之管制措施對言論自由之限制:以電腦網路內容分級處理辦法為中心(未出版碩士論文)，國立成功大學，台南。

[Sheng-Hsiung Yang (2005). The limitation of pornography information and freedpm speech on the internet: the regulation of internet rating system (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.]

廖元豪(2007)。不准在我的土地說話?—言論自由與公共論壇，月旦法學教室，62，8-9。

[Yuan Hao Liao(2007). Don’t speech on my field? Speech freedom and public forum, Taiwan Jurist, 62, 8-9.]

劉靜怡(2005)。言論自由的雙軌理論與雙階理論，月旦法學教室，28，42-51。

[Jing Yi Liou(2005), Two-track theory and two-level theory of speech freedom, Taiwan Jurist, 28, 42-51.]

蘇慧婕(2012)。淺論社群網路時代中的言論自由爭議：以臉書「按讚」為例。台灣法學雜誌，214，28-37。

[Huei Jie Su(2012). The discussion of freedom speech disputation during internet community era: the example of“like“ on the Facebook, Taiwan Law Journal, 214, 28-37.]

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, et al. v. Zell Miller, et al. 977 F.Supp.1228 (N.D. Ga., 1997).

Allan G. O. & Charles J. R. (2012). Can Students be Disciplined for Off-campus Cyberspeech?: The Reach of the First Amendment in the Age of Technology, Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2012(2), Received from: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2012/iss2/5.

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M.D. (2012). American Public School Law (8th ed.)

    Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Amanda, L. (2015). Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015. Received from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011).

Elizabeth N. (2013). University Student Speech and the Internet: A Clusterf, New England Review, 47(2), 397-426.

Evans v. Bayer, 684F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Fla 2010).

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education〔FIRE〕 (2015). Spotlight on Speech Codes 2015 The State of Free Speech on Our Nation's Campuses. Retrieved from: https://www.thefire.org/spotlight-speech-codes-2015/

Gurnon,E (June 26, 2012). Amanda Tatro dies; University of Minnesota student challenged U's Facebook policies, Twincities.com, Received from: http://www.twincities.com/ci_20941840/amanda-tatro-who-challenged-university-minnesotas-facebook-policies

Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

J.S. ex rel. Synder v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.3d 205(3d Cir. 2011).

John, T.C. (2013). The Disappearing Schoolhouse Gate: Applying Tinker in the Internet Age, Pepperdine Law Review, 39(4), 939-988.

LOVING v. BOREN No. CIV-96-657-A. 956 F.Supp. 953 (1997).

Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 650 F.3d 205, 207(3d Cir 2011).

Tabor, J. (2009). Students' First Amendment Rights in the Age of the Internet: Off-Campus Cyberspeech and School Regulation. Boston College Law Review, 50(2), retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1492422

Mainstram Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun, No. Civ.A.

    97-2049-A. 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (1998).

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393(2007).

Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists,

    290 F.3d 1058, 1063-67 (9th Cir. 2002).

Paul, E. (2012). Splitting the Difference: Layshock and J.S. Chart a Separate Path on Student Speech Rights, Boston College Law Review, 53(6), 17-30.

Sandy S. Li (2005).The Need for a New, Uniform Standard: The Continued Threat to Internet-Related Student Speech, 26 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 65, retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=elr.

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969).

Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District, 607 F.2d 1043, 1051(2d Cir. 1979).

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397(1989).

Tova W. (2008). School Administrators as Cyber Censors: Cyber Speech and First Amendment Rights, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23(4), 1507-1530.

Tatro v. University of Minnesota, 800 N.W.2d 811, 822(Minn. Ct. App.2011).

Wisniewski v. Board of Education of Weedsport Central School District, 494 F.3d 34(2d Cir. 2007).

William, A. K. & Barbara, A. L. (2007). The Law of Higher Education (4nd), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


EndNote
下載可匯入格式