張永明

中文摘要

法國於西元1822 年發明所謂之回覆權以來，不限媒體報導形態之法國式回覆權，與限制僅能以事實陳述對抗媒體事實陳述之德國式回覆權，成為歐洲國家以及歐洲地區以外國家採用之法制，但各國實施情況不一，有超越平衡被報導者媒體權利之法制目的，而被濫用成為限制傳播自由者。 本文探討歐洲回覆權法制之起源、發展、理論依據，並以德國實施回覆權之經驗，評析我國衛星廣播電視法關於更正、辯駁相關規定之修正草案。研究發現，歐洲國家以法國與德國為中心，發展出來之媒體回覆權，對於被報導者之人格權保護與閱聽眾對於爭議事件完整之知的權利，具有正面之意義，為大眾傳播發達之後之必要法制配套。經妥善立法與實務操作時審慎衡量，可以兼顧傳播自由與人格權保障。 關於衛星廣播電視法第35 條修正草案，本文認為不宜將更正與辯駁兩項制度合併於一個條文規定，因更正必須證實媒體原始報導為錯誤，但辯駁可以如德國法般，限制在只得針對媒體之事實陳述進行事實陳述式之回應，即不以證實媒體報導錯誤為要件。至於適用民事訴訟法假處分程序之規定，以確保請求權之實現，基於傳播自由之兼顧，應僅限於事實陳述性質之辯駁方可適用。

A Study on The Right of Reply in European Media Law

Yeong-Ming Chang

abstract

Since the right of reply was invented in France in 1882, “French right of reply” which is not limited to any types of news reports and “German right of reply” which is limited to only oppose fact against media statement of fact have become legal systems used by European countries and other countries outside Europe . But how to enforce it is different from countries. There is a situation that goes beyond the legal goal of balancing media right of the reported so that it is abused to limit freedom of communication. This article studies the right of reply to the legal system of European origin, development, theoretical basis, and to the German experience in the implementation of the right to reply, comment on our country’s Satellite Broadcasting Act about the relevant provisions of the correction and defence draft amendments. Research reports found, the European countries, France and Germany as the center, the development of the media right of reply, being reported for the protection of personal rights and the audience complete right to know for debatable event have a positive significance, and the public media has necessary to complete the legal system. Through proper legislation and practical operation carefully measured, can take care both of spreading freedom and personal character. On the Satellite Broadcasting Act No. 35 draft amendments, I think correction and respond that is not appropriate to merge the two systems in one section, because correction must verify media original report as the error, but respond as Germany, limited in the media statement of facts to the fact that statements of the response, that is not to confirm media reports have errors for the element. That applies to the Civil Procedure Law provides procedures to ensure the realization of claims, both based on the spread of freedom should be limited to the nature of the rebuttal statement of facts will be applied.