【雙魚之論】英文拷到 G / D 找中文翻譯
Professor Lo Shih-hung（羅世宏）, the chairman
of the Taiwan Fact-Check Center and a professor in the Department of
Communication at Chung Cheng University, should exercise greater caution when
offering legal opinions, especially since his expertise lies outside the fields
of law or political science.
- He stated
that the deportation of a Chinese spouse advocating for military
unification was based on Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which stipulates,
"Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited." This is incorrect.
In fact, the legal basis is the "Regulations Governing the Residence,
Long-term Residence, or Settlement of People from the Mainland Area in the
Taiwan Area Based on Family Dependency," specifically Article 14,
Paragraph 1, Item 4, which allows for the revocation of residence permits
if there is "a risk of endangering national security or social
stability." Therefore, it is not the case
that there are no specific penalties, nor does it fall under an "concept
of legal uncertainty."
- He also advocated
"speech involving national security should further prove it poses a 'direct
and immediate threat.'"
In fact, this standard originates from the well-known 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (249 U.S. 47), which established a test for restricting free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The court ruled that speech could only be limited if it presents a "clear and present danger," particularly in emergency situations involving national security or public order. This decision became a landmark ruling.
The judgment famously stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
To
clarify: Professor Lo’s claim of a "direct and immediate threat"
may superficially resemble the U.S. Supreme Court’s "clear and present danger" standard, but "direct and immediate threat" is not a classic
legal test explicitly named in Supreme Court precedents. In contrast,
"clear and present danger" is the more widely recognized term in
legal discussions, academic analyses, and specific contexts.
台灣的事實查核中心董座、中正大學傳播系羅世宏教授，在發表法律見解時理應更謹慎，特別是其非法律或政治專業。
1. 羅說將鼓吹武統的中配遞解出境用的是國際條約ICCPR 第20條第1項的「任何鼓吹戰爭的宣傳應予禁止」。錯，其實是〈大陸地區人民在台灣地區依親居留長期居留或定居許可辦法〉，第14條第1項第4款「有危害國家安全或社會安定之虞」得廢除居留許可。所以不是沒有具體罰則，或也不屬於「不確定法律概念」。
2. 羅說「牽涉國家安全之言論，更應證明其具『直接與即時威脅』（direct and immediate threat）」。
其實，這個標準是1919年美國聯邦法院在Schenck v.
United States（249 U.S. 47）案中對於言論自由的標準，必須是在「明顯且即刻的危險」（Clear and Present Danger）下，才能限制。尤其是在涉及國家安全或公共秩序的緊急狀態下。此判決成為經典。
判決中有「對言論自由最嚴格的保護，也不會保護一個人在劇院中謊稱起火並引發恐慌……問題在於，這些言論是否在特定環境下，具備製造明顯且即刻危險的性質，並可能帶來實質性的惡果，而這種危險是國會有權防止的。」
要釐清的是：羅教授聲稱的「direct and
immediate threat」（直接且即刻的威脅）雖然與美國聯邦最高法院判決「clear and
present danger」（明顯且即刻的危險）外觀相似，但「direct and
immediate threat」並非最高法院判例中經典的法律測試名稱，反而「clear and
present danger」（明顯且即刻的危險）是更廣泛出現在法律討論、學術分析或某些具體情境中。
武統中配「亞亞」離境期限將至！事實查核中心董座：裁定有瑕疵
三立 20250324
移民署近期調查曾主張武統言論的陸配，「亞亞」劉振亞遭廢止在台居留許可，要求在收到處分書後10日內限期離境。事實查核中心董座、中正大學傳播系羅世宏教授認為，北高行政法院引用「兩公約」第20條駁回亞亞聲請停止執行的裁定有瑕疵，「未能充分展現法院應有的保護人權的擔當。」
