政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/142083

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/142083

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113451/144438 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51244120 線上人數 : 921

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/142083

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/142083

題名:	暴力電子遊戲之言論自由保障 Freedom of Speech for the Violent Video Games
作者:	陳怡潔 Chen, Yi-Chieh
貢獻者:	廖元豪陳怡潔 Chen, Yi-Chieh
關鍵詞:	暴力電子遊戲暴力言論言論自由娛樂軟體分級自律分級 Self-regulation Violent video games Violent speech Freedom of speech Entertainment software rating
日期:	2022
上傳時間:	2022-10-05 09:05:32 (UTC+8)
摘要:	暴力電子遊戲隨著時代的發展越發多元，但同時也衍伸許多爭議，例如：許多社會暴力事件發生後，社會輿論、學界常會尋求蛛絲馬跡，試圖把暴力行為者與暴力電子遊戲建立連結，導向「暴力電子遊戲是暴力事件發生的主因之一」的結論，故有認為暴力電子遊戲可能對心智尚未成熟的青少年造成不良影響，故應予以禁止或限制；然亦有不同見解認為，暴力電子遊戲雖作為娛樂產品，惟並非僅具娛樂特性，亦可作為創作者與玩家資訊交流管道，蓋暴力電子遊戲內涵蓋創作者所欲交流、傳播的思想，所以在沒有具體實證可證明暴力電子遊戲與犯罪有因果關係之情形下，政府不應禁止或限制暴力電子遊戲。本文旨在透過了解暴力電子遊戲發展與其進入家庭之歷史脈絡，學界各層面的相關研究，來探討其與言論自由之關聯，並討論對暴力電子遊戲之管制是否違反憲法對言論之保障，且藉由美國已臻成熟、廣為全球各國採用的業界分級、自律制度，以及相關判決、判例及法理，剖析暴力電子遊戲的發展、相關內容是否對人類心理與行為產生影響，以探討政府相關管制手段能否通過憲法違憲審查的檢驗。本文認為：不應忽視藉由暴力電子遊戲來交流、對話的玩家與創作者，不能主觀認定此種交流會產生暴力，甚至是犯罪意圖；限制暴力電子遊戲會侵害創作者與玩家之言論自由，所以基於憲法保障言論自由的精神，政府不應管制暴力遊戲的內容或資訊交流，但顧慮到社會輿論與家長顧慮，故在參酌美國遊戲產業的發展模式：由遊戲業者建立分級組織，根據遊戲內容與玩家年齡來自律分級後，由於我國目前實務狀況不適合使用上開模式，故本文提出解決方法：藉由成立娛樂軟體分級自律委員會，除可於達到保護未成年人之目的，同時亦可兼顧言論自由之保障。 With the growth of the industry, violent video games have diversified and caused many controversies in the meantime. For instance, the public opinion and scholarly studies seek to find a connection between violent behavior and violent video game after violent incidents occur. They intend to lead to the conclusion that “the violent video game is one of the main causes of the violent incident.” Some consider that violent video games may have negative impacts on immature teenagers and should be prohibited or under certain control, while others consider that violent video game is not only for entertainment but also a channel for game designers and players to exchange information. The designers embed their ideologies in violent video games. When there is no solid evidence for a causal relation between violent video games and committing a crime, the government should not prohibit or control violent video games under the certain condition. The study aims to explore and discuss the relation to the freedom of speech, and whether the control over violent video games violates the protection of freedom of speech in the constitution through the understanding of the development of violent video games, the historical context of entering the family, and the study in related academic disciplines. To analyze the development of violent video games, and related content on whether or not generate influence people’s psychology and behavior, also explore and discuss whether the government’s control methods can pass the Judicial review through the rating system extensively applied in many countries of the world and mature already in the United States, the self-discipline system, court’s judgment, legal precedent, and jurisprudence. This study argues that violent video game designers and players should not be neglected or be identified as potential violent crime suspects. The restriction on violent video games will infringe game designers’ and players’ freedom of speech; therefore, according to the Constitution, the government should not control or limit the content and information of violent video games. In response to public concerns about the violent video games, the study refers to the development model of the gaming industry in the United States: the gaming industry establishes the rating organization to rate the content of the game based on the player’s age. However, the above model is not applicable in present judicial practice. Hence, the study proposes that by establishing an entertainment software rating self-regulation committee not only fulfill the purpose of protecting juveniles, but also protection the freedom of speech.
參考文獻:	參考資料一、中文文獻（一）專書大瀧令嗣、陳彥夫、王姵嵐（2014），電子遊戲產業概論，臺北：翰蘆。李瑞森（2015），遊戲專業概論，2版，北京：清華大學。林子儀（1999），言論自由與新聞自由，臺北市 : 元照。國立交通大學通識教育中心數位動畫文創學程著，（2015年），幻境與實相 : 電子遊戲的理路與內涵，新竹 : 國立交通大學出版社。許育典（2011），憲法，臺北 : 元照。楊浩然（2021），虛擬實境的商業化應用，臺北：松燁文化。董保城、法治斌（2014），憲法新論，臺北 : 元照。（二）翻譯專書 David Buckingham著，楊雅婷譯（2003），童年之死：在電子媒體時代下長大的孩童，臺北 : 巨流出版。 Johnny I. Wilson, Rusel Demaria著，蔣鏡明、李宜安校譯（2004），圖解電子遊戲史，臺北：美商麥格羅·希爾國際股份有限公司。 Perry Nodelman、Mavis Reimer著，劉鳳芯、吳宜潔譯（2020），閱讀兒童文學的樂趣，三版，臺北 :天衛文化。（三）期刊論文高玉泉（2019），我國兒少保護法律體系之建構與評析，月旦法學雜誌，第295期，頁48-56。張紉（2012），「兒童及少年福利與權益保障法」的發展精神--論青少年發展的意涵與做法，社區發展季刊，第139期，頁51-66。張美鳳（2009），電子遊戲媒體型態與內容的關係，傳播與社會學刊，第10期，頁31-57。張瑞星、羅承宗（2016），華人娛樂法學領域之建構─以動畫遊戲產業及流行音樂產業為例，月旦法學雜誌，第255期，頁45-63。許育典、陳碧玉（2008），以青少年保護為核心的媒體素養教育：從管制「性」資訊談起，教育研究集刊，第54輯第4期，頁85-112。陳起行（2012），由Reno v. ACLU一案論法院與網際網路之規範，臺大法學論叢，第41卷第3 期，頁599-628。楊智傑（2017），言論自由事前審查之審查標準── 釋字第744號解釋與美國審查標準比較，憲政時代，43卷第1期，頁89-143。廖元豪（2004），愛國、燒國旗，與言論自由的雙軌理論，月旦法學教室，第21卷，頁8-9。劉晏齊（2016），為什麼要保障未成年人？兒少福利、法律與歷史的分析，政大法學評論，147期，頁83-157。劉靜怡（2004），言論自由：第一講—「言論自由」導論，月旦法學教室，第26期，頁73-81。劉靜怡（2005），言論自由：第二講—言論自由的雙軌理論與雙階理論，月旦法學教室，第28期，頁42-51。劉靜怡（2011），暴力內容受言論自由保障嗎？，月旦法學教室，第113期，頁6-8。劉靜怡（2014），無邊恐懼下的言論自由，法官協會雜誌，第16卷，頁228-224。蔡翼擎、黃翎榛、陳家羚、陳儀倫、林立晴、許芳瑜（2018），以層級分析法探索臺灣手遊產業建構有效創業模式之關鍵決策因子，管理資訊計算，第7卷第1期，第71-89頁。（四）學位論文林誼杰（2003），電玩成癮傾向及其相關因素研究，中原大學心理學研究所碩士論文。陳立曄（2018），論言分級制度之道德管治目的－以兒童基本權利論述為中心，國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。（五）相關文書、報告 107年遊戲軟體分級管理辦法修法理由。 108年遊戲軟體分級管理辦法修法理由刑事警察局紀錄科（2020），109年中華民國刑案統計—全書。兒福聯盟（2015），2015年兒童3C產品使用與上網行為調查，取用網址：https://www.children.org.tw/publication_research/research_report/2230?fbclid=IwAR2hcozHowfafxFaCIWp7WEmCxMw4s-33vF2dTuR3AOMRZ74Uk5gdvzMtog。兒福聯盟（2022）育兒現況暨疫情後親子遊戲趨勢調查，取用網址：https://www.children.org.tw/publication_research/research_report/2368。經濟部工業局電子資訊組（2020），健全數位娛樂環境與開發者輔導創新計畫二、英文文獻（一）專書 Mark J. P. Wolf, Editor.2012. Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming. Calif. : Greenwood. （二）期刊論文 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J..2001. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological science, 12(5), 353–359. Anderson C. A..2004. An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of adolescence, 27(1), 113–122. Ferguson. 2007. Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 470–482. Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O..2014. Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578–589. Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S. M., Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. M. 2008. Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 311–332. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N.2019. Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report. Royal Society Open Science 6, 171-474. Coyne, S. M., & Stockdale, L. 2020. Growing Up with Grand Theft Auto: A 10-Year Study of Longitudinal Growth of Violent Video Game Play in Adolescents. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 24(1), 11–16. Adel M. Agina, 2012. Robert D. Tennyson, Towards Understanding the Positive Effect of Playing Violent Video Games on Children`s Development, ELSEVIER, Procedia, Social and Behavioral ScienceS Vol. 69, 780-789 . Ferguson C. J. 2013. Violent video games and the Supreme Court: lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The American psychologist, 68(2), 57–74. Wheatland, T. 2005. Ashcroft v. ACLU: In Search of Plausible, Less Restrictive Alternatives. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20(1), 371–396. Anders, K. 1999. Marketing and Policy Considerations for Violent Video Games. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 270–273. Jessica Fisher, 2013. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: "Modern Warfare" on First Amendment Protection of Violent Video Games, 8 J. BUS. & TECH. L. ,527. Martha Minow,.2014. The Big Picture: Justice Breyer`s Dissent in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 469 （三）相關文書、報告 American Psychological Association, 2015. Task Force on Violent Media. Technical report on the review of the violent video game literature. American Psychological Association, 2019.Task Force on Violent Media. APA BSABAPPI 2019 Task Force on Violent Video Games. （四）美國法院判決 American Amusement Machine Ass`n v. Kendrick Cite as 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001). Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 586(2002). Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004). Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011). Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 638, n. 6 (1968). Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 170 (1944). Thurgood Marshall在Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. 396,94 S. Ct.1800 ,1818. (1974) （五）網路資料 BBC NEWS, No more `Hot Coffee` sex for GTA, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4142184.stm California Legislative Information, AB-1179 Violent video games: sales to minors., http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB1179 Congress. GOV, H.R.1531 - Video Game Decency Act of 2007, https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/1531/text Congress. GOV, S. 3935 (109th): Truth in Video Game Rating Act, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3935 Congress. GOV, S.2126 - Family Entertainment Protection Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/2126 Craig A. Anderson, Douglas A. Gentile, Katherine E. Buckley, Violent Video Games: Background and Overview, https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309836.001.0001/acprof-9780195309836 Patrick M. Garry, Video Games, The Free Speech Center, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1152/videogames?fbclid=IwAR1nIVQ7eFnHdUiUTbeJYlsOTMdnmG6Pi5Ag1DTDBtFLHdz6qGVc7dw_-7E Tim Radford, Computer games linked to violence, UK news, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/24/timradford
描述:	碩士國立政治大學法律學系 104651018
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104651018
資料類型:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202201607
顯示於類別:	[法律學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
101801.pdf		3659Kb	Adobe PDF2	0	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋