有關刑法235條「猥褻」定義 - 法律
By Michael
at 2009-03-04T12:10
at 2009-03-04T12:10
Table of Contents
想請問一下有關刑法235條「猥褻」定義
依照大法官釋字407、617的解釋可見「猥褻」其定義有
(一)對含有暴力、性虐待或人獸性交等而無藝術性、醫學性或教育性價值之猥褻資訊或
物品為傳布。
(二)對其他客觀上足以刺激或滿足性慾,而令一般人感覺不堪呈現於眾或
不能忍受而排拒之猥褻資訊或物品。
那今天要是依照第一點
圖片的整體性、和創作理念等認定該圖片是具有藝術之性質
那麼還要不要在用第二點去探討它是否達到「猥褻」的地步
也就是要達到(一)、(二)兩點才能認可其不屬猥褻呢!?
如要同時具備(一)、(二)兩點
那麼關於中央大學教授何春蕤於學術網站上放至人獸交的圖片
其無罪判決是說
該人獸交圖片具有學術、教育的性質而應不屬猥褻範圍
符合(一)的定義
那麼對(二)令一般人感覺不堪 這點就不需要探討了嗎!?
對於這邊有點不太瞭解
是否符合其中一項
在判決上就可認定應不屬「猥褻」範圍呢!?
麻煩請大家幫忙回答了
謝謝!!
--
依照大法官釋字407、617的解釋可見「猥褻」其定義有
(一)對含有暴力、性虐待或人獸性交等而無藝術性、醫學性或教育性價值之猥褻資訊或
物品為傳布。
(二)對其他客觀上足以刺激或滿足性慾,而令一般人感覺不堪呈現於眾或
不能忍受而排拒之猥褻資訊或物品。
那今天要是依照第一點
圖片的整體性、和創作理念等認定該圖片是具有藝術之性質
那麼還要不要在用第二點去探討它是否達到「猥褻」的地步
也就是要達到(一)、(二)兩點才能認可其不屬猥褻呢!?
如要同時具備(一)、(二)兩點
那麼關於中央大學教授何春蕤於學術網站上放至人獸交的圖片
其無罪判決是說
該人獸交圖片具有學術、教育的性質而應不屬猥褻範圍
符合(一)的定義
那麼對(二)令一般人感覺不堪 這點就不需要探討了嗎!?
對於這邊有點不太瞭解
是否符合其中一項
在判決上就可認定應不屬「猥褻」範圍呢!?
麻煩請大家幫忙回答了
謝謝!!
--
Tags:
法律
All Comments
By Caitlin
at 2009-03-05T00:04
at 2009-03-05T00:04
By Oliver
at 2009-03-09T10:36
at 2009-03-09T10:36
By Yuri
at 2009-03-11T21:24
at 2009-03-11T21:24
By Erin
at 2009-03-13T13:05
at 2009-03-13T13:05
By Ophelia
at 2009-03-18T07:24
at 2009-03-18T07:24
By Ethan
at 2009-03-19T08:37
at 2009-03-19T08:37
By Hamiltion
at 2009-03-20T23:02
at 2009-03-20T23:02
By Ula
at 2009-03-25T23:02
at 2009-03-25T23:02
By Joe
at 2009-03-26T15:49
at 2009-03-26T15:49
By David
at 2009-03-26T23:27
at 2009-03-26T23:27
By Robert
at 2009-03-30T06:53
at 2009-03-30T06:53
By Kama
at 2009-03-30T23:54
at 2009-03-30T23:54
By Jack
at 2009-04-01T04:50
at 2009-04-01T04:50
By Puput
at 2009-04-02T00:12
at 2009-04-02T00:12
By Cara
at 2009-04-06T08:44
at 2009-04-06T08:44
By Quintina
at 2009-04-10T20:24
at 2009-04-10T20:24
By Frederica
at 2009-04-12T16:44
at 2009-04-12T16:44
By Hardy
at 2009-04-14T17:07
at 2009-04-14T17:07
By Ingrid
at 2009-04-16T13:52
at 2009-04-16T13:52
By Eartha
at 2009-04-20T16:30
at 2009-04-20T16:30
By George
at 2009-04-22T12:34
at 2009-04-22T12:34
By Poppy
at 2009-04-26T07:13
at 2009-04-26T07:13
By Wallis
at 2009-04-28T03:18
at 2009-04-28T03:18
By Lydia
at 2009-05-01T11:49
at 2009-05-01T11:49
By Callum
at 2009-05-03T10:12
at 2009-05-03T10:12
By Candice
at 2009-05-04T22:24
at 2009-05-04T22:24
By Lauren
at 2009-05-06T08:47
at 2009-05-06T08:47
By Hedy
at 2009-05-09T02:42
at 2009-05-09T02:42
By Callum
at 2009-05-09T06:52
at 2009-05-09T06:52
By Ingrid
at 2009-05-12T23:12
at 2009-05-12T23:12
By Ida
at 2009-05-14T03:35
at 2009-05-14T03:35
By Eden
at 2009-05-16T18:31
at 2009-05-16T18:31
By Todd Johnson
at 2009-05-17T22:30
at 2009-05-17T22:30
By Agnes
at 2009-05-20T20:08
at 2009-05-20T20:08
By Bethany
at 2009-05-21T04:49
at 2009-05-21T04:49
By Odelette
at 2009-05-21T12:58
at 2009-05-21T12:58
By Sandy
at 2009-05-22T14:53
at 2009-05-22T14:53
By Iris
at 2009-05-26T07:47
at 2009-05-26T07:47
By Robert
at 2009-05-30T14:27
at 2009-05-30T14:27
By Sandy
at 2009-05-31T19:06
at 2009-05-31T19:06
By Kristin
at 2009-06-04T04:50
at 2009-06-04T04:50
Related Posts
請問區分"訴訟程序違背法令"與"判決違背法令"之實益?
By Carolina Franco
at 2009-03-04T09:58
at 2009-03-04T09:58
室友提早退租的糾紛
By Rosalind
at 2009-03-04T09:33
at 2009-03-04T09:33
店中店員擅賣仿貨vs民法188的適用
By Ingrid
at 2009-03-04T03:31
at 2009-03-04T03:31
民法問題
By Hedwig
at 2009-03-04T02:12
at 2009-03-04T02:12
沒拉手煞車,算公共危險嗎?
By Ethan
at 2009-03-04T00:56
at 2009-03-04T00:56