台灣在1987年解除戒嚴之後，政治權力對於各領域加諸的法令限制都快速解除，各領域發出的資訊也由聽閱的個人來過濾取捨，政府不任加干預。除少數情況（如：符合刑法定義的妨害風化行為），其他各種的言論、廣告、藝術、新聞...，都可得到容忍並自由流通。這發展是走向成熟的民主的特徵之一；各種言論都在意見的自由市場中接受公平的競爭、評價，公眾對於政府決策都有知之權利；每個社會成員也因資訊管道暢通而不被蒙蔽，民主理性的社會指日可待。但是現今氾濫的資訊當中，聽閱人深陷資訊的洪流卻不見得能突破重圍；個人雖然可以隨手得到所需資訊，但也同時出現不安；簡單來說，有以下三種情況：

第一、 隱私破壞 喬治歐威爾所著1984的情況，到了二十一世紀仍然有其解釋力；個人資料越來越掌控在政府各機關手中，我們的健康情況、診療記錄、就學歷史、工作薪資、犯罪或肇事前科無一不納入網路系統，政治掌權者可以輕易取得個人資料。在另個場域來看，最近某個世界級的網路服務公司，為了建立行動版街景資料庫，其街景車拍攝許多住家個人的生活影像，也蒐集了未加密的WiFi無線網路傳送的電郵、瀏覽紀錄，這些侵害個人隱私的行為遭到嚴重抗議。該公司的行為雖然有其善意目的，但侵害隱私權的結果也是事實。

第二、 訊息錯亂 日前總統（兼執政黨主席）與最大反對黨主席針對台灣是否應該與中國大陸簽訂ECFA進行公開辯論，辯論之後部分媒體即進行民意調查並公布調查結果。但令人意外的是媒體之間爆發爭執：媒體做的民意調查是否符合行業倫理，包含調查的題目設定、抽樣方法、電訪方式、統計的信度與效度，乃至於有無惡意操弄民調數字。這樣的案例顯示個人面對媒體公布的民調時，尚得考慮民調數字背後的公布意圖、調查的公正性。這也引發後續的關切，包括個人有無能力解讀這些數字的客觀性以及媒體擁有者的政治立場。

第三、 訊息氾濫 每天從報紙、雜誌、無線電視、有線電視、網路、廣播等等媒體的傳佈，使個人接受的訊息變得相當複雜，包括1.同一訊息藉著廣告方式反覆進入我們的耳目，類似洗腦的效果。2.訊息背後的發佈動機不易分辨，例如政府也曾將其政策透過電視連續劇而包裝送出，觀眾在觀看當中因著對劇情人物的認同而連帶產生政治社會化效果。3.各樣的訊息過多以致變成垃圾等級；例如網路垃圾郵件之外，更包括各種轉寄資料天天寄來。網路使用者除花費時間成本去除這些資料，也同時產生麻木的心理效應4.因訊息過多，訊息產生者更設法提昇其刺激程度，例如以受歡迎的藝人作代言廣告，訊息接收者（消費者）在人物認同中模糊了判斷。

　　按照人權觀念的發展，在過去的一百年原是要求政府積極給予個人所需，包含積極保障資訊的發佈、流通、接收、討論。但以前面的論述，訊息對於個人來說有超載的危機，使我們不得不重新評估人的選擇和過濾能力。這樣的考慮並非今天才開始，例如對於黃色資訊、政治意見、商品廣告的管制，都不斷在討論。但這些討論都是以某個領域作為標的，以釐清某種資訊的流通權利。至於整體以個人與資訊的關係為考慮者，則不相同。個人與資訊的關係又得考慮「人」作為一個資訊的生產者也是接受者的角度，並且放在民主社會當中檢視。因此，我們就會遇到一個兩難的困局；民主社會是設定「公民參與」為前提，這樣的公民是能夠針對公共事務作判斷、討論，並且在意見自由的市場機制當中產生社會的最大共識。因此把人當成有自由意志且有自主能力的理性主體，可以在自由的意見市場中自由的聽閱讀取訊息，作為決策與行動的判斷參考，這是非常重要的。不過這樣的主體預設遭到了困難；亦即這主體究竟有無能力在資訊洪流當中，繼續成為一個理性判斷的存在者？若這存在者的理性能力遭到質疑，乃至主體地位受到影響，那麼民主社會所理想的境界不也跟著受到質疑！

　　因此，如果我們重新檢視人的存在狀態，必須重新思考人的構成，這個構成是把理性視作某一內在活動的結果，自由意志亦同，這些都屬人表層意識活動的產物。如果再往內推求，我們可以設定理性與自由意志有個內在基礎，它指涉到人的心靈1。亦即人的精神層面有某個區塊是作為一個主體的根源核心，這根源核心並非在意見自由的市場中產生出來，乃是先天地來自個人的內心，而個人則作為整個意見自由市場的基礎。心靈並非去作有意識的判斷、沒有產生理性主張、也不是行動意志，卻是判斷、理性和意志的基礎；並且內在心靈需要滋養，透過滋養才能開展我們的意志、情緒、判斷、理性或意志。而從西方的基督教以迄東方的道教、佛教，都不約而同地告訴眾人，內在心靈不只是活動，也要休息，它要有清醒也要有睡眠。

　　因此，社會科學當中不斷討論人的意識、行動、判斷等等，但在宗教的領域更提到它們背後的心靈問題，例如基督信仰當中，心靈的滋養是藉著神與人的關係進行論述，藉著回歸到神那邊去，人才能得到圓滿與心靈提昇。舊約聖經曾說：「你們要休息，就知道我是耶和華。」2新約聖經也提到耶穌的話：「凡勞苦擔重擔的人可以到我這裡來，我就使你們得安息。」3古代中國一位得道的覺者趙抃，他的開悟詩說：「默坐公堂虛隱几，心源不動湛如水，一聲霹靂頂門開，喚起從前自家底。」4因此，若要把人的主體性拿回來，透過前述類似宗教層面的說明，我們更可以說民主社會的在預設上並不能只看作一個不斷討論、辯難、溝通的狀態，也不只是一個不斷競爭的意見市場，它也需要某種程度的自制、退下、沈澱、消化、休息。這樣的描述，使人的意識、行動、判斷乃至民主社會的運作節奏，都如同四季一樣，也如同人與自然的互動關係：春耕、夏耘、秋收、冬藏。若讓各樣資訊無止境湧進內心，只是讓個人過度承載，反而很難做出原本理性的行動，民主社會的理想反而相形漸遠。

　　這樣的思考，我們若走到憲法的層面，資訊傳佈與言論自由有絕對的關係，尤其是檢討憲法如何因應人所面對的情況時，傳統上的思想自由與言論自由就必須重新思考。過去的年代，思想自由與言論自由是擺放在對抗政府權力的脈絡解釋，旁及人權與人權之間的均衡解釋，比如言論與隱私的權衡。但如今言論背後代表的資訊流動已經不只是自由與否，也不是隱私侵害的範圍而已，乃是個人心靈得著歇息沈澱的必要性問題。

　　按照中華民國台灣憲法第二條規定5，憲法可以看做一份全體國民的契約書，是從盧梭而來的總體意志的觀念6，那麼憲法代表的契約目的是讓個人得著自由，那也是設計總體意志的原意。因此，自由是最重要的人權內涵，當理性思考、討論、乃至隱私受到威脅時，就應該把憲法含蘊的諸價值重做安排。這份安排應該將心靈的保護納入其中，否則人的自由會產生困難，理性的民主社會也難達成。因此，我們可以重新檢視言論自由所衍生的思想自由；思想自由在過去憲法層面的討論中，因其本質是個人內心的活動，所以不須給予限制，除非思想轉為外在的言行。若以本文關切的主題來說，思想自由應該去檢視其本身的狀態；亦即「思想」代表內心的活動，裡面有理性的、感性的、意志的活動，但這不代表它一直時時在活動，它也有暫歇的時候，也可能進行休整與沈澱。這樣的描述說明了我們整個人的存有不是時時刻刻的活動，乃是有起伏變化。因此，心靈就全人存有的部分就很重要了，它涉及了宗教的層面，這也是憲法所關切的。

　　在整體憲法保障人權的項目中，宗教自由是關切全人存有並討論心靈的一項權利，我們可以試將憲法保障的宗教自由作另一層面的解釋；雖然過去傳統解釋是把這種人權自由界定在個人可以自由選擇宗教、禁止設立國教、保障絕對的宗教信仰自由、保障相對的宗教活動自由等等。但我們可以把這樣的脈絡再重新耙梳，即憲法除了保障各宗教都有機會提出心靈解釋的方向，更可承認保護心靈的必要性。除了言論、出版、思想、旅行、財產、工作、集會、結社等等可以彰顯「人」在法律層面的存在性，心靈也可以當作一個受到保障的對象，也是「人」彰顯存在的重點。換言之，宗教自由可以不只是個人選擇的自由，或宗派多元存在的保障，更可進到個人理性、自由意志背後的基礎層面，它對「人」而言具有不可或缺的必要性及普遍性。至於憲法如何保障這心靈層面的宗教自由？因我國屬於俗世統治的國家，因此，重點是讓資訊產生者、政府或言論的自由市場必須謙虛、自制，它們在憲法的層面並非至高無上的絕對價值，並應承認「人」的理性能力、自由意志有其極限；當前者謙虛自制的時候，使人的心靈不再被壓縮並有休息沈澱的空間，人的理性與意志才能重新得力。至於如何休息沈澱，則聽憑個人在信仰方面的選擇自由，這部份是傳統宗教自由的解釋範疇。

　　當然，心靈權利的形成還有很長的路要走，比如從消極面看，能否建立機制而適當監管資訊過度生產的行為（在過去因著新聞自由的概念而沒有任何量的限制，只有質的限制；比如色情暴力），從積極面看，企業在行銷之時，其產生的資訊應有自我克制，例如不可過度凸顯某一面相或假設性的用詞，以免個人無法真確判斷，個人若因此受到損害也可請求賠償。此外，監管資訊過度浮濫的機關應有如何的設計也需要思考。 　　 　　

　　不只於此，因著政府、企業和許多利益團體不斷開展行銷技巧，應立法限制不當資訊的產生。像台灣立法院準備立法限制公眾名人代言商品，若該商品對消費者造成傷害，代言者與廠商必須負連帶賠償責任。這裡面的重要訊息是不能讓廠商任意操弄消費者對公眾名人的信任感，也使公眾名人在享有名利的同時，也要擔負更大的道義與法律責任。 　　

　　這些林林總總的法律規範無法一次到位，但是它就如同當初的環境權一般，起初仍是從哲學人類學以及人與自然的思考開始，後來就會逐漸具體起來，像是環境權衍生而出的碳權交易規範。如果我們同意這樣的脈絡，心靈權利成立的成立也將回來談人之所為人的基本成分是什麼？一個理想樣式的人應該如何？並且把人權的概念拉回到哲學人類學的檢討層次；以迄憲法人權的層面，心靈權利的保障可以考慮從宗教自由衍生，可稱「心靈權或心靈自由」。它也將改變自由市場、新聞自由、理性人的假設。心靈空間得到適合的滋養修整，人的整全存在才有可能，民主理性的社會也才是可欲的。

The attempt of spiritual right in the intention of constitutional human rights 　　

After lifting the Martial Law in 1987, Taiwan's government has quickly lifted nearly all other regulations imposed on other areas. The information sent out from every area is only filtered by each individual. The government no longer interferes. Except for a few circumstances, such as behaviors that undermine public morality according to Criminal Laws, other actions like speeches, ads, arts, news, etc, should be tolerant and circulated. Such development is a symbol of a mature democracy. That is, every speech is equally competed, evaluated in the opinion free market and the public should have the right to know about the government's decision. Every member in the society is not blinded because information circulates freely. It seems a democratic society is within measurable distance. However audiences, trapped in the flood of information, seem to fail to break through the siege of information. Even though each individual can obtain information easily, uneasiness also pervades. To put it simply, I will point out 3 situations as follows. 　　 First, the violation of privacy What happens in George Orwell's 1984 still persists in the 21 century. Each individual's personal information is more and more under the control of the government. Our health problems, medical records, schooling histories, salaries, criminal or accident records are all included in the network system. The government can obtain each individual's information easily. Viewing from another aspect, we see a world famous network server moves around its street camera cars shooting many household's living images in order to build up its active version of street scene data base. It also collects unencrypted e-mails, browsing records sent by wifi wireless network. Their invasion of privacy is severely protested. Though the company is well-intended, the invasion of privacy is also a fact. Second: the garbling of information Recently, President Ma of Republic of China (also the chairman of the ruling party) and the chairwoman of the opposite party publicly debated over the issue of signing the treaty of ECFA between Taiwan and Mainland China. Soon after the debate, some medias did opinion polls and revealed the result. Surprisingly, a serious argument broke out among the medias.7 They were arguing if the opinion polls agreed with the morality of the occupation. For example, how did a media set up the poll questions? What were its sampling and telephone interview methods? What was the accountability and validity of statistics? Or was there any maneuver of the poll figures? This case shows that when each individual encounters the opinion poll made by the media, he or she has to consider the intention and fairness behind the poll figures. It also evokes subsequent concern. That is, do we have the ability to interpret these figures objectively? What's the political position of those media owners? Third: the overflow of messages The broadcast of newspapers, magazines, cablevision, broadcast TV, network, and radios makes the reception of messages complicated for an individual. It includes: 1. the same message repeatedly enter our eyes and ears, creating a brainwashing effect. 2. It's hard to detect the intention behind the broadcast of a message. For example, the government once used soap operas to convey its policies. The audiences are easily political socialized due to their identification of the dramatic figures. 3. As there are too many messages, the importance of the message is lowered to the level of trash. For example, aside from junk mails, there are many messages transferred back and forth. Network users not only have to spend time removing these materials, but also become numb to them. 4. As there are too many messages, message makers try to heighten their stimulation by inviting popular entertainers speak for their ads. The judgments of message receivers (consumers) are blurred due to their identification of the entertainers. According to the development of the concept of human rights, people in the past 100 years originally asks the government to give positively the information that each individual needs, including protecting the broadcast, circulation, reception, and discussion of information. Yet according to the previous discourse on the overloading of messages, we had to reevaluate human's ability to choose and filter the message. Such consideration doesn't start today since we do have some regulations and constant discussions on pornographic information, political opinion and the products ads. Yet these discussions are targeted in some areas so as to clarify the circulation right of certain information. If differs from the consideration of the relationship between individual and information as an entity. The relationship between individual and information has to consider human beings as a producers as well as receivers of information and should examine it in a democratic society. But then we will face a dilemma. A democratic society is based on the presumption of "civil participation". These citizens can judge and discuss public affairs and come to the biggest consensus of the society in the mechanism of opinion free market. So human beings are viewed as ones with the power of free will and also the rational subjects with autonomous ability. They can freely listen or read information in the free opinion market and use it as reference to their decision and action. This is very important. Now the presumption of subject encounters difficulty. That is, in the flood of information, can the subject still exist and make a rational judgment? If the rational ability of these existents is doubtful, or even the subject's status is affected, then the ideal world of democratic society will also be suspected. Thus, if we want to reexamine the existence of human beings, we have to reconsider the construction of human beings. Such construction viewed rationality and free will as the outcome of some inner activity. They all belong to the products of superficial consciousness. If we probe further, we can assume that there is an inner basis for rationality and free will. It refers to human's spirit8. That is, a certain section in the spiritual sphere is the core of a subject. The core does not come from opinion free market, but from each individual's spirit a priori while each individual is the basis of all the opinion free market. The spirit did not judge consciously, assert any rational statements, nor is it an action will. Yet it's the basis of judgment, rationality, and will. Besides, the inner spirit needs nourishment. Only through nourishing our spirit can we develop our will, emotion, judgment, rationality and will. From Western Christianity to Eastern Taoism, Buddhism, they all tell us that the inner spirit not only needs exercise, but also good rest. It needs time to wake up and time to sleep. Thus, while social science constantly discusses human beings' consciousnesses, actions, and judgments, etc, spirit's problems behind all phenomena are mentioned in the religious territory. In Christianity, for example, the nourishment of spirit is in the discourse of the relationship between God and human beings. Only by returning to God can human beings obtain fulfillment and the uplifting of spirit. In the Old Testament, it said "Be still, and know ( )am God....."9 The New Testament also mentions Jesus' teaching "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ".10 Chao-pien, a Chinese official in Sung Dynasty, said in his enlightenment poetry:11 Devoid of thought, I sat quietly by the desk in my official room, With my fountain-mind undisturbed, as serene as water; A sudden crash of thunder, the mind doors burst open, And lo, there sits the old man in all his homeliness. Thus, through the previous quasi-religious explanation, we can say that if we want to take human beings' subjectivity back, the presumption of democratic society should not be viewed as a status of constant discussion, debate and communication. It is not a repeated competitive market. It needs a certain degree of self-control, retreat, settling, digest, and rest. The description infers that human's consciousness, actions, judgments or even the democratic society itself is like the four seasons. It is also the same as the interactive relationship between human beings and nature: spring plowing, summer cultivation, autumn harvest, and winter storage. So if we let all information surges into our mind endlessly, human beings will be overloaded. They then cannot act rationally. The ideal of democratic society will leave us even further. With the thought in mind, we now can come to the level of constitution and see that the broadcast of information has something to do with the freedom of speech. As the constitution reacts to the problems human beings face, we need to rethink the traditional freedom of thought and speech since we are suffering from the problems caused by information. In the past era, the freedom of thought and speech are interpreted in the context of fighting against government power. It then leads to the issue of balance among the human rights, for example, the balance between speech and privacy. Yet what matters is not whether the flow of information behind the speech is free or not, nor is it about the violation of privacy. Rather it's about the necessity of spirit coming to rest. According to Article 2 of Taiwan's constitution,12 constitution can be viewed as a contract of all citizens, a concept of Rousseau's General Will.13 The aim of the contract represented by the constitution is to enable each individual obtain freedom. That is also the original meaning of designed general will. Thus freedom is the most important intention of human rights. When rational thinking, discussion, or even privacy is under threat, we should rearrange all the values existed in the constitution. The reangement should take the protection of spirit into consideration. Otherwise human's freedom will encounter difficulty. A rational democratic society will also hard to achieve. Thus we need to reexamine the freedom of thought derived from the freedom of speech. In the past constitutional discussion, the freedom of thought is not limited since its essence is an internal activity. Unless the thoughts are transferred into outward speech and action, otherwise there is no limit. Viewing from the topic we concern in this article, we can say the freedom of speech should examine its status quo. That is, "thought" represents the inner activity. It's a rational, emotional, and willful activity. But that does not mean that it should be active all the time. There is a time of rest, or a time of settling down. The description shows that our being is not active all the time. It is fluctuant. So spirit is important to the existence of holistic person. It involves religious level and is what constitution should concern. Among all the items of human rights protected by the constitution, the freedom of religion concerns the existence of holistic person and the right to discuss spirit. We try to explain the freedom of religion, which is protected by constitution, from another perspective. Though traditional explanations of this freedom of human right focus on personal freedom on choosing religion, forbidding establishing national religion, protecting absolute belief freedom, and protecting the freedom of relative religious activity, yet we can reexamine such context. That is, constitution not only protects each religion having the opportunity to propose the direction of the explanation of spirit, but also should admit the necessity of protecting spirit. Besides speech, publication, thought, travelling, property, occupation, assembly--activities that demonstrate the existence of "person" from the perspective of law, spirit can also become an item protected by the constitution. It is also a key point to demonstrate the existence of human beings. In other words, the freedom of religion can be more than freedom of personal choice or the protection of plural existence of religion. It can advance to become the fundamental base behind personal rationality and the freedom of will. It possesses inevitable necessity and universality to human beings. How then can the constitution protect the spirit level of religious freedom? As our country is governed by laymen, the main point is to let information makers, the government or the free market of speech be humble and restraint as they are not ultimate value from the perspective of constitution. They should also admit the limitation of human beings' rationality and the freedom of will. When the former learns to be humble and self-restraint, it leaves human beings' spirits untroubled and some room to rest. Only then can human beings rationality and will be vitalized. As to how to rest our spirit is up to each individual's freedom of choosing their own religion. This belongs to traditional explanation of the freedom of religion. Indeed, the right of spirit is still a long way to go. For example, from the negative perspective, can we set up a mechanism that monitors the over production of information? (In the past, owing to the concept of freedom of press, there is no limitation in quantity but only in quality, such as the limit on pornography and violence.) From positive perspective, when companies are promoting their products, they should restraint their information, not over emphasizing a certain aspect or using hypothetical terms in case that people cannot judge correctly. An individual can ask for compensation if such damage is caused. Besides, we should also think about how to design an institution that can oversee the overflow of information. Not only so, we should legislate to limit the production of improper information as nowadays the government, companies and other interest groups are constantly developing their marketing strategies. For example, the legislative Yuan in Taiwan prepares to set up a law to limit the celebrities' endorsement of products. If the products cause any damage to the customer, spokespersons and companies must take the attached responsibilities to compensate. The important message here is that we cannot let companies manipulate customers' sense of trust on celebrities. It also asks celebrities to take up more justice and legal responsibilities when they are enjoying both fame and interest. All these legal regulations cannot be achieved in a short time. It is like the environmental right at the beginning. At first it starts from philosophical anthropology and the meditation between man and nature. It becomes concrete later on, like setting up the carbon exchange regulation derived from environmental right. If we agree with this context, the establishment of spiritual right draws us back to ask the question--what element makes human beings real human beings. What is an ideal type of men? We should also draw the concept of human rights back to the level of philosophical anthropology and the discussion level to that of constitutional right. The protection of spiritual right can derive from the freedom of religion. We can call it "the spiritual right or the freedom of spirit." It can change the presumptions of free market, freedom of press, and rational men. When spirit is properly nourished and maintained, it is possible for the existence of holistic person. Only then can a democratic rational society be desired. 1 Thomas Merton, The inner experience, Harper Collins, 2004, p6 2 聖經詩篇第46篇第10節。 3 聖經馬太福音第11章第28節。 4 D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, second series, (1953; reprint, London: Rider, 1970), 37. 5中華民國憲法第二條：中華民國之主權屬於國民全體。 6 Jean Jacques Rousseau, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, 1762. Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#006 7 http://tol.chinatimes.com/CT_NS/CTContent.aspx?nsrc=B&ndate=20100430&nfno=N0029.001&nsno=16&nkeyword=%a6%db%a5%d1%ae%c9%b3%f8&SearchArgs=Keyword%3d%a6%db%a5%d1%ae%c9%b3%f8%26Attr%3d%26Src%3d7%26DateFrom%3d20100429%26DateTo%3d20100528%26ShowStyle%3d2%26PageNo%3d2%26ItemsPerPage%3d10&App=NS. 5.29.2010 http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/apr/29/today-fo1.htm 5.29.2010 8 Thomas Merton, The inner experience, Harper Collins, 2004, p6 9 Psalm 46:10. 10 Matthew 11:28. 11 D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, second series, (1953; reprint, London: Rider, 1970), 37. 12 Article 2 of the Constitution of ROC (Taiwan): The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens. 13 Jean Jacques Rousseau, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, 1762. Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#006