人民有言論、著作、出版、講學自由之權利，係由我國憲法第十一條所明文保障。而依照相關大法官解釋與學說，言論自由之意涵尚可包含廣電自由、通訊傳播自由與新聞自由。由以上的討論可以知道，我國大法官於第十一條言論自由的內涵中，試圖加入給予廣電媒體更多保障的特別性質基本權。本研究在綜合歷來大法官解釋與學者之見解，認為可將其對於廣電媒體的期待整理為一個上位的媒體自由之概念，而使廣電媒體有其獨立發展的空間。但所謂的媒體自由，並不能影響人民基本言論自由、傳播權及公民權之行使。 面對日趨複雜的廣電媒體問題，近年來解除管制已經成為一種世界性的潮流，其主要原因就在於對於言論自由的尊重，以及將其視為一個市場：政府的管制除了可能不當限制言論自由之外，更容易破壞市場的秩序。但學者指出，廣電市場與一般經濟學所認知的市場有性質上的不同，且若任由廣電媒體發展，將使得部份的人民無法享有合理的傳播權利。 為了解決此一爭議，學者有認為政府有憲法上管制廣電媒體的正當性。而如前所述，媒體自由並不能夠影響言論自由與公民權的行使，因此政府有義務落實上述的人民權利。至於落實的方法，便是對商業媒體進行更加嚴格的管制，而有效的保障少數人民。 惟上述市場論、管制論等方式皆有缺陷存在，本研究認為，較好的方式，應是以折衷的方法建立雙元的廣電體系，使商業電台與公廣集團各自擁有相當的組織，並且採取「不對稱的管制方式」。但要成立一個如此龐大的公廣集團，在應然性與憲法上都有必須解決的問題。於應然性上，在數位匯流的今天，公共電視可以藉由網路影音的方式而不受時間、頻道的限制成立公視二台甚至三台，是否有必要成為龐大的集團？若要成立此一龐大的公廣集團，首先遇到的將是應如何組織公廣集團，滿足我們對公共電視的想像？ 其次，建立理想的公廣集團，是否有憲法上之限制？首先遇到的，將是在滿足傳播多樣性下的憲法問題，例如為了落實原住民文化或女性主義，公共電視要求某單位應優先錄取原住民或女性，以增進節目製作的多元化，此種積極平權措施（Affirmative Actions）是否有憲法上的問題？其次，則是擴大公廣集團後，應如何處理過多的商業電台，此將涉及憲法上廣電自由、財產權等問題的實踐。 綜上所述，本文從傳播政策切入，並為其尋得憲法上之基礎，使國家有義務採取合理的雙元廣電體系，而落實人民的言論自由與平等公民權，進而與廣電媒體的媒體自由做適度調和。 / The Article 11 of the Constitution guarantees the people’s freedom of speech, publication, writing and teaching. According to the view point of Grand Justices and scholars, the freedom of speech also contains freedom of opinion via radio or television broadcast media, freedom of communications, and freedom of press. From the above discussionwe can know that Grand Justices try to give the radio and television broadcast media much special nature of the constitutional right in the Article 11 of the Constitution. This study integrates the opinion of the interpretation and the scholars, and consider that the constitutional right of the radio and television broadcast media can be the superordinate concept- freedom of media to make it develop Independently. But the freedom of media can’t impede the people’s basic freedom of speech, communication right and citizenship. Facing the problems of the growing complex media, deregulation becomes the world trend in recent year. The main causes are the respect of freedom of speech, and the theory of marketplace: the regulation of the government may violate freedom of speech, and distort the order of the market. However, people point out that the media market is different from the economics market in the nature. Besides, if we indulgedmedia, some people didn’t have had reasonable communication right. For solving this controversial, The Scholars think that the government can regulate the media with Legitimacy in the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the freedom of media can’t disturb people’s freedom of speech and citizenship, so the government has the duty to ensure the value. As to ensure that, the government must regulate the commercial media strictly and protect the minority in effect. However, the Market Doctrine or the Regulation Doctrine is not perfect. The better method that this study considers is constructing the dual media system eclectically to make the public as the same strong as the commercial and take the “unsymmetric regulation”. Many problems have existed in ought-to-be and constitution if we wanted to construction the Public Broadcasting System. In ought-to-be, should Public TV be a System in convergence which can be as PTV2, PTV3 by internet? How to construct TBS to satisfy with our imagination? Second, Does the constitution limit the desirable TBS? Like the Diversity in the constitution, for example, is it unconstitutional that TBS make affirmative actions for aborigine or women? Besides, how should we limit the commercial media in freedom of media and property? Above of all, this study find the conclusion that the government has to make reasonable dual media system to protect people’s freedom of speech and equal citizenship from the commercial media.