美國法下政府官員於社群帳號限制用戶留言之言論自由分析

Abstract

本研究探討當前數位治理下，政府官員於其社群帳號封鎖用戶或刪除留言所引發的言論自由爭議。在政府官員頻繁使用社群帳號與民眾互動的同時，由於官員同時具備「代表國家權力」與「私人公民」的身分雙重性，當官員進入公私邊界扁平化的網路世界時，將使得「兩難情境」出現。一方面，民主社會下，官員應該要接納民眾的反對意見；另一方面，官員對於各種貼文留言的編輯自主權，尤其在與私人生活有關的貼文的情況下，也應該獲得重視。

為回應此一兩難，並且建立一個穩定且合理的審查框架，本文分析美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院至聯邦最高法院Lindke v. Freed判決之實務見解演變，並且整理出兩個主要爭點──「政府官員之社群貼文是否構成國家行為」以及「官員貼文留言區是否該當公共論壇」。

在國家行為層次，在比較美國實務判決當前的三種主張後，本文支持聯邦最高法院的二階段判準。有別於聯邦巡迴上訴法院以帳號整體作為判斷單位，聯邦最高法院以「貼文」為判斷單位，充分保留官員以私人身分經營社群帳號的彈性。惟聯邦最高法院之判準仍有未見完備之處，本文遂提出一修正版審查框架予以補充。

針對被判定為以國家身分作成的貼文，其留言區多被認為是一公共論壇，而應保障民眾的言論自由。惟本文認為美國法實務判決下「由官員自行決定留言區公共論壇性質」的趨勢，可能因為官員的濫用而導致觀點歧視、寒蟬效應之發生，不利於公共議題之討論。因此，本文主張官員貼文留言區應以指定公共論壇為原則。

社群帳號作為當代重要的公共溝通場域，透過提出一合理、穩定的審查框架，在官員私人公民權利與民眾政治參與的保障間取得衡平，將有助於鼓勵民眾投入思想市場，俾能實現言論自由保障背後表現自我、健全民主社會、發現真實之價值。

This thesis examines the free speech controversies arising from government officials moderating contents on their social media accounts. As government officials increasingly use social media accounts to interact with the public, their dual identity as both “state authority” and “private citizens” creates a dilemma when they enter the online world. On one hand, in a democratic society, officials should embrace public dissent. On the other hand, their editorial control over contents deserves recognition.

To address this dilemma and establish a stable and reasonable review framework, this thesis analyzes the evolution of among U.S. case laws. The courts identified two core issues:“whether government officials' posts in social media constitute state action” and “whether the comment boxes qualify as public forums.”

Regarding state action, after comparing three prevailing approaches in U.S. case law, this paper endorses the Supreme Court's two-step test. The Supreme Court adopts a “post-based” standard, so as to preserve officials' flexibility to maintain social media accounts in their private capacity. However, the Supreme Court's standard remains incomplete in certain respects. This paper therefore proposes a modified framework to supplement it.

For posts determined to be made in official capacity, their comment boxes are often deemed public forums. Yet this paper contends that the U.S. legal trend of allowing officials to unilaterally determine the public forum status of comment box risks viewpoint discrimination and chilling effects through the abused using of limited public forum. Therefore, this paper advocates a principle should be established, that comment boxes under official posts should be viewed as designated public forums.

By achieving a balance between government officials' private civil rights and citizens' free speech right and political participation, the framework advocated by this thesis will encourage public engagement in the marketplace of ideas. Eventually, it helps the democratic society acheiving the underlying values of free speech: self-expression, democratic values, and the discovery of truth.