請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71583
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林明昕(Ming-Hsin Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Tzu-Chiang Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃自強 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:03:50Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-12-25 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-12-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-11-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 林子儀(1999)。〈言論自由之理論基礎〉,收於:氏著,《言論自由與新聞自由》,頁1-60。台北:元照。 林子儀(1999)。〈新聞自由之意義及其理論基礎〉,收於:氏著,《言論自由與新聞自由》,頁61-132。台北:元照。 林子儀(2002)。〈言論自由導論〉,收於:李鴻禧(編),《台灣憲法之縱剖橫切》,頁版103-180。台北:元照。 林明昕(2006)。〈健康權:以「國家之保護義務」為中心〉,收於:氏著,《公法學的開拓線:理論、實務與體系之建構》,頁35-47。台北:元照。 許宗力(2002)。〈談言論自由的幾個問題〉,收於:李鴻禧(編),《台灣憲法之縱剖橫切》,頁239-268。台北:元照。 許宗力(2007)。〈基本權的功能與司法審查〉,收於:氏著,《憲法與法治國行政》,頁183-206。台北:元照。 劉定基(2018)。〈試評「數位通訊傳播法」草案〉,收於:彭芸、葉志良(編),《匯流、治理、通傳會論文集》,頁283-310。台北:三民。 何吉森(2018)。〈假新聞之監理與治理探討〉,《傳播研究與實踐》,8卷2期,頁1-41。 林明昕(2016)。〈基本國策之規範效力及其對社會正義之影響〉,《台大法學論叢》,45卷特刊,頁1305-1358。 胡元輝(2018)。〈商營社群媒體的自律與問責:政治經濟學取徑的批判〉,《傳播、文化與政治》,8期,頁37-76。 胡元輝(2018)。〈造假有效、更正無力?第三方事實查核機制初探〉,《傳播研究與實踐》,8卷2期,頁43-73。 翁燕菁(2019)。〈言論的自由與責任:自歐洲人權法院近年爭議裁判反思〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,363期,頁5-11。 許宗力(2002)。〈基本權利:第二講 基本權的功能〉,《月旦法學教室》,2期,頁72-80。 黃銘輝(2019)。〈假新聞、社群媒體與網路時代的言論自由〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,292期,頁5-29。 楊鈞池(2019)。〈「假新聞」的爭議及其相關討論〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,372期,頁105。 廖義銘(2019)。〈假消息管制之立法問題〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,372期,頁107-111。 劉靜怡(2004)。〈言論自由 第一講:「言論自由」導論〉,《月旦法學教室》,26期,頁73-81。 羅宋承(2019)。〈虛假訊息與法律管制:我國現況與建議〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,369期,頁47-62。 蘇慧婕(2019)。〈假訊息管制與資訊揭露義務:以選罷法、公投法及其修正草案為中心〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,292期,頁42-59。 李伊晴(2019)。《同婚專法過了小孩就不能叫爸爸媽媽?錯!政院懶人包闢謠》。載於: https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/161153/post/201902210006/ 沈伯洋、黃祥儒(2020)。《深度評論:我站在2020大選網路戰最前線》。載於:https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20200102/GKKQIITMXD6CRDC2CS6VM5FFXM/ 張文川(2019)。《地震後散布松仁路「地裂」謠言 始作俑者挨罰3000元》。載於:https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/2792260 莊翊晨(2019)。《台灣已進入準戰爭狀態?專家揭秘中共對台資訊戰背後秘密》。 載於: https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/154769/post/201909190020/台灣已進入準戰爭狀態?%20專家揭秘中共對台資訊戰背後秘密 劉致昕、柯皓翔、許家瑜(2020)。《LINE群組的假訊息從哪來?跨國調查,追出內容農場「直銷」產業鏈》。載於:https://www.twreporter.org/a/information-warfare-business-disinformation-fake-news-behind-line-groups 蔡娪嫣(2018)。《國際媒體關注台灣同婚公投 美媒大篇幅報導:反同陣營散播假消息、惡意中傷LGBT!》。載於:https://www.storm.mg/article/648943 謝佩玲(2019)。《指國中教肛交法院裁定不罰孫繼正!教育部:將提出抗告》。載於:https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2019-08-03/281037 Jamieson, K. H. (2018). Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President: What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know. Oxford University Press. Mill, J. S. (2011). On Liberty (Simon Brown, Ed). Simon Brown. (Original work published 1859). Napoli, P. M. (2019). Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age. Columbia University Press. O’Conner, C., Weatherall, J. O. (2018). The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread. Yale University Press. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin Books. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sunstein, C. R. (2011). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford University Press. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. Wu, T. (2019). Is the First Amendment obsolete? In Bollinger L. C. Stone G. R. (Eds), The Free Speech Century (pp. 272-291). Oxford University Press. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. Andorfer, A. (2018) Spreading like wildfire: Solutions for fake news problem on social media via technology controls and government regulation. Hastings Law Journal, 69(5), 1409-1431. Bakir, V., McStay, A. (2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 154-175. Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review, 79(1), 1-55. Bambauer, D. E. (2006). Shopping badly: cognitive biases, communications, and the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas. University of Colorado Law Review, 77(3), 101-169. Blasi, V. (1988). The First Amendment and the ideal of civic courage: the Brandeis opinion in Whitney v. California. William Mary Law Review, 29(4), 653-697. Blocher, J. (2008). Institutions in the marketplace of ideas. Duke Law Journal, 57(4), 821-889. Bollinger, L. C. (1983). Free speech and intellectual values. The Yale Law Journal, 92(3), 438-473. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209-227. Braun, J. A. Jessica L. Eklund, J. L. (2019). Fake news, real money: Ad tech platforms, profit-driven hoaxes, and the business of journalism. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 1-21. Bush, D. (2000) The marketplace of ideas: Is judge Posner chasing Don Quixote’s windmills? Arizona State Law Journal, 32, 1107-1145. Calvert, C., McNeff, S., Vining, A., Zarate, S. (2018). Fake news and the First Amendment: reconciling a disconnect between theory and doctrine. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 86(1), 99-138. Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., Albarracin, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation, Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531-1546. Citron, D. K., Wittes, B. (2017). The Internet will not break: Denying bad Samaritans § 230 immunity. Fordham Law Review, 86(2), 401-423. Cole, D. (1986). Agon at agora: creative misreadings in the First Amendment tradition. The Yale Law Journal, 95(5), 857-905. Durach, F., Bargaoanu, A., Nastasiu, C. (2020). Tackling disinformation: EU regulation of the digital space, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 20(1), 5-20. Dubois, E., Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication Society, 21(5), 729-745. Gelfert, A. (2018). Fake news: a definition. Information Logic, 38(1), 84-117. Guess, A., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), 1-8. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154-157. Horwitz, P. (2003). Free speech as risk analysis: heuristics, biases, and institutions in the First Amendment. Temple Law Review, 76(1), 1-68. Hundley, A. C. (2017). Fake news and the First Amendment: how false political speech kills the marketplace of ideas. Tulane Law Review, 92(2), 497-528. Ingber, S. (1984). The marketplace of ideas: a legitimizing myth. Duke Law Journal, 33(1), 1-91. Klein, D. O., & Wueller, J. R. (2017). Fake news: a legal perspective. Journal of Internet Law, 20(10), 5-13. Klonick, K. (2018). The New Governors: The people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harvard Law Review, 131(6), 1598-1670. Kraski, R. (2017). Combating fake news in social media: U.S. and German legal approaches. St. John’s Law Review, 91(4), 923-955. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48(1), 19-49. Levy, N. (2017). The bad news about fake news. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 6(8), 20-36. Lidsky, L. B. (2010). Nobody's fools: the rational audience as First Amendment ideal. University of Illinois Law Review, 2010(3), 800-850. Manzi, D., C. (2019). Managing the misinformation marketplace: The First Amendment and the fight against fake news. Fordham Law Review, 87(6), 2623-2651. Mixon, G. (2020). Not your father’s marketplace of ideas: Hate speech and the fraudulent marketplace of ideas created by social media. Emory International Law Review, 34(2), 399-433. Mocanu, D., Rossi, L., Zhang, Q., Karsai, M. (2015). Collective attention in the age of (mis)information. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1198-1204. Syed, N. (2017). Real talk about fake news: Towards a better theory for platform governance, The Yale Law Journal Forum, 127, 337-357. Napoli, P. M. (2018). What if more speech is no longer the solution: First Amendment theory meets fake news and the filter bubble. Federal Communications Law Journal, 70(1), 55-104. Nunziato, D. C. (2019). The marketplace of ideas online. Notre Dame Law Review, 94(4), 1519-1584. Park, M. K. (2018). Separating facts from fiction: The First Amendment case for addressing “fake news” on social media. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 46(1), 1-16. Peters, J. (2017). The sovereigns of cyberspace and state action: The First Amendment’s application - or lack thereof – to third party platforms. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 32(2), 989-1026. Royster, L. K. (2017). Fake news: Potential solutions to the online epidemic. North Carolina Law Review, 96(1), 270-296. Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854-856. Schauer, F. (2010). Facts and the First Amendment. UCLA Law Review, 57(4), 897-920. Sneed, M. (2020). The key to regulating Facebook and data collection companies is transparency. Albany Law Journal of Science Technology, 30(1), 109-136. Stone, G. R. (1987). Content-neutral restrictions. University of Chicago Law Review, 54(1), 46-118. Sunstein, C. R., Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202-227. Tandoc Jr., E. C., Lim, W. L., Ling, R. (2018). Defining fake news: a typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. Travis N. Ridout, T. N., Franz, M. M., Fowler E. F. (2015). Sponsorship, disclosure and donors: Limiting the impact of outside group ads. Political Research Quarterly, 68(1), 154-166. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. Vermeule, A., Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202-227. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380) , 1146-1151. Waldman, A. E. (2018). The Marketplace of Fake News. Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(4), 845-870. Wood, A. K., Ravel, A. M. (2018), Fool me once: Regulating fake news and other online advertising. Southern California Law Review 91(6), 1223-1278. Zipursky, R. (2019). Nuts about NETZ: The Network Enforcement Act and freedom of expression. Fordham International Law Journal, 42(4), 1325-1374. Abrams, A. (2019, April 18). Here's what we know so far about Russia's 2016 meddling. Time. https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/ Alefantis, J. (2017, April 20). What happened when ‘Pizzagate’ came to my restaurant. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pizzagate-taught-us-the-value-of-community/2017/04/19/92cae67c-23b0-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html Auckland, S. (2006, November 13). The future of newspapers. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-future-of-newspapers-5331270.html Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., Holcomb, J. (2016, December 15). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/ Benkler, Y., Faris, R., Roberts, H., Zuckerman, E. (2017, May 3). Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php Bertrand, N. (2017, September 28). Twitter users spreading fake news targeted swing states in the run-up to election day. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.in/twitter-users-spreading-fake-news-targeted-swing-states-in-the-run-up-to-election-day/articleshow/60874965.cms Broderick, R. (2017, April 25). Here's how far-right trolls are spreading hoaxes about French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/heres-how-far-right-trolls-are-spreading-hoaxes-about Macmilian Dictionary (2020, May 6). Definition of infodemic. Buzzword. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/infodemic.html Sunstein, C. R. (2008, November 21). 'She said what?' 'He did that?' Believing false rumors. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-56. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1304268 Sunstein, C. R. (2019, July 25). Falsehoods and the First Amendment. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3426765 Chappell, B. (2016, December 15). Facebook details its new plan to combat fake news stories. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/15/505728377/facebook-details-its-new-plan-to-combat-fake-news-stories Chumley, C. (2017, February 23). Google launches AI tool to flag online 'hate' speech. WND. https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/google-launches-ai-tool-to-flag-online-hate-speech/ Condliffe, J.(2017, June 14). Fake news is unbelievably cheap to produce. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/06/14/151233/fake-news-is-unbelievably-cheap/ Donadio, R. (2017, May 8). Why the Macron hacking attack landed with a thud in France. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/europe/macron-hacking-attack-france.html El-Bermawy, M. M. (2016, November 18). Your filter bubble is destroying democracy. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/ European Commission Press Release (2018, January 19). Countering illegal hate speech online – Commission initiative shows continued improvement, further platforms join. EU website. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_261 Fifield, A. (2020, January 8). Russia’s disinformation campaign in the U.S. has nothing on China’s efforts in Taiwan. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/russias-disinformation-campaign-in-the-us-has-nothing-on-chinas-efforts-in-taiwan/2020/01/08/3400200a-231a-11ea-b034-de7dc2b5199b_story.html . Fowler, G. A. (2018, October 18). I fell for Facebook fake news. Here’s why millions of you did, too. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/18/i-fell-facebook-fake-news-heres-why-millions-you-did-too/ Frenkel, S. (2018, October 11). Facebook tackles rising threat: Americans aping Russian schemes to deceive. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/technology/fake-news-online-disinformation.html Gadde, V., Falck, B. (2018, May 24). Increasing transparency for political campaigning ads on Twitter. Twitter Blog. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Increasing-Transparency-for-Political-Campaigning-Ads-on-Twitter.html Gera, V. (2018, March 2). Polish law criminalizing some Holocaust speech takes effect. AP News. https://apnews.com/2a09f2c3d4ef4915b94aa6be620c9205/Polish-law-criminalizing-some-Holocaust-speech-takes-effect Goldman, R., Himel, A. (2018, April 6). Making ads and pages more transparent. Facebook Newsroom. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/04/transparent-ads-and-pages/ Google Support Team. (2019). Political content-advertising policies help. Google Support. https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6014595?hl=en Grieco, E. (2019, July 9). U.S. Newsroom employment has dropped by a quarter since 2008, with greatest decline at newspapers. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/09/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-dropped-by-a-quarter-since-2008/ Griffin, A. (2016, December 5). What is Pizzagate? The Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory that led to a man opening fire in a restaurant. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/pizzagate-what-is-it-explained-hillary-clinton-paedophile-conspiracy-gunman-fake-news-a7456681.html Halliday, J. (2012, March 22). Twitter's Tony Wang: 'We are the free speech wing of the free speech party'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech Hannah Ritchie, H. (2016, December 30). Read all about it: The biggest fake news stories of 2016. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html Hern, A. (2018, May 6). Cambridge Analytica: how did it turn clicks into votes? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie Hosenball, M. (2017, October 13). Social media firms summoned to U.S. Congressional hearings on Russia. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-socialmedia/social-media-firms-summoned-to-u-s-congressional-hearings-on-russia-idUSKBN1CI24Q Jacobs, S. (2018, Mar 20). Already changes to the new German law on hate speech on social media on the horizon? Norton Rose Fulbright. https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.com/2018/03/already-changes-new-german-law-hate-speech-social-media-horizon/ Jamieson, A. (2016, December 15). Facebook to begin flagging fake news in response to mounting criticism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/15/facebook-flag-fake-news-fact-check#img-1 Jayakumar, S. (2018, March 13). Germany’s NetzDG: Template for dealing with fake news? S. Rajaratanam School of International Studies. https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CO18041.pdf Starbird, K. (2017). Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem Through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter [unpublished manuscript]. https://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Alt_Narratives_ICWSM17-CameraReady.pdf Kerkmann, C. (2018, April 13). German court overturns Facebook 'censorship'. Handelsblatt Today. https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/free-speech-german-court-overturns-facebook-censorship/23581834.html Kessler, G. (2016, November 22). The fact checker’s guide for detecting fake news. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/22/the-fact-checkers-guide-for-detecting-fake-news/ Kinstler, L. (2018, May 18). Germany's attempt to fix Facebook is backfiring. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/germany-facebook-afd/560435/ Kozlowska, H. (2017, December 22). Facebook is ditching its own solution to fake news because it didn’t work. Quartz. https://qz.com/1162973/to-fight-fake-news-facebook-is-replacing-flagging-posts-as-disputed-with-related-articles/ Kurtzleben, D. (2018, April 11). Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Here's What We Know. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/601323233/6-facts-we-know-about-fake-news-in-the-2016-election Lee, D. (2019, August 20). Hong Kong protests: Twitter and Facebook remove Chinese accounts. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49402222 Lee, Y., Blanchard, B. (2019, December 18). Chinese 'rumors' and 'cyber armies' - Taiwan fights election 'fake news'. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-election-media/chinese-rumors-and-cyber-armies-taiwan-fights-election-fake-news-idUSKBN1YL2MF Levin, S. (2017, May 16). Facebook promised to tackle fake news. But the evidence shows it's not working. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/16/facebook-fake-news-tools-not-working Mantzarlis, A. (2016, November 28). Facebook referrals are crucial for traffic to hyperpartisan and fake news sites. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2016/facebook-referrals-are-crucial-for-traffic-to-hyperpartisan-and-fake-news-sites/ Mantzarlis, A. (2016, October 28). Facebook’s fake news problem won’t fix itself. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2016/facebooks-fake-news-problem-wont-fix-itself/ McCulloch, A. (2017, February 17). The fake news debate on social - Who’s responsible? Socialbakers. https://www.socialbakers.com/blog/2658-the-fake-news-debate-on-social-who-s-responsible McCulloch, A. (2017, July 11). Facebook is beating Google in referral traffic: What does this mean for marketers? Socialbakers. https://www.socialbakers.com/blog/2696-facebook-is-beating-google-in-referral-traffic-what-does-this-mean-for-marketers McEvoy, M. (2015, September 29). 7 Reasons Google search results vary dramatically. Web Presence Solution. https://www.webpresencesolutions.net/7-reasons-google-search-results-vary-dramatically/ McGregor, J. (2017, January 16). Facebook's fake news solution has three big problems. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2017/01/16/facebooks-fake-news-solution-has-three-big-problems/#1add3762355d Media Insight Project. (2017, May 4). ‘My’ media versus ‘the’ media: Trust in news depends on which news media you mean. American Press Institute. https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/my-media-vs-the-media/ Media Matters (2017, March 30). CNN: Fake News Trolls Pushing Conspiracy Theories “Tweet Right At President Trump” Hoping That He “Cites It Publicly”. Media Matters for America. https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/cnn-fake-news-trolls-pushing-conspiracy-theories-tweet-right-president-trump-hoping-he Meyer, D. (2018, April 13). Court tells Facebook: Stop deleting 'offensive' comment. ZDNet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-tells-facebook-stop-deleting-offensive-comment/ Nyhan, B. Reifler, J. (2013, October). Which corrections work? research results and practice recommendations. New America Foundation. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5cf/92b2a9d0f41dc155cf38f08137200d189a90.pdf Oltermann, P. (2018, January 5). Tough new German law puts tech firms and free speech in spotlight. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/05/tough-new-german-law-puts-tech-firms-and-free-speech-in-spotlight Oltermann, P. (2018, January 5). Tough new German law puts tech firms and free speech in spotlight. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/05/tough-new-german-law-puts-tech-firms-and-free-speech-in-spotlight Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., Sunstein, C. R., (2016, June 13). Echo chambers on Facebook. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2795110 R. Gunther, P. A. Beck, & Nisbet E. C. (2018, February 15). Fake news did have a significant impact on the vote in the 2016 election: original full-length version with methodological appendix. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/d/12059/files/2015/03/Fake-News-Piece-for-The-Conversation-with-methodological-appendix-11d0ni9.pdf Rachel Donadio, R. (2017, May 5). Why the Macron hacking attack landed with a thud in France. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/europe/macron-hacking-attack-france.html Raine, L., Anderson, J., Albright, J. (2017, March 29). The future of free speech, trolls, anonymity and fake news online. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/ Reuters in Singapore (2019, November 25). Singapore invokes 'fake news' law for first time over Facebook post. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/singapore-fake-news-law-facebook-brad-bowyer Samanth Subramanian, S. (2017, February 15). Inside the Macedonian fake-news complex. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ Sardarizadeh, S. (2019, September 14). Instagram fact-check: Can a new flagging tool stop fake news? BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49449005 Scott, M., Isaac, M. (2016, September 9). Facebook restores iconic Vietnam War photo it censored for nudity. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/technology/facebook-vietnam-war-photo-nudity.html Silverman, C. (2016, November 16). This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook Silverman, C., Singer-Vine, J. (2016, Dec 16). The True Story Behind The Biggest Fake News Hit Of The Election. Buzzfeed. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/the-strangest-fake-news-empire Spencer, S. (2019, November 20). An update on our political ads policy. Google Blog. https://www.blog.google/technology/ads/update-our-political-ads-policy/ Stamos, A. (2017, September 6). An Update On Information Operations On Facebook. Facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/ Stanford History Education Group. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:fv751yt5934/SHEG%20Evaluating%20Information%20Online.pdf Stelter, B., King, H., Segall, L. (2016, May 10). Did Facebook suppress conservative news? CNN. https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/09/media/facebook-trending-conservative-news/index.html Steger, I. (2018, November 22). How Taiwan battled fake anti-LGBT news before its vote on same-sex marriage. Quartz. https://qz.com/1471411/chat-apps-like-line-spread-anti-lgbt-fake-news-before-taiwan-same-sex-marriage-vote/ Strizh, V., Zimbler, B., Kiseleva, A. (2018, April 20). Russia introduces new draft law on social networks. Morgan Lewis. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/russia-introduces-new-draft-law-on-social-networks Subramanian, S. (2017, February 15). Inside the Macedonian fake-news complex. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ Swisher, K. (2016, November 13). Mark Zuckerberg says it’s ‘extremely unlikely’ fake news on Facebook changed the election outcome. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/11/13/13612442/mark-zuckerberg-extremely-unlikely-hoaxes-changed-election-outcome Timberg, C., Elizabeth Dwoskin, E. (2018, July 6). Twitter is sweeping out fake accounts like never before, putting user growth at risk. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com Tufekci, Z. (2017, September 29). Zuckerberg’s preposterous defense of Facebook. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html Tufekci, Z. (2018, January 16). It's the (democracy-poisoning) golden age of free speech. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship/ Visitor Analytics Team. (2018, April 3) What is referral traffic and why is it important? Visitor Analytics. https://www.visitor-analytics.io/blog/what-is-referral-traffic-and-why-is-it-important/ Wang, A. B. (2016, November 16). ‘Post-truth’ named 2016 word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/post-truth-named-2016-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries/ Wardle, D. (2017, February 16). Fake news. It’s complicated. First Draft. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake-news-complicated/ Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 56 (1988) Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976) BE K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000) Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71583 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 我國受到2018年地方選舉及公民投票結果的刺激,近年掀起對於「假訊息」之研究熱潮,試圖釐清假訊息是否、如何破壞民主程序,以及政府對於假訊息究竟是否及如何管制的問題。而本文爬梳相關文獻後發現,認為政府不應管制者,多以「觀念自由市場」理論為論述基礎,主張假訊息造成之危害應以「更多言論」加以治癒。惟本文認為,近年假訊息之竄起,或許為重新檢驗觀念自由市場此一傳統理論之最佳契機。 本文首先分析近年來常見「假新聞」一詞之用語上有何不妥,並定義本文所謂「假訊息」之意涵,以試圖釐清近年假訊息爭議與過往一般虛假訊息有何不同,其中「通訊工具」的轉變,亦即現今以「社群媒體」作為人民主要接收資訊之平台,為關鍵所在。接著本文從憲法的角度出發,說明何以不應僅以觀念自由市場理論,作為討論假訊息議題之唯一論述依據,反而應該賦予言論自由新的釋義方向。就此本文首先指出該理論本身忽略現實中人們之認知偏誤,亦即「更多言論」無法保證真理終將勝出。接著本文進一步論述社群媒體演算法的特性,是如何促使假訊息大量且迅速地散布;從而為了保障閱聽人取得資訊的權利,政府對於表意人言論自由為一定程度之限制,具有正當性。最後本文將分析現行各國立法及社群媒體自律手段,針對處理假訊息現象之具體措施應如何設計,提出本文建議。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In Taiwan, stimulated by the outcome of 2018 election and referendum, the study of disinformation became prevalent. More and more studies focus on whether and how disinformation erodes the democratic process, as well as whether and how the government should regulate disinformation. Lots of literatures adopt the “marketplace of idea” point of view, arguing that the danger of disinformation should be cured by “more speech” instead of government interference. This article, however, argues that the rise of disinformation might suggest the need to reexamine the jurisprudence of freedom of speech. First, this article elaborates on why the term “fake news” should no longer be adopted and define the term “disinformation”, in an attempt to clarify the distinction between the newly-raised disinformation phenomenon and false statement in general. The key point here is the transformation of “communication tools”, that is, “social media” has become the main platform for people to receive information. Then this article goes from Constitutional aspect, explaining why “marketplace of ideas” shouldn’t be the only theory involved when it comes to the question of disinformation, rather we shall provide the notion of freedom of speech with a new direction of interpretation. This article first points out that the theory itself overlooks the cognitive bias in reality, which means “more speech” doesn’t necessarily guarantee that truth will prevail. Then this article further articulates how the algorithms implemented by social media contribute to the tremendous amount and rapid distribution of disinformation. Therefore in order to protect the listeners’ right to receive information, it is legitimate that the government restrict the speakers’ freedom of speech within an certain degree. Finally this article analyzes the measurements taken so far to combat disinformation, both by government and by private sector, and provides some suggestions in terms of how to design the mechanism to deal with the disinformation phenomenon. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:03:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0811202015265400.pdf: 2320641 bytes, checksum: 02a9d7c641778c45165b9a9af001027f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 11 第一節 研究動機 11 第二節 本文架構 15 第二章 「假訊息」之當代意義 19 第一節 新聞與「假」新聞 19 壹、新聞之意義及功能 19 貳、「假新聞」一詞可能涵蓋之類型 20 一、嘲諷性新聞 21 二、戲謔仿作 21 三、虛構新聞 21 四、圖像操縱 22 五、公關廣告 22 六、政治宣傳 22 第二節 假新聞定義之再探 24 壹、晚近學者對於假新聞定義之嘗試 24 一、以客觀不實及主觀意圖為要件 24 二、以新聞之形式外觀為要件 25 三、以傳播媒介為要件 25 四、以傳播效果為要件 26 五、以匿名為要件 27 六、根本捨棄「假新聞」之用語 27 貳、假新聞及資訊生態 28 一、資訊混亂之三類型 29 二、資訊混亂形成之三階段 32 三、資訊混亂之三要素 32 第三節 小結:以「假訊息」取代「假新聞」之用語 34 第三章 再探觀念自由市場理論 37 第一節 市場理論下對於假訊息之管制 37 壹、市場理論於言論自由中之規範意義 37 一、理論概述 37 (一)源起及內涵 37 (二)「更多言論」作為矯正錯誤言論之方式 38 (三)「市場失靈」作為允許政府管制之例外 39 (四)雙軌理論及雙階理論 40 二、以市場理論作為本文討論主軸之理由 41 (一)涵蓋範圍廣且較具可操作性 42 (二)較多文獻作為研究基礎 43 (三)我國釋憲實務及學說之繼受 43 貳、管制「虛假言論」之合憲性 44 一、美國法 44 (一)New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 45 (二)United States v. Alvarez 46 二、我國法 48 三、學說見解 49 參、管制「假訊息」之合憲性 50 一、假訊息於言論分類上之特殊性 51 二、違憲說 51 三、合憲說 53 四、本文見解 54 第二節 對於市場理論基本假設之質疑 57 壹、市場理論之基本假設 57 一、假設(一):「真理」之可驗證性 57 二、假設(二):人民皆為「理性聽眾」 57 貳、理論假設與現實之鴻溝 58 一、假設(一):真理之相對性 58 二、假設(二):人民僅為具備「有限理性」之聽眾 60 (一)個人因素 60 (二)群體因素 63 (三)操縱因素 67 第三節 小結 70 第四章 社群媒體、假訊息與言論自由 72 第一節 促使假訊息流通之個人化言論環境 72 壹、演算法取代傳統媒體之守門功能 72 一、傳統大眾傳媒作為資訊守門員 72 二、對於演算法「中立性」之誤解 73 貳、個人化之訊息遞送模式鎖定易受影響之閱聽人 74 一、演算法對於「個人化」環境的促進 74 二、假訊息散布者精準鎖定特定閱聽人 75 三、個人化環境對於駁斥言論之阻絕作用 76 參、閱聽人接受駁斥言論之可能性降低 77 一、「同溫層」效應之意義與成因 77 二、對於同溫層效應存否之辨證 77 三、同溫層效應對駁斥言論之阻隔作用 79 第二節 社群媒體上假訊息數量及速度之提升 81 壹、假訊息之經濟性誘因 81 一、資訊守門員之式微與假訊息之崛起 81 二、經濟誘因促使更多假訊息之生產 82 貳、社群媒體對於假訊息之引薦作用 84 參、對於真實新聞機構之損害 85 一、內容農場之崛起 85 二、內容農場對於言論市場之打擊 86 (一)削弱真實新聞媒體機構之獲利能力 86 (二)真/假資訊之辨別日趨困難 86 (三)原始訊息受扭曲之風險 88 (四)「更多言論」之假象 88 第三節 社群媒體時代下之言論自由保障 90 壹、市場理論提出背景與當代媒體環境格格不入 90 一、理論背景:「言論」的稀少性 90 二、現今情形:「閱聽人專注力」的稀少性 91 貳、本文對於現今言論自由釋義方法之建議 92 一、我國學說及實務對於憲法第11條之理解 93 (一)保障內涵 93 (二)保護對象 93 (三)權利性質 94 二、本文見解 96 (一)從「發言人」保障到「閱聽人」保障 96 (二)從「防禦權」到「國家保護義務」 97 第四節 小結 100 第五章 假訊息管制手段之探究 103 第一節 公權力介入:政府管制 103 壹、我國法制 103 一、現行法制下對於虛假言論之管制 104 (一)刑事責任 104 (二)行政罰責任 105 二、現制之不足與缺失 105 三、因應假訊息之相關草案 106 貳、比較法例觀察 110 一、美國 110 (一)2016年總統大選前:自由放任 110 (二)2016年總統大選後:呼籲管制 110 二、德國 112 (一)網路執行法概述 112 (二)評析 113 三、法國 116 (一)對抗資訊操縱法概述 116 (二)評析 116 第二節 私人治理:社群媒體自律 118 壹、社群媒體對於言論管制之態度 118 一、早期作法:避免審查 118 二、晚近政策:較為積極打擊假訊息 118 貳、社群媒體自律之各式手段 119 一、「標示」與「檢舉」 119 (一)概述 119 (二)評析 120 二、提供駁斥言論 121 (一)概述 121 (二)評析 121 三、演算法及人工智慧 122 (一)概述 122 (二)評析 122 四、刪除貼文與帳戶 123 (一)概述 123 (二)評析 124 五、政治性廣告之透明化 124 (一)概述 124 (二)評析 125 第三節:「多管齊下」管制模式之必要性 126 壹、民間/政府治理之必要與不足 126 一、政府管制 126 (一)必要性 126 (二)侷限 127 二、社群媒體自律 127 (一)必要性 127 (二)侷限 128 貳、本文對於管制手段之建議 130 一、政府管制 130 (一)揭露義務 130 (二)「通知—標記」及「通知—移除」義務 131 (三)協調社群網路與第三方事實查核機構合作 132 二、媒體自律模式 133 (一)駁斥言論之設計 133 (二)透明性之設計 135 第四節 小結 137 第六章 結論 139 參考文獻 145 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 社群媒體時代下對於「更多言論」之質疑:以假訊息之管制為中心 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Reexamining the Principle of “More Speech” in the Era of Social Media: Focusing on the Regulation of Disinformation | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 109-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 劉定基(Ting-Chi Liu),胡元輝(Yuan-Hui Hu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 假訊息,社群媒體,言論自由,更多言論,認知偏誤, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | disinformation,social media,freedom of speech,more speech,cognitive bias, | en |
dc.relation.page | 161 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202004328 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-11-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0811202015265400.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.27 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。