社群媒體假訊息的管制模式－以美國法為比較基礎

Abstract

近年來社群媒體興起，幾乎人人都有社群媒體帳戶，每個人都可以在網路上發聲，並引起公眾關注。然而，這也使得社群媒體被有心人士利用，成為假訊息的溫床。研究顯示，網路的選舉假訊息數量大幅增加，再加上社群媒體以演算法針對個人用戶投放內容，以及廣告主可以針對特定客群精準投放，都導致閱聽者處於「過濾氣泡」中。網路有助於促進民主文化參與，社群媒體作為資訊守門人，其角色重要性益發重要。立法者與公眾開始意識到假訊息對與社會的危害，輿論也開始施壓立法者，必須對於網路上的假訊息進行管制。 本文先盤點我國現行對於管制假訊息的政策與法規，從「懲罰散播假訊息之人」，以及「社群媒體的抑制假訊息散播責任」兩個面向進行分析，將我國針對假訊息繁雜的法規範類型化，梳理出我國現行針對假訊息的管制模式，並導出我國目前政策與法規已不足以因應網路上的假訊息危害，且社群媒體就其平台上的假訊息完全無須負責的結論。 其次，本文將介紹美國現行對於假訊息管制的法規範與法案，檢視在憲法、刑事責任與私人侵權中，就假訊息如何管制。並分析美國通訊端正法的制定與沿革，描繪出美國現行針對假訊息的管制模式。美國法中社群媒體無須就其用戶的假訊息負責，導致美國現行管制模式也無法相容於網路假訊息的發展。爾後，本文將闡述美國學者與立法者試圖以修法或是重新詮釋法律等方式，試圖解決社群媒體上氾濫的假訊息。 最後，本文回歸我國法制，針對我國對於假訊息的管制模式，提出應著重於澄清機制，而非一味地處罰散播假訊息行為人。並採以分散式立法，針對不同類型假訊息分別管制，以監管多元化方式，課予社群媒體解決假訊息的責任，再輔以非權力式的手段：如資訊揭露、nudge等，始能全面解決假訊息問題。

Nowadays, almost everyone has an account on social media, which can be used to state his or her own opinion. People may express and spread important information through social media. However, some people use the function of social media to spread harmful disinformation. While social media use the algorithm and targeted advertising to show customized content to the specific users, the users are living in the “filter bubble”. As the information gatekeeper, social media become more and more important when the internet can facilitate democratic culture participation. The legislation and the public start to find the harm of disinformation from social media, considering whether the government should regulate the online disinformation. At first, the article starts with the introduction of Taiwanese statutes and bills about disinformation regulation, analyzing from two aspects: punishing the people who spread disinformation and exercising restraint in regulating disinformation. Nowadays, social media have no liability to deal with disinformation on their platforms. Secondly, the article will introduction American statutes and bills about disinformation regulation. Communication Decency Act gives the social media immunity and safe harbor from the disinformation, which causes the disinformation problems. Afterward, the article provides solutions from the scholars in the American legal system. Last but not least, the article provides the solutions to solve the disinformation in Taiwan, including developing the immediate debunking system, holding the social media liable for the disinformation, and making the information and data transparent.