社群媒體平台使用者之言論自由保障與司法救濟

Abstract

時至2024年，社群媒體平台早已是人們日常生活及公共事務參與所不可或缺的媒介。也因為如此，當經營、管理社群媒體平台之私人企業能夠對於其平台上的各種內容甚或發布內容的權限採取各式各樣的限制措施時，使用者要如何申訴、救濟，即具有一定之重要性。 為此，本文首先於第一章界定本篇論文所欲研究之「社群媒體平台」及「內容限制」（content moderation）二詞所指涉之意涵，也藉此劃定本文以下之研究範圍。接著，於第二章中，本文試圖從目前社群媒體平台之實際運作面出發，以探究目前社群媒體平台本身之「自治」究竟能否有效地保障其使用者之言論自由，並以Meta（原名Facebook）近年來所創建之監察委員會（Oversight Board）為具體研究案例。在第三章中，則回到社群媒體平台與使用者間的法律關係，在釐清二者之間的法律關係後，本文將試圖透過「基本權第三人效力」理論以及現行民事法中蘊含不確定法律概念之條款，尋求法院於具體個案中將基本權保障納入考量之途徑；在第三章之末段，則是審酌社群媒體平台及其使用者可能得以主張之基本權類型。在第四章，就二者利益衡量之部分，為求本文對於利益衡量之討論分析能夠盡可能地適用於各種內容限制措施，也為了法院於判斷時能夠形成一貫性之脈絡，本文首先試圖建構出「水平法律關係」中之類型化標準，再嘗試以該審查模式，作為後續個案討論之基礎。 本文認為，就現行社群媒體運作之情形而言，由於經營、管理社群媒體平台之私人企業無法擺脫「營利目的」所帶來之壓力，「不受歡迎之言論」將有遭到壓抑之可能，而該現象將難以透過諸如「市場競爭」或內部自治機制所解決，因此社群媒體之用戶有必要透過司法程序以尋求救濟。若使用者不滿於平台之內容限制措施而向法院提起訴訟，本文認為，法院於審理時，應得透過「基本權第三人效力」之理論運用、民法第72、148條以及消費者保護法第11、12條等規定，於解釋平台之內容政策條款、甚而判斷該條款之有效性時，考量到社群媒體平台之「營業自由」以及使用者之「言論自由」。 至於二者之基本權要如何於個案中進行利益衡量，本文嘗試建立不同之類型化標準，並認為在個案中，法院應以社群媒體平台之內容限制措施作為檢驗之客體，再基於「使用者之言論自由」及「社群媒體平台之營業自由」之考量，決定是否採取「從嚴」或「從寬」之類型化標準。最後，於具體案例探討之部分，本文分別以「停用帳號」、「移除內容」、「降低觸及」、「加註警語」4種不同之內容限制措施為例，分析此時法院所應採取之類型化標準，以及採取某一標準後，如何於個案中檢驗所涉及之內容限制措施。

To this day, social media platforms have play an important role not only in our daily lives, but also in our public discourse. Therefore, when the private-owned social media platforms begin to moderate content posted by their users in an omnipresent way, remedies for users’ freedom of speech may as well as become more and more vital. This thesis starts by giving definition to “social media platform” and “content moderation”, meanwhile also to define the boundary of this thesis. Then, in the second chapter, I begin to explore: whether the current practice of social media platforms is able to protect users’ freedom of speech effectively, and the answer is no. This thesis argues that because the motivation to moderate content comes from the “profit-driven” nature of a corporation, unpopular speeches might be overly depressed, and even the system of market competition or an independent organization like Meta Oversight Board could not overturn this situation. The third chapter of this thesis tries to focus at the legal relationship between social media platforms and its user. Through several general terms from the Civil Code and Consumer Protection Act and the theory of the “third party effect of fundamental rights”, this thesis argues that the court will be able to consider the platform’s “freedom to conduct a business” and its user’s “freedom of speech” when users decide to invalidate social media platform’s content moderation measures through legal procedures. In the fourth chapter, in order to balance the rights of the platforms and the users with a consistent thinking, this thesis has attempted to build different categorized standards of review. When facing a specific case, I argue that courts should examine the content moderation performed by social media platforms instead of the users’ freedom of speech; then, by considering “the extent of restriction on users’ free speech” and “the freedom to conduct a business of the platform”, courts will be able to decide which categorized standard to apply in the specific case. Lastly, this thesis will take four different kinds of content moderation measure as example: “disabling accounts”, “removing contents”, “restricting distribution”, and “providing awareness information”, to demonstrate the methods to decide the categorized standards of review, and the ways to balance those competing rights.