數位中介服務法草案立法評析—假訊息管制與言論自由保障之平衡

Abstract

數位時代的言論自由，網路平台治理的法律挑戰與未來方向，在數位化浪潮的推動下，網路平台已成為資訊傳播與公共討論的核心場域。透過社群媒體和數位平台，人們得以突破地理限制，即時參與全球性話題的討論。然而，科技進步帶來的便利與效率，同時也讓假訊息快速傳播、資訊操縱與言論審查等問題浮上檯面。如何在保障言論自由與規範數位平台之間尋求平衡，已成為現代法律與政策的核心挑戰之一。 2022年，歐洲議會通過《數位服務法》（Digital Services Act, DSA），旨在建立更公平、透明且負責任的數位環境。DSA明確要求平台在應對違法內容、保護用戶權益方面承擔更多責任，並引入透明度報告與強制監管機制。與此同時，台灣也提出《數位中介服務法》草案，嘗試結合國際經驗應對本地治理需求。該草案試圖規範平台如何處理假訊息和違法內容，並為數位生態系統制定一套行為準則。然而，台灣的草案引發了廣泛爭議，特別是在言論管制與自由之間的界線問題上，社會各界意見分歧。 平台治理的核心困境，平台治理的本質是一場多方博弈。在一端，政府希望通過規範平台，解決假訊息、仇恨言論及違法內容對公共秩序的威脅；在另一端，平台自身作為私營企業，既是言論的承載者，又常因利潤驅動而對內容管理採取被動或選擇性的態度。而用戶則擔心，政府的監管措施可能導致平台過度刪除內容，進而侵害言論自由。 DSA的推出為歐盟在這場博弈中提供了一個範本。它在要求平台加強內容管理責任的同時，也對政府的干預設置了界限，並保留了用戶的申訴機制，力圖維持透明度與問責性。相比之下，美國《通訊端正法》（Communications Decency Act, CDA）第230條則採取了不同策略。該條款賦予平台「免責特權」，讓其在管理用戶內容時免於法律追究，從而促進創新與言論自由。然而，這種免責模式也被批評為導致平台忽視內容審查責任，放任假訊息與有害資訊的蔓延。 台灣的數位中介服務法草案介於這兩者之間，既希望透過資訊限制令、內容移除機制等措施遏制違法內容，又試圖避免直接干預言論自由。然而草案中對「違法或有害內容」的定義尚不明確，易引發執法爭議。許多反對聲音認為，若未設置充分的監督與透明機制，這些措施可能成為政府箝制異議的工具，進一步加劇民主社會的信任危機。 挑戰言論自由的數位時代，網際網路的高效性徹底改變了人際交流的方式，但也為假訊息的快速擴散提供了溫床。透過精準演算法與社群媒體的推薦機制，假訊息得以在極短時間內大規模傳播，甚至引發政治或社會動盪。例如，2018年台灣假訊息事件引發的駐日官員輕生，凸顯出假訊息對個人及社會的深遠影響。 面對假訊息的治理涉及的問題遠超技術範疇，亦牽涉到價值判斷與言論邊界的劃定。在民主社會，言論自由是一項基本權利，憲法應對其提供最高程度的保障。然而，自由的界限在於不得侵害他人或公共利益。當虛假資訊以公共健康、國家安全為代價時，適當的法律介入是必然的。但問題在於，何種資訊應受到限制？如何界定虛假內容而不侵犯正當言論？ 未來的數位治理方向，面對數位治理的挑戰，平衡公共利益與個人自由是政策設計的核心目標。立法者需要採取前瞻性視角，在保障言論自由的同時，建立有效的監管框架。透明性與問責性應成為平台治理的核心原則，無論是對政府還是對平台，均應設置明確的權力邊界與申訴機制。同時，提升公民媒體素養與數位教育，促使社會更具批判性思考能力，也是長期解決方案的重要一環。 數位時代的言論自由不僅是法律問題，更是社會共同體的集體價值選擇。在資訊爆炸與多元價值的時代背景下，唯有通過理性對話與多方合作，才能在數位浪潮中守護民主的精神家園，並為未來的平台治理提供可持續的發展方向。

Freedom of speech in the digital age, legal challenges and future directions of Internet platform governance. Driven by the wave of digitalization, Internet platforms have become the core arena for information dissemination and public discussion. Through social media and digital platforms, people are able to break through geographical limitations and participate in discussions on global topics in real time. However, the convenience and efficiency brought about by technological progress have also brought to the fore problems such as the rapid spread of false information, information manipulation and censorship of speech. How to strike a balance between protecting freedom of speech and regulating digital platforms has become one of the core challenges of modern law and policy. In 2022, the European Parliament passed the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to create a fairer, transparent and responsible digital environment. DSA explicitly requires platforms to assume more responsibility in dealing with illegal content and protecting user rights, and introduces transparency reporting and mandatory supervision mechanisms. At the same time, Taiwan also proposed a draft Digital Intermediary Services Act, attempting to combine international experience to meet local governance needs. The draft bill seeks to regulate how platforms deal with false information and illegal content and establish a code of conduct for the digital ecosystem. However, Taiwan's draft has sparked widespread controversy, especially on the issue of the boundary between speech control and freedom, with opinions diverging from all sectors of society. The core dilemma of platform governance is that the essence of platform governance is a multi-party game. On one hand, the government hopes to address the threat to public order posed by false information, hate speech and illegal content by regulating the platforms; on the other hand, the platforms themselves, as private enterprises, are both carriers of speech and often take a passive or selective attitude towards content management due to profit motives. Users are worried that government regulatory measures may lead to platforms deleting excessive content, thereby infringing on freedom of speech. The launch of DSA provides a template for the EU in this game. While it requires platforms to strengthen their content management responsibilities, it also sets limits on government intervention and retains a user complaint mechanism, striving to maintain transparency and accountability. In contrast, Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act (CDA) takes a different strategy. The clause grants platforms "immunity privileges" that allow them to avoid legal prosecution when managing user content, thereby promoting innovation and freedom of speech. However, this exemption model has also been criticized for causing platforms to ignore their content review responsibilities and allow the spread of false and harmful information. Taiwan's draft Digital Intermediary Services Act is somewhere in between the two, hoping to curb illegal content through measures such as information restrictions and content removal mechanisms, while also trying to avoid directly interfering with freedom of speech. However, the definition of "illegal or harmful content" in the draft is still unclear, which may easily lead to law enforcement disputes. Many opposing voices believe that if adequate supervision and transparency mechanisms are not established, these measures may become a tool for the government to suppress dissent, further exacerbating the crisis of trust in democratic society. In the digital age that challenges freedom of speech, the efficiency of the Internet has completely changed the way people communicate, but it has also provided a breeding ground for the rapid spread of false information. Through precise algorithms and social media recommendation mechanisms, false information can be spread on a large scale in a very short period of time, and even cause political or social unrest. For example, the suicide of a Taiwanese official stationed in Japan in 2018 caused by a fake news incident highlighted the profound impact of fake news on individuals and society. The issues involved in dealing with fake news go far beyond the technical scope and also involve value judgments and the demarcation of boundaries of speech. In a democratic society, freedom of speech is a fundamental right and the Constitution should provide it with the highest degree of protection. However, the limit of freedom is that it must not infringe on others or the public interest. When false information comes at the expense of public health and national security, appropriate legal intervention is inevitable. But the question is, what information should be restricted? How to define false content without infringing on legitimate speech? The future direction of digital governance and the challenges of digital governance require balancing public interests and personal freedoms to be the core goal of policy design. Legislators need to take a forward-looking perspective and establish an effective regulatory framework while protecting freedom of speech. Transparency and accountability should be the core principles of platform governance. Clear boundaries of power and complaint mechanisms should be set for both the government and the platform. At the same time, improving citizens' media literacy and digital education and enabling society to think more critically is also an important part of the long-term solution. Freedom of speech in the digital age is not only a legal issue, but also a collective value choice of the social community. In the context of information explosion and diverse values, only through rational dialogue and multi-party cooperation can we protect the spiritual home of democracy in the digital wave and provide a sustainable development direction for future platform governance.