言論自由下之網路平台責任與行政管制—以美國、歐 盟與台灣之制度模式比較為核心

Abstract

21 世紀隨著數位科技的快速發展，網路平台在現代社會中扮演了日益重要的中介角色。然而，網路平台的興起亦對傳統的言論自由構成重大挑戰。平台業者對用戶言論的篩選、推薦及刪除等行為，常引發關於言論自由保護範疇、平台責任與國家介入管制的違憲討論。尤其是，平台的內容管理方式未經充分公開透明，可能損害公共討論的多元性，甚至導致對異見（少數人）言論的箝制。這些變化促使我們反思，傳統由國家確保的言論自由保障體系 ，是否能夠有效應對數位時代帶來的新挑戰。 本研究聚焦於現代數位時代下的網路平台業者責任與行政管制問題，並特別評析台灣「數位中介服務法草案」。研究的核心問題是如何在保障言論自由的前提下，對網路平台業者進行有效的法律管制 ，並確保平台在促進公共利益與維護網路秩序方面承擔應有的責任。在此背景下， 本研究採取比較法的視角 ，對美國、歐盟與台灣的網路平台管制法律架構進行深入分析 ，並將焦點放在平台對使用者發布內容的責任與國家如何介入管制的問題上。 在分析各國法制的過程中，本文詳細比較美國聯邦「通訊端正法」（Communications Decency Act, CDA）第 230 條的免責規定、歐盟 「數位服務法」（Digital Services Act, DSA） 的責任架構及台灣數位中介服務法草案的立法設計。美國的「免責規定」 雖為網路平台的發展提供有利條件，卻也引發平台在處理「違法內容」時的規範困境，例如由於免責範圍過於寬廣，使平台業者得以迴避對使用者內容的監管義務，導致誹謗言論與誤導性資訊常未能及時處理。相對而言，歐盟在強調平台責任的同時，設計了更為精細的管制措施，強調平台應在保障言論自由的前提下，負有對內容的監督與管理義務。相比之下，台灣的數位中介服務法草案在平台自律與國家介入管制之間仍存在不小的規範模糊空間，尤其是在如何確定平台在處理第三方內容時的責任，以及國家在此過程中應有的角色和權限爭點問題上。 基於上述分析，本文建議台灣應採取相較於現行草案設計更為平衡的管制模式 ，並借鑒歐盟的經驗， 透過僅在平台未實際知悉或未合理應知其服務上存在違法內容時，方得免責之「條件式免責制度」來規範平台責任，從而在保障言論自由的前提下，促使平台對「違法內容」進行即時管理。此外，台灣應該明確限制國家在平台內容管理中的介入權限，確保國家干預不會過度影響公共討論的自由，違反比例原則。針對這些發現與建議，本研究目的在為台灣未來的數位中介服務法立法設計提供理論支持與實務條文修正建議，協助台灣在保障言論自由的基礎上，更即時有效地規範網路平台行為，從而維護言論自由與公共利益間的平衡，促進民主社會的健全發展。

With the rapid advancement of digital technology in the 21st century, online platforms have come to play an increasingly pivotal role as intermediaries in modern society. However, the rise of such platforms has also posed significant challenges to traditional conceptions of freedom of speech. Actions taken by platform operators—such as filtering, recommending, or deleting user-generated content—frequently provoke constitutional debates concerning the scope of free speech protection, platform liability, and the legitimacy of state intervention. In particular, the lack of transparency in content moderation practices risks undermining the pluralism of public discourse and may even suppress dissenting or minority views. These developments compel us to reconsider whether the traditional state-centered framework for safeguarding freedom of expression remains adequate in the digital age. This study focuses on the issue of platform liability and administrative regulation in the contemporary digital era, with particular emphasis on Taiwan’s draft Digital Intermediary Services Act. The core question addressed herein is how to legally regulate online platforms in a manner that protects freedom of expression, while also ensuring that platforms fulfill their responsibilities in upholding public interest and maintaining online order. Against this backdrop, the research adopts a comparative law approach to examine the regulatory frameworks of the United States, the European Union, and Taiwan, with specific attention to the question of platform responsibility for user content and the permissible scope of state intervention. Through this comparative analysis, the study closely examines Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, the liability structure under the EU Digital Services Act, and the legislative design of Taiwan’s draft law. While the U.S. immunity provision has fostered favorable conditions for platform growth, it has also created regulatory dilemmas concerning the handling of “illegal content.” For instance, the overly broad scope of immunity allows platforms to avoid obligations to monitor or remove defamatory speech and misleading information in a timely manner. In contrast, the EU has adopted a more refined regulatory approach that imposes content oversight duties on platforms while affirming freedom of expression as a foundational value. Taiwan’s draft legislation, by comparison, still suffers from considerable ambiguity, particularly in delineating platform liability for third-party content and clarifying the appropriate scope of governmental authority in content regulation. Based on these findings, this study recommends that Taiwan adopt a more balanced regulatory model than the current draft, drawing on the EU’s experience. In particular, platform liability should be governed by a “conditional immunity” regime, under which platforms may only claim exemption from liability if they have neither actual knowledge nor reasonable awareness of illegal content on their services. Such a framework can incentivize timely and effective responses to illegal content while preserving freedom of speech. Furthermore, Taiwan should clearly limit the government’s power to intervene in platform content moderation to prevent undue encroachment on public discourse and to uphold the constitutional principle of proportionality. The ultimate aim of this research is to provide theoretical support and practical legislative recommendations for the future development of Taiwan’s digital intermediary laws, thereby enabling a regulatory framework that ensures both the protection of free expression and the promotion of the public interest in a healthy democratic society.