| 關 鍵 詞： |
假訊息；網路平台；德國網絡執行法；法國對抗資訊操弄法；歐洲人權法院 |
| 中文摘要： |
在假訊息透過網路平台、社群網站快速散布的時代，世界各國均開始思考，如何透過網路平台責任的設計，要求網路平台協助阻止假訊息的擴散。歐盟 2000 年電子商務指令只採取知悉取下模式，但德國於 2017 年通過網絡執行法、法國於 2018 年通過對抗資訊操弄法，均對網路服務業者課予法律責任，要求其協助阻止、取下假訊息。本文將介紹德國、法國這兩個法案的內容，並說明其引發限制表意自由的質疑。歐洲人權法院雖然目前尚未正式處理德國、法國等對抗假訊息的法律，但已經有三個案件，涉及個人誹謗訴訟，要求網路平台業者負民事賠償責任，而引發的表意自由與名譽權保護的衝突。本文將介紹這三個案件，並說明其帶來的啟示。最後，綜合整理目前若干國家與法律文件對網路平台施加協助阻止假訊息的法律責任模式，並比較臺灣的數位通訊傳播法草案，本文將說明，若真的要設計一個法律，要求網路平台對假訊息散布負責，必須對所需處理的言論類型清楚定義，才能對網路平台要求較為嚴格的措施與責任。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Misinformation；Internet Platform；Network Enforcement Act of Germany；Law on Combating Manipulation of Information of France；European Court of Human Rights |
| 英文摘要： |
In the age of misinformation quickly distributing through internet platforms and social networks, most countries in the world began to think how to design the liability imposed on internet platforms, requiring them to help blocking the spread of misinformation. While E-Commerce directive 2000 of EU only adopted the "knowledge and takedown" model, Network Enforcement Act passed by Germany in 2017 and Law on Combating Manipulation of Information passed by France in 2018, both impose legal liability on internet service providers, asking that internet platforms should assist blocking and taking-down misinformation. The contents of both acts of Germany and France, and the dispute of their violations of freedom of expression will be introduced. Until now, European Court of Human Rights has no chance to deal with the issues of these acts against misinformation such as the Germany and France one; however, there has been three cases involving personal defamation suit in which plaintiffs alleging internet platforms should be liable for their damages. These three cases raised the conflict between freedom of expression and right of reputation. These three cases will be introduced in detail, and the inspiration from these cases will be explained. At last, we try to classify different regulatory models on liability imposed on internet platforms from several countries and legal documents, and compare them with the Digital Communication Act draft of Taiwan. We argued that, if there is a necessity to design a law imposing liability on internet platforms about their distributing misinformation, at first we have to clearly define the category of speech which the law aims to focus on, then we could ask the platforms to take more strict measures and liability.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、歐盟電子商務指令與判決
一、美國 DMCA 知悉取下與通知取下模式
二、歐盟電子商務指令
三、2019 年歐洲法院 Glawischnig-Piesczek 案
參、德國、法國對抗假訊息之立法
一、德國網絡執行法
二、法國對抗資訊操弄法
三、法國憲法委員會意見
四、小結
肆、歐洲人權法院：線上平台責任與言論自由
一、歐洲人權公約第 10 條
二、2015 年愛沙尼亞 Delfi AS 案
二、2016 年匈牙利 Magyar 案
三、2017 年英國 Tamiz 案
四、小結
伍、我國數位通訊傳播法草案與綜合比較
一、數位通訊傳播法草案
二、立法理由
三、綜合比較與建議
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|