| 關 鍵 詞： |
網路選舉宣傳；揭露資助者；外國勢力；言論自由；反滲透法 |
| 中文摘要： |
2016 年俄羅斯介入美國總統大選，引發美國和全世界對外國勢力透過網際網路介入內國選舉問題的關注。美國此之前早就已有法規禁止外國人為選舉捐贈與獨立廣告支出。2019 年起，聯邦和各州希望將選舉廣告揭露資助者身分之法規，擴張及於網際網路之廣告，並課予網路服務業者相關責任。本文歸納整理過去美國最高法院對選舉廣告支出之揭露義務，曾處理過的判決與論理。進而介紹 2018 年馬里蘭州線上競選透明和問責法，以及為何第四巡迴法院 McManus 案宣告部分條文違憲。此外，對於聯邦禁止外國人對選舉為捐款和獨立支出，2011 年哥倫比亞特區地區法院之 Bluman v. FEC 案曾宣告相關條文合憲。透過歸納整理上述三方面之相關判決，希望瞭解美國法院對此類議題所採取違憲審查之方法，以及其可能的合憲範圍。最後回頭討論臺灣相關法案，包括臺灣選罷二法對選舉宣傳相關揭露規定、2018 年行政院對選罷二法所提修正草案，和 2019 年底通過之反滲透法。本文將說明，反滲透法不但嚴重侵害臺灣人民自身之言論自由，且其實沒有處理到網際網路上之政治宣傳。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Online Election Propaganda；Disclosure of the Sponsorship；Foreign Influence；Freedom of Speech；Anti-Infiltration Act |
| 英文摘要： |
Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has drawn attention in the U.S. and around the world to the issue of foreign influencer interfering in domestic elections through the Internet. The U.S. already has laws prohibiting foreigners from making election donations and spending on independent advertising. Beginning in 2019, the federal and state hopes to expand the regulations for disclosing the identity of sponsors in election advertisements to the Internet ads and give Internet service providers relevant responsibilities. This article summarizes and sorts out the constitutional review and reasoning that the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with in the past regarding the disclosure obligation of election advertising spending. Then we introduce the 2018 Maryland Online Electioneering Transparency and Accountability Act, and why the 4th Circuit McManus case declared some provisions unconstitutional. In addition, the 2011 Bluman v. FEC case of the District Court for the District of Columbia declared the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on foreign contributions and independent expenditures for elections. By summarizing the relevant judgments in the above three aspects, I hope to analyze the method of constitutional review adopted by the U.S. courts on such issues, as well as its possible constitutional scope. Finally, we will go back to discuss Taiwan, including explaining the disclosure regulations of Taiwan's Election Laws on election propaganda, the amendment draft proposed by the Executive Yuan to the Election Laws in 2018, and the Anti-Infiltration Act passed at the end of 2019. This article will show that the Anti-Infiltration Act not only seriously violates the freedom of speech of Taiwanese, but also does not deal with political propaganda on the Internet at all.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、美國最高法院關於選舉廣告揭露之相關判決
一、1976 年聯邦競選法與 Buckley v. Valeo 案
二、1995 年 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 案
三、2002 年兩黨競選改革法與揭露義務
四、歸納與區辨
參、線上政治廣告揭露義務之州法與判決
一、各州立法模式
二、馬里蘭州線上競選透明和問責法
三、新聞媒體主張限制言論自由與新聞自由
四、2019 年第四巡迴法院 McManus 案判決
五、可能合憲的範圍
肆、外國人影響選舉
一、禁止外國人為政治捐款與獨立支出
二、2011 年 Bluman v. FEC 案
三、小結
伍、反思臺灣
一、選罷二法與 2018 年行政院修正草案
二、網紅網軍收費貼文留言問題
三、反滲透法之問題
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|