數位中介服務法草案評析──以歐盟數位服務法為比較對象

Analysis of the Draft Bill of Digital Intermediary Service Act: A Comparison with EU Digital Service Act

我國行政院於2022年推出數位中介服務法草案，草案的主要目的係課予數位中介服務提供者各項義務，以建立健全網路環境、減少以網路為媒介的犯罪行為，並保護人民的基本權。然而，在草案內容推出後，相關業者以及民間輿論，均表達反對意見。反對的原因則包括將造成言論自由受限、業者的責任不明、罰則過重等。由於草案的內容受歐盟制定的數位服務法（Digital Service Act）影響甚深，故本文以比較法研究的方式，探討歐盟與我國相關法令的差異。並得出我國數位中介服務法草案的規定，至少有規範權責較不明確、對於大型網路平臺的定義未考量國情差異，以及以行政處分對特定資訊暫時加註警示，可能造成對言論自由的不當侵害之問題。特別是數位中介服務法草案第20條的規定，使行政機關在未得法院之裁定前，可以行政處分要求網路平臺的服務提供者將網上之資訊標記為警示處分，基於部分資訊具有特別之時效性，且行政機關有極高之裁量權限，可能導致行政機關濫權造成不可回復之侵害。本文認為，應明訂發動之程序與實體要件，僅限於國防、特別災案，以及與人民生命身體法益有高度相關的緊急事件始得為之。

Administrative Yuan announced the draft bill of Digital Intermediary Service Act in 2022. However, most of the service providers and public opinion raised objections against the legislation procedure. The objections included the concerns about suppression of expression freedom, interference of free market and the contents of the draft are too difficult for the service providers to comply with.
According to the announcement, the draft bill referred to the Digital Service Act Draft, which was raised by European Union. This article aims to adopt the comparative law research method and tries to provide appropriate suggestions for revision of the draft. Comparing to draft bill of Digital Intermediary Service and Digital Service Act, this article detects three main differences between them. First, the obligations for service providers are more blur. Second, the definition of large platform is too wide. Third, the draft authorized the administrative agency to mark the information on internet platform as“doubted”.
In conclusion, the author suggests that Article 20 of the draft be applied in a strict way. The administrative agency can only mark the information when it is related to serious defense issues, public affairs or civils’major fundamental rights.