屏蔽視頻廣告行爲正當性判定的理路反思

Reflections on the Judgment of the Legitimacy of Blocking Video Ads

在司法實踐中，屏蔽視頻廣告行為正當性判定的“同案不同判”現象根本上源于司法審理思路的差异。商業道德標準審理路徑存在精確化缺失的固有局限，而利益衡量標準審理路徑強調對于案件事實的實質性判斷，且內含可操作性分析框架，故應成為屏蔽視頻廣告行為正當性判定的更優路徑。為防止利益衡量的恣意，有必要借助比例原則方法提升審判的科學性。比例原則在屏蔽視頻廣告行為正當性判定的適用中，應確立謙抑性適用理念，由此形塑以屏蔽視頻廣告主體性質為劃分依據的“寬鬆”和“相對嚴格”的審查基準模型。在不同審查基準模型下，目的正當性、適當性、必要性和均衡性子原則的認定標準應有所區分。

In judicial practice, the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" in determining the legitimacy of blocking video advertisements basically stems from the difference in judicial adjudication. While the business ethics standard adjudication path has the inherent limitation of lack of precision, the interest measurement standard adjudication path emphasizes the substantive judgment of the facts of the case and contains an operable analytical framework, so it should be a better path to determine the legitimacy of blocking video advertisements. In order to prevent the arbitrary measurement of interests, it is necessary to enhance the scientific nature of the trial by means of the principle of proportionality. In the application of the principle of proportionality in the determination of the legitimacy of blocking video advertising, the concept of modesty should be established. Furthermore, a "loose" and "relatively strict" censorship benchmark model based on the nature of the subject of video advertising is formed. Under different review benchmark models, the recognition rules for the principles of legitimacy, appropriateness, necessity, and balance of purpose should be distinguished.