政府監管大型社交網路平台審查言論的合憲性探討——以美國佛羅里達州參議院第7072號法案為核心

The Constitutionality of Government Regulation of Large Social Network Platforms to Censor Speech: Focusing on U.S. Florida Senate Bill 7072

佛羅里達州參議院第7072號法案的主要目標乃限制大型社交網路平台審查自身平台上內容的權力，此法案在通過不久後便被法院以臨時禁制令禁止多數法案內容的實施。
透過探討佛羅里達州參議院第7072號法案與後續相關法院訴訟，本文發現雖然大型社交網路平台具有足以和國家抗衡的強大力量，並可能濫用此力量不當審查平台上言論，但大型社交網路平台審查自身平台上言論的行為受到通訊端正法第230條所保護，且為編輯裁量權所保障的一環，因此法院以臨時禁制令禁止多數法案內容的決定並不讓人意外。
當然，國會有權修改通訊端正法第230條，大型社交網路平台的編輯裁量行為也並非不能限制，但本文認為佛羅里達州當局於法院訴訟中所提出的兩種主張──將大型社交網路平台視為公共運送人或公共論壇──均非限縮大型社交網路平台編輯裁量權的理由；本文亦認為以法律限制大型社交網路平台審查自身平台上內容的權利是否適當、與該法應如何訂定，有待更多的討論。

The main goal of the Florida Senate Bill 7072 is to restrict large social network platforms from censoring content on their own platforms. It was blocked by the court with a preliminary injunction shortly after the bill was passed.
This paper offers a detailed review of Florida Senate Bill 7072 and the decisions of the Courts that NetChoice and the CCIA sued to stop the implementation of the law. It explores the great power owned by large social network platforms and how the power might be inappropriately exercised on the freedom of speech on platforms. However, the censorship of speech on large social network platforms conducted by their own is protected by Communications Decency Act Section 230, which is a part of editorial discretion.
Certainly, Section 230 can be amended by Congress and the editorial discretion of large social network platforms can be restricted. Thus, this paper argues that two assertions made by Florida authorities: Considering large social networking platforms as public carriers or public forums, is not a reason to limit the editorial discretion of large social networking platforms. Further discussion is required regarding whether it is appropriate to limit the right of large social network platforms to censor their own content by law, and how the law should be formulated.