| 英文摘要 |
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. |
