後真相時代之假訊息管制結構――以刑法規範為中心

A Study on Criminal Regulation of Disinformation in the Post-Truth Era

由於科技的興盛與網路便利性，網路平台業者的出現，讓人民發表言論之管道與方式更為便利，然平台使用者亦於此接觸巨量的假訊息，不僅影響著各種社會領域，甚至干涉民主政治的體現，導致言論自由市場無法藉由更多言論，來更正不實訊息並找出真理之存在，使得各國法制必須透過管制言論來防止假訊息之散布與侵害。據此，本文首要探討的內容係確立何為假訊息，並權衡現今假訊息之影響與言論自由之衝突，認為管制假訊息迫在眉睫。再者，本文就現今使用者所散布之假訊息，若有違反法規範，必須限縮之，以保護使用者之言論自由。也因此，本文根據規範中之保護法益，透過言論自由中之雙階理論、憲法學之合憲性解釋與刑法學之法益保護原則，就現今我國刑事法中箝制人民言論自由基本權之規範，探討是否符合比例原則之要求。最後，本文透過刑法原理之解釋與網路守門人之間接侵權責任，證立網路平台業者之定位，在現今法無明文規範下，網路平台業者對於使用者所發布之假訊息，是否具有保證人地位而應該負責？如無移除、刪除或防止假訊息之侵害的話，是否亦會構成不作為犯或是幫助犯。本文結論認為，關於管制假訊息之法規範，應限縮在符合法律明確性並與保護法益相關聯之假訊息，避免過度侵害人民之言論自由；而網路平台業者作為使用者交換意見與發布言論之樞紐，現今刑事法仍無法對其進行管制，本文建議應另行擬定法制，讓網路平台業者與政府共同維護平台上之言論，不再因假訊息之影響，造成使用者無法達到言論自由市場之意見交流，並得以找尋出真理。

Due to the boom of technology and the access of the Internet, the emergence of online platforms allows people to express their opinions freely; however, platform users are exposed to plenty of disinformation. This phenomenon not only affects multiple dimensions of society but also retards the manifestation of democratic politics. In order to prevent the dissemination and infringement of disinformation, it is necessary for the judicial authorities in various countries to impose restriction on freedom of speech. At the beginning of this article, I am going to define the meaning of disinformation and weigh the current phenomenon of the deluge of disinformation with the abridgements of freedom of speech. After that, I firmly believe that the abridgements outweigh the freedom of speech. Furthermore, in view of the regulations violated by users when spreading disinformation, this article will examine whether the regulation which restrains basic right of freedom of speech accords with the protection of legal interests as well as the principle of proportionality in our criminal law and special criminal law through the Two-track theory of freedom of speech, the constitutional interpretation of constitutional law, and the principle of the legal interests in criminal laws. Last but not least, according to the principles of criminal law and the liability in tort between the internet gatekeepers, this article will prove the positioning of internet platform operators so as to analyze whether they are the guarantors who have obligation to the illegal disinformation published by users under the absence of regulations. If they fail to remove, delete, or prevent the infringement of disinformation, will they also be guilty of derivative omission offences or abettor？
In conclusion, when abridging the freedom of speech to regulate disinformation, the act should be limited to principle of legal reservation. Also, when punishing the people who spread disinformation, the penalty should be related to the legal interests protected by the act. Because the internet platform operators are the center or so-called hubs for users to exchange information, the criminal law still cannot confine them recently. A totally different laws should be legislated to allow internet platform operators and the government to secure the speech on the platform jointly. As a consequence, the false information would no longer hinder users in reaching freedom of speech to exchange information so as to pursuit the truth.