規範網路中介者責任之困境：美國「通訊端正法」第230條之前世今生

The Dilemma of Regulation on Internet Intermediary Liability: Past and Present of Section 230 of U.S. Communications Decency Act

美國在規範網路平台時常遭遇來自政黨之歧見，民主黨選民希望平台能移除更多之內容，共和黨選民則持反對見解，探討社群媒體之責任無可迴避地會碰觸到美國憲法增修條文第1條在社群媒體平台之適用，該等論辯聚焦在一個基本之問題：平台業者是否應該為第三人提供於平台之資訊負責？在今天，美國「通訊端正法」第230條扮演猶如居於英國大憲章地位般，成為規範線上內容不可或缺的一部分，卻也被定調為美國對網路規範採取「不介入」之態度，亦使得第230條成為政治圈中最不受歡迎之法條，國會議員亟欲將之廢除或修改。而新興數位發展創造出之生態系統提供恐怖份子得以宣傳及招募、引誘他人執行恐怖攻擊。美國國會在25年前通過第230條，感覺卻像250年前之久，然當時並無人得以預見今天網際網路世界之進化。當網際網路無遠弗屆地為全球所用，恐怖份子在接近招募新成員、支持者、信奉者之機會更甚以往，Gonzalez v. Google LLC案及Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh案之悲劇事件顯露出網路平台與社會溝通之方式如完全不受限制，對人類帶來之成本。第230條在規範網路世界之責任上仍扮演重要之角色，制定於四分之一世紀前之第230條支撐了崛起之網路產業，使得網際網路公司得對於平台上第三人提供之資訊主張相當寬廣之免責，然學界及實務界咸承認在過往25年對於第230條廣泛之解釋業將提供社群媒體平台發展之誘因置於公共安全之上，引發維持國家安全及捍衛自由表達間之扞格。

Efforts to regulate platforms in the U.S. are often stymied by a fundamental disagreement. Some voters—mostly Democratic—want platforms to remove more content. Some—mostly Republicans—want platforms to remove less content. Almost every legal argument about the rights and responsibilities of social media platforms comes down to an analysis of whether the First Amendment applies to social media platforms. The debate revolves around a fundamental question: whether platform operators should be held responsible for the information provided on their platforms by third parties? At present, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, long considered the“Magna Carta”of the internet, is the centerpiece of America’s hands-off approach to content-related internet regulation. Section 230, however, has become one of the most unpopular statutes in Washington––there are currently dozens of congressional proposals aimed at repealing or reforming the law. New digital developments create an ecosystem for terrorists to spread propaganda, recruit and incite others to commit terrorist attacks. Congress passed section 230 of the Communications Decency Act twenty-five years ago. In some ways, though, it seems like 250 years ago. No one foresaw then what the internet would become today. As the internet has gained widespread global use, terrorists have gained access to a much broader pool of potential recruits, supporters, and sympathizers than ever before. The tragic events in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh reveal the human cost of allowing internet platforms to exercise unbridled influence over society’s communication methods. Although Section 230 continues to play a critical role regulating internet liability. Judges and scholars increasingly recognize that the expansive interpretation of Section 230 over the past 25 years has incentivized social media companies to elevate profits over public safety, which invokes the conflict of maintaining national security while safeguarding freedom of expression.