新興溝通科技與言論自由－可能之定位暨思維

Emerging Communicative Technology vs. Freedom of Speech: Possible Legal Status and Thinking

許炳華(Pin-Hua Hsu)

言論自由 ； 美國憲法增修條文第1條 ； 言論市場 ； 接受訊息的權利 ； 商業性言論 ； 搜尋偏愛 ； 廉價言論 ； 中度審查 ； 機器人言論 ； 被迫言論 ； Freedom of Speech ； The First Amendment ； Marketplace of Ideas ； Right to Receive Information ； Commercial Speech ； Search Bias ； Cheep Speech ； Intermediate Scrutiny ； Robot Speech ； Compelled Speech

中正大學法學集刊

70期（2021 / 01 / 01）

1 - 70

繁體中文

言論自由法理核心問題之一即美國憲法增修條文第1條保護之範圍，我們周遭的活動所包含的已不僅是位元的傳送，更多是演算法之結果，越來越多新興溝通科技形成新的及獨特的「說者」，帶來言論自由理論艱難的議題：何者為受保護之言論？何者不是？憲法增修條文第1條是否適用於「搜尋引擎」之結果與搜尋引擎使用之演算法是不同的問題，而如果我們篤信言論自由，則對話之對象究竟是人類或人工智慧，有何關係？言論自由之保護若未涵蓋前開新興溝通科技言論，國家將得以任意壓抑該等言論，無異同時剝奪資訊接收者接收資訊之權利，然而，徵諸俄羅斯操控美國大選事件等，該等言論亦實質上透過潛在之力量、速度及範圍對於資訊接收者造成資訊過剩、操控言論等風險，故在新興溝通科技可能對於言論自由法理造成衝撞下，法律應有其扮演之角色，即便人工智慧等將使亙古以來之法學理論進入未知之領域。

One of the core issues in the freedom of speech jurisprudence concerns the scope of protection delineated in Article 1 of the Amendments to the US Constitution. Many of our daily activities involve not only the bits transmission, but also the results of algorithms created by humans and implemented by machines. More and more emerging communicative technologies form new and unique ＂speakers＂, which accordingly bring forth difficult issues in the theory of freedom of speech, questions like ＂what is protected speech?＂ and ＂which one is not?＂ are of great importance. The issue of whether Article 1 of the US Constitutional Amendments applies to the results of ＂search engines＂ is different from the how it is applied to algorithm used in search engines. Further, while information recipients believe in the freedom of speech, the object of dialogue ‒ whether it is humans or the artificial intelligence is also an important matter. When the protection of freedom of speech does not cover the newly developed communicative technology speech, the state will be able to suppress such speech arbitrarily in ways that deprive the right of individuals to receive information. Meanwhile, remarks such as concluding that Russia manipulated the US election have actually created risks for information recipients including excessive information and manipulation of speech through potential power, speed, and scope. Therefore, as the emerging communicative technology may cause conflicts with the freedom of speech jurisprudence, it can be argued that the law shall play a role even with the possibility that artificial intelligence and other fields will bring the ancient legal theory into unknown territory.

1. 黃昭元(2004)。憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，33(3)，45-148。
   連結：
2. 黃銘傑(1998)。美國法上的言論自由與商業廣告──兼論司法院大法官會議釋字第四一四號解釋。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，27(2)，347-393。
   連結：
3. 劉靜怡(2011)。媒體所有權、觀點多元化與言論自由保障：美國法制的觀察。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，40(3)，1089-1173。
   連結：
4. 管假新聞？林全：任何立法不會妨害言論自由，中時電子報，2017年3月15日，https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170315000351-260102?chdtv（最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
5. 台大學生會、政大學生會以及政大野火陣線在108年4月7日言論自由日成立「青年抵制假新聞陣線」，串聯國內超過50個大專院校學生會、學生異議性社團與青年學生團體，並發起「拒看偏頗造神報導，抵制不實假新聞」連署，中央社，2019年4月13日，https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201904130065.aspx（最後瀏覽日2019/07/04）。
6. 政府為遏止假消息，第一波修改「災害防救法」、「糧食管理法」、「農產品市場交易法」、「核子事故緊急應變辦法」、「廣播電視法」，第二波修改「刑法」、「陸海空軍刑法」，都還在立院審議，蘋果日報，2019年5月6日，A5版。
7. Study on the Human Rights Dimensions of Automated Data Processing Techniques (in Particular Algorithms) and Possible Regulatory Implications, https://rm.coe.int/algorithms-and-human-rights-en-rev/16807956b5 (last visited July 8, 2020).
8. 政院硬起來！蘇貞昌鐵腕修法電視網路散布「假新聞」關3年，2019年4月19日，https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=529167（最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
9. 行政院長林全表示，將會擬定打擊網路假新聞辦法，風傳媒，2017年3月16日，https://www.facebook.com/stormmedia/posts/747962558718790/（最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
10. 政府打擊假新聞賴清德：最大亂源是中國，三立新聞，2018年10月2日，https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=437086（最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
11. 「言論審查工廠全面崛起」：當Facebook走上了一條和中國極度接近的道路，科技報橘，2019年1月10日，https://buzzorange.com/techorange/2019/01/10/when-facebook-turn-to-china/ （最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
12. Abbas, Tania(2013).U. S. Preservation Requirements and EU Data Protection: Headed for Collision?.Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev.,36,257.
13. Balkin, Jack M..Yale Law School, Public Law Research PaperYale Law School, Public Law Research Paper,未出版
14. Ballanco, Michael J.(2013).Searching for the First Amendment: An Inquisitive Free Speech Approach to Search Engine Rankings.Geo. Mason U. C. R. L.J.,24,89.
15. Bambauer, Jane(2014).Is Data Speech?.Stan. L. Rev.,66,57.
16. Benjamin, Stuart M.(2013).Algorithms and Speech.U. Pa. L. Rev.,161,1445.
17. Bhagwat, Ashutosh(2017).When Speech is Not “Speech”.Ohio St. L.J.,78,839.
18. Bibet-Kalinyak, Isabelle(2012).A Critical Analysis of Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.: Pandora’s Box at Best.Food & Drug L.J.,67,191.
19. Blackman, Josh(2014).What Happens if Data is Speech?.U. Pa. J. Const. Heightened Scrutiny,16,25.
20. Bracha, Oren(2014).The Folklore of Informationalism: The Case of Search Engine Speech.Fordham L. Rev.,82,1629.
21. Bracha, Oren,Pasquale, Frank(2008).Federal Search Commission ‒ Access, Fairness, and Accountability in the Law of Search.Cornell L. Rev.,93,1149.
22. Brotman, Julia K.(2018).Access, Transparency, and Control: A Proposal to Restore the Marketplace of Ideas by Regulating Search Engine Algorithms.Whittier L. Rev.,39,33.
23. Butler, Daniel(2014).Avoiding the First Amendment’s Crosshairs: Revisiting Precedents & Refining Arguments in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.U. Miami L. Rev.,68,911.
24. Cannon, Alex W.(2009).Regulating AdWords: Consumer Protection in a Market Where the Commodity Is Speech.Seton Hall L. Rev.,39,291.
25. Chandler, Jennifer A.(2007).A Right to Reach an Audience: An Approach to Intermediary Bias on the Internet.Hofstra L. Rev.,35,1095.
26. Cohen, Harlan(2018).Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc..Am. J. Int’l L.,112,727.
27. Collins, John P., Jr.(1997).Speaking in Code: Bernstein v. United States Department of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N. D. Cal. 1996); Bernstein v. United States Department of State, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N. D. Cal. 1996).Yale L.J.,106,2691.
28. Collins, Ronald,Skover, David(2018).Robotica: Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence.Cambridge University Press.
29. Daws, Ryan, Bill Forcing AI Bots to Reveal Themselves Faces EFF Opposition, AI News, https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/2018/05/24/bill-ai-bot-reveal-eff/ (last visited July 8, 2020).
30. Fisk, Catherine L.,Chemerinsky, Erwin(2013).Political Speech and Association Rights after Knox v. Seiu Local 1000.Cornell L. Rev.,98,1023.
31. Fox, Ryan Christopher(2002).Old Law and New Technology: The Problem of Computer Code and the First Amendment.UCLA L. Rev.,49,871.
32. Fromer, Jeanne C.(2001).Sixth Circuit Classifies Computer Source Code as Protected Speech: Junger V. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).Harv. L. Rev.,114,1813.
33. Gasser, Urs(2006).Regulating Search Engines: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.Yale J.L. & Tech.,8,201.
34. Grimmelmann, James(2014).Speech Engines.Minn. L. Rev.,98,868.
35. Grimmelmann, James.Cornell Legal Studies Research PaperCornell Legal Studies Research Paper,未出版
36. Halpern, Steven E.(2000).Harmonizing the Convergence of Medium, Expression, and Functionality: A Study of the Speech Interest in Computer Software.Harv. J.L. & Tech.,14,139.
37. Hasen, Richard L.(2018).Cheap Speech and What It Has Done (to American Democracy).First Amebd. L. Rev.,16,200.
38. Houser, Kristin, Should Bots Have a Right to Free Speech? This Non-Profit Thinks So, https://futurism.com/robots-free-speech-rights (last visited July 8, 2020).
39. Hyman, David A.,Franklin, David J..Illinois Program in Law, Behavior and Social Science PaperIllinois Program in Law, Behavior and Social Science Paper,未出版
40. Ingber, Stanley(1984).The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth.Duke L.J.,1984,1.
41. Johnson, Bruce E. H.,Norton, Helen,Skover, David(2018).Panel 1: Robotic Speech and the First Amendment.Seattle U.L. Rev.,41,1075.
42. Jones, Meg Leta(2018).Silencing Bad Bots: Global, Legal and Political Questions for Mean Machine Communication.Comm. L. & Pol’y,23,159.
43. Joo, Thomas W.(2014).The Worst Test of Truth: The “Marketplace of Ideas” as Faulty Metaphor.Tul. L. Rev.,89(2),383.
44. Kerr, Orin S.(2000).Are We Overprotecting Code? Thoughts on First-Generation Internet Law.Wash. & Lee L. Rev.,57,1287.
45. Lamo, Madeline & Calo, Ryan, Anonymous Robot Speech, https://conferences.law.stanford.edu/werobot/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2018/02/Anonymous-Robot-Speech-We-Robot-2018.pdf (last visited July 8, 2020).
46. Lamo, Madeline,Calo, Ryan(2019).Regulating Bot Speech.UCLA Law Review
47. Langvardt, Kyle(2016).The Doctrinal Toll of “Information as Speech”.Loy. U. Chi. L.J.,47,761.
48. Levi, Lili(2018).Real “Fake News” and Fake “Fake News”.First Amend. L. Rev.,16,232.
49. Mandelman, Joel C.(1998).Lest We Walk into the Well: Guarding the Keys? Encrypting the Constitution: To Speak, Search and Seize in Cyberspace.Alb. L.J. Sei. & Tech.,8,227.
50. Mart, Susan Nevelow(2003).The Right to Receive Information.Law Libr. J.,95,175.
51. Massaro, Toni M.,Norton, Helen(2016).Siri-ously? Free Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence.Nw. U.L. Rev.,110,1169.
52. Massaro, Toni M.,Norton, Helen,Kaminski, Margot(2017).SIRI-OUSLY 2.0: What Artificial Intelligence Reveals about the First Amendment.Minn. L. Rev.,101,2481.
53. McGoldrick, James M., Jr.(2006).United States v. O’Brien Revisited: of Burning Things, Waving Things, and G-Strings.U. Mem. L. Rev.,36,903.
54. McGoldrick, James M., Jr.(2008).Symbolic Speech: A Message from Mind to Mind.Okla. L. Rev.,61,1.
55. Moerke, Katherine A.(2000).Free Speech to a Machine? Encryption Software Source Code Is Not Constitutionally Protected Speech under the First Amendment.Minn. L. Rev.,84,1007.
56. Nguyen, Thinh(1997).Cryptography, Export Controls, and the First Amendment in Bernstein v. United States Department of State.Harv. J.L. & Tech.,10,667.
57. Norton, Helen(2018).Robotic Speakers and Human Listeners.Seattle U.L. Rev.,41,1145.
58. Ocrant, Yvonne C.(1998).A Constitutional Challenge to Encryption Export Regulations: Software Is Speechless.DePaul L. Rev.,48,503.
59. Pasquale, Frank(2008).Asterisk Revisited: Debating a Right of Reply on Search Results.J. Bus. & Tec. L.,30,61.
60. Plotkin, Robert(2003).Fighting Keywords: Translating the First Amendment to Protect Software Speech.U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y,2003,329.
61. Post, Robert(1995).Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine.Stan. L. Rev.,47,1249.
62. Post, Robert(2000).Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,15,713.
63. Post, Robert,Shanor, Amanda(2015).Adam Smith’s First Amendment.Harv. L. Rev. F.,128,165.
64. Richards, Neil M.(2015).Why Data Privacy Law Is (Mostly) Constitutional.Wm. & Mary L. Rev.,56,1501.
65. Ross, Patrick Ian(1998).Bernstein v. United States Department of State.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,13,405.
66. Samp, Richard(2011).Sorrell v. IMS Health: Protecting Free Speech or Resurrecting Lochner?.Cato Sup. Ct. Rev.,2011,129.
67. Schauer, Frederick(2004).The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience.Harv. L. Rev.,117,1765.
68. Schauer, Frederick.,未出版
69. Stern, Mark Joseph, Are Google Search Results Protected by the First Amendment?, https://slate.com/technology/2014/11/are-google-results-free-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment.html (last visited July 8, 2020).
70. Tien, Lee(2000).Publishing Software as a Speech Act.Berkeley Tech. L.J.,15,629.
71. Timberg, Craig, Russia Used Mainstream Media to Manipulate American Voters, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/russia-used-mainstream-media-to-manipulate-american-voters/2018/02/15/85f7914e-11a7-11e8-9065-e55346f6de81_story.html?utm_term=.1c1db24271ed. (last visited July 8, 2020).
72. Tutt, Andrew(2014).The New Speech.Hastings Const. L.Q.,41,235.
73. Tutt, Andrew(2012).Software Speech.Stan. L. Rev. Online,65,73.
74. Voigt, Mark W.(1987).VISA Denials on Ideological Grounds and the First Amendment Right to Receive Information: The Case for Stricter Judicial Scrutiny.Cumb. L. Rev.,17,139.
75. Volokh, Eugene(1995).Cheap Speech and What It Will Do.Yale L.J.,104,1805.
76. Volokh, Eugene(2003).Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts after Eldred, 44 Liquormart, and Bartnicki.Hous. L. Rev.,40,697.
77. Volokh, Eugene,Falk, Donald(2012).First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results.J.L. Econ. & Pol’y,8,883.
78. Whitman, James Q.(2004).The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty.Yale L.J.,113,1151.
79. Wiley, Sarah(2017).UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.
80. Witt, Laurel(2017).Preventing the Rogue Bot Journalist: Protection from Non-Human Defamation.Colo. Tech. L.J.,15,517.
81. Wolf, Andrew J.(2013).Detailing Commercial Speech: What Pharmaceutical Marketing Reveals about Bans on Commercial Speech.Wm. & Mary Bill Rits. J.,21,1291.
82. Wu, Tim(2013).Machine Speech.U. Pa. L. Rev.,161,1495.
83. Wu, Tim, Free Speech for Computers?, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/opinion/free-speech-for-computers.html (last visited July 8, 2020).
84. Zeitz, Boryana(2002).The Boundaries of Computer Expression: Is Source Code Speech?.UCLA J.L. & Tech. Note,2002,27.
85. 江雅綺，面對網路資訊戰的法治策略，自由時報，2019年4月29日 ， https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1284822 （最後瀏覽日2019/06/09）。
86. 吳庚(2003).憲法之解釋與適用.自版.
87. 李念祖(2006).案例憲法Ⅲ（上）：人權保障的內容.三民.
88. 李惠宗(2015).憲法要義.元照.
89. 林子儀(1999)。言論自由之理論基礎。言論自由與新聞自由
90. 許育典(2016).憲法.元照.
91. 陳仲麟(2015)。生物資料庫生物檢體與個人資料的國際傳輸──對我國法制之分析與建議。醫事法學，20(2)，99-117。
92. 陳柏良(2020)。AI時代之分裂社會與民主──以美國法之表意自由與觀念市場自由競爭理論為中心。月旦法學雜誌，302，109-126。
93. 陳慈陽(2005).憲法學.元照.
94. 黃銘傑(2019)。人工智慧發展對法律及法律人的影響。月旦法學雜誌，200，51-54。
95. 黃銘輝(2019)。假新聞、社群媒體與網路時代的言論自由。月旦法學雜誌，292，5-29。
96. 楊智傑(2017)。言論自由事前審查之審查標準──釋字第744號解釋與美國審查標準比較。憲政時代，43(1)，89-143。
97. 劉孔中(2014)。關鍵字廣告之商標法與競爭法爭議──以Google為例。月旦法學雜誌，235，69-92。
98. 劉靜怡(2014)。用丟鞋和辦公祭傳達政治抗議訊息，該受處罰嗎？。台灣法學雜誌，245，131-135。
99. 劉靜怡(2011)。網路內容管制與言論自由──以網路中介者的角色為討論重心。月旦法學雜誌，192，63-80。
100. 蘇慧婕(2012)。淺論社群網路時代中的言論自由爭議：以臉書「按讚」為例。台灣法學雜誌，214，28-35。

1. (2024)。沒有「言論」的言論自由──言論自由作為對抗特定管制的權利。政大法學評論，176，277-368。