社群媒體時代下對於「更多言論」之質疑：以假訊息之管制為中心

我國受到2018年地方選舉及公民投票結果的刺激，近年掀起對於「假訊息」之研究熱潮，試圖釐清假訊息是否、如何破壞民主程序，以及政府對於假訊息究竟是否及如何管制的問題。而本文爬梳相關文獻後發現，認為政府不應管制者，多以「觀念自由市場」理論為論述基礎，主張假訊息造成之危害應以「更多言論」加以治癒。惟本文認為，近年假訊息之竄起，或許為重新檢驗觀念自由市場此一傳統理論之最佳契機。本文首先分析近年來常見「假新聞」一詞之用語上有何不妥，並定義本文所謂「假訊息」之意涵，以試圖釐清近年假訊息爭議與過往一般虛假訊息有何不同，其中「通訊工具」的轉變，亦即現今以「社群媒體」作為人民主要接收資訊之平台，為關鍵所在。接著本文從憲法的角度出發，說明何以不應僅以觀念自由市場理論，作為討論假訊息議題之唯一論述依據，反而應該賦予言論自由新的釋義方向。就此本文首先指出該理論本身忽略現實中人們之認知偏誤，亦即「更多言論」無法保證真理終將勝出。接著本文進一步論述社群媒體演算法的特性，是如何促使假訊息大量且迅速地散布；從而為了保障閱聽人取得資訊的權利，政府對於表意人言論自由為一定程度之限制，具有正當性。最後本文將分析現行各國立法及社群媒體自律手段，針對處理假訊息現象之具體措施應如何設計，提出本文建議。

關鍵字

假訊息；社群媒體；言論自由；更多言論；認知偏誤

並列摘要

In Taiwan, stimulated by the outcome of 2018 election and referendum, the study of disinformation became prevalent. More and more studies focus on whether and how disinformation erodes the democratic process, as well as whether and how the government should regulate disinformation. Lots of literatures adopt the “marketplace of idea” point of view, arguing that the danger of disinformation should be cured by “more speech” instead of government interference. This article, however, argues that the rise of disinformation might suggest the need to reexamine the jurisprudence of freedom of speech. First, this article elaborates on why the term “fake news” should no longer be adopted and define the term “disinformation”, in an attempt to clarify the distinction between the newly-raised disinformation phenomenon and false statement in general. The key point here is the transformation of “communication tools”, that is, “social media” has become the main platform for people to receive information. Then this article goes from Constitutional aspect, explaining why “marketplace of ideas” shouldn’t be the only theory involved when it comes to the question of disinformation, rather we shall provide the notion of freedom of speech with a new direction of interpretation. This article first points out that the theory itself overlooks the cognitive bias in reality, which means “more speech” doesn’t necessarily guarantee that truth will prevail. Then this article further articulates how the algorithms implemented by social media contribute to the tremendous amount and rapid distribution of disinformation. Therefore in order to protect the listeners’ right to receive information, it is legitimate that the government restrict the speakers’ freedom of speech within an certain degree. Finally this article analyzes the measurements taken so far to combat disinformation, both by government and by private sector, and provides some suggestions in terms of how to design the mechanism to deal with the disinformation phenomenon.