假新聞的管制與憲法挑戰

假新聞會威脅民主制度的運作。內部會讓本屬常態的對立產生激化，外部會受到非民主國家以假新聞的攻擊，因此許多國家嘗試去管制假新聞。惟管制假新聞涉及對言論自由的限制，欲對其限制必須受到合憲性的檢驗。通過合憲性審查後，如何有效管制假新聞亦為一個具挑戰的問題，管制手段必須合理適當。本文嘗試從言論自由理論出發，探討假新聞管制在憲法上的容許性跟審查標準。再選擇以美國、德國、日本等六國，作為比較法學研究的對象，從立法模式、由誰認定、管制主體、客體和法律效果等層面，比較分析何種管制模式適合台灣。本文認為，假新聞的本質為「不實陳述」，雖然屬於言論之一種而受言論自由保障，惟此保障並非絕對，只要符合憲法第23條比例原則，國家仍得限制之。國家對其管制的審查標準，依雙軌理論及雙階理論，採取中度審查標準即可。此外，社群媒體已經成為人類獲得資訊的主要來源。平台業者的角色也從過往言論傳播的「工具」，轉變為言論市場的「守門員」，平台業者應負有限的責任。如何有效的管制假新聞，本文認為，應採取分散式的立法模式；由誰認定上，以行政機關與中介者來認定為主，受限制者如有不服，再由法院認定為輔；管制主體為發言者、散布者及中介者，其各有不同的管制目的，均須受到管制；管制客體為「會造成損害的不實言論」；法律效果上，立法者應就各個領域的假新聞，對該領域所造成的危害程度等脈絡下，具體決定究應採行政罰、刑罰或其他行政措施。最後，本文觀察台灣在面對假新聞一系列修法、立法的管制上方向大致正確，惟仍有不足之處。

關鍵字

假新聞；不實訊息；言論自由；新聞自由；中介者責任；管制模式

並列摘要

Fake news will threat the democratic system. However, the regulation of fake news may restrict freedom of speech. The restriction must be tested for its constitutionality. After passing the test, how to effectively regulate fake news is also a challenging issue. The method must be appropriate. This Article focuses on "disinformation". Although it is protected by freedom of speech, this protection is not absolute. As long as the principle of proportionality is complied with, the state may still restrict. According to the two-track theory and the two level theory, the intermediate scrutiny test can be adopted. In addition, social media has become the main source of information for accessing human beings. The role of platform operators has also changed from a "tool" for the transmission of speech to a "gatekeeper" for the speech market. They should have limited liability. This Article adopts decentralized legislative model; fake news should be identified by the administrative agencies and intermediaries, and the courts' identification is supplement; the subject is the speaker, the distributor and the intermediary; the object is "disinformation that will cause harm"; the legislator can choose administrative penalty, criminal penalty or other administrative measures under the context of the harm degree caused by fake news. Finally, a series of amendments to the law and legislation in Taiwan are in the right direction, but still have some insufficient.