名譽權保護的新頁：論網路平臺服務提供者不作為侵權責任之成立

網路時代下，網路平臺服務提供者，搭建了供使用者產製內容的新興場域，人人皆可輕易地在手機與電腦螢幕之後，透過網路平臺，暢所欲言，不過，其中有些言論，卻可能對他人名譽權造成侵害。此時，若網路平臺袖手旁觀，則如何合理劃定網路平臺之責任，以調節行為自由與名譽權保護，就成為侵權行為法的新挑戰。本文從兩個面向切入網路平臺不作為侵權責任的問題：首先，就社會事實層面而言，透過與傳統資訊傳播媒介的比較，摸索網路平臺服務提供者的特性，進而尋找對網路平臺服務提供者課予侵權責任之正當性。同時，於事實關係上，透過政府、網路平臺服務提供者與使用者之間的三角關係，觀察對於網路平臺服務提供者課予侵權責任時，言論自由價值可能受到如何的影響，以於後續責任成立的要件討論中，能夠更為精準並具體地操作抽象要件，實踐名譽權與言論自由兼顧的價值取捨。再者，從規範層面而言，民法第184條第1項前段，由數個要件所組成，各個要件，有其各自不同的規範功能，應予釐清。　　本文主張，網路平臺服務提供者的不作為侵權責任，應建立於其為新興言論場域之治理者的角色，而為其有意識地選擇與策劃的自己行為負侵權責任，不依附於使用者發表言論之侵權責任，因此，網路平臺作為義務的發生，不以使用者發表言論行為的違法性為要件。取而代之的是，在加害行為的認定上，圍繞著「危險」的概念，以社會安全注意義務為理論依據，當使用者發表貶損他人社會評價之言論，而該當於名譽侵害之事實要件時，即是「危險」發生，儲存並向公眾傳達系爭言論的網路平臺，即是開啟與持續此一危險，因而，危險發生致使網路平臺防範危險的作為義務發生，此時，不審查或不採取防止措施的不作為，即成為不作為加害行為。　　接著，於違法性層次中，過去以真實不罰、合理查證及合理評論所組成的言論侵權違法性判斷架構，適用的評價對象為使用者發表言論之加害行為，而非網路平臺服務提供者之不作為加害行為，考量責任主體與加害行為的不同，而有重構之必要。第一，在未為審查的加害行為下，應填補上合理作業時間的違法性判斷。第二，在未採取防止措施的不作為加害行為，對於事實陳述，應剔除內容真實與否的考量，放棄真實不罰與合理查證原則，僅留下是否關乎公共利益的判斷。第三，對於意見表達，不論善惡意，只論是否為適當評論。　　最後，由於受通知與知悉，涉及行為人對要件事實與違法性的主觀認識心態，故應留待主觀要件之過失處理。於此考量者為，網路平臺服務提供者，僅是內容的中介者，再者其活動本質之設定，並不包含逐一審查使用者言論，且其隨時面對使用者所產製之海量資訊。因此，於假定的善良管理人注意標準設定上，應認為──網路平臺服務提供者，對於使用者侵害他人名譽的言論，於一般情形下並無預見可能性與避免可能性，僅有在收到投訴通知時，或是特定言論引起爆炸性討論時，才能期待作為善良管理人的網路平臺服務提供者，得以預見並避免系爭不法侵害，此時，未預見並避免者，主觀認識心態即受評價為過失。至此，民法第184條第1項前段要件該當，不作為侵權責任成立。　　以上主張，不但能夠保護被害人之名譽權，且符合網路平臺服務提供者的活動本質，不致額外增加其負擔，同時得以避免過度犧牲言論自由，而達成兼顧名譽權與言論自由的目標。

關鍵字

網路平臺；不作為加害行為；侵權責任；名譽權；言論自由

並列摘要

In the era of Internet, online platform service providers have created new domains for users to exhibit user-generated contents. These platforms offer the opportunity for the public to freely express themselves behind their screens. However, some of these contents may injure the reputation of others. Online platform service providers’ inaction could be seen from time to time when responding to such events. Under such circumstances, it is challenging to determine the liability of these service providers by the tort law as it involves the balance between freedom of speech and protection of reputation. This thesis approaches the issue of tort liability of online platform service providers for omissions from two perspectives. Firstly, from the perspective of social fact, we explored the distinctions between online platforms and traditional media to justify the legitimacy of imposing tort liability on online platform service providers. Additionally, we also examined the triangular relationship among the government, online platform service providers, and users in order to assess the potential impact on freedom of speech if tort liability on online platform service providers is imposed. This approach aims to establish a more concrete basis for analyzing the abstract elements in tort liability and seeks to find the balance between the right to reputation and freedom of speech. From a normative perspective, we also analyzed various elements of the first sentence of Article 184, Paragraph 1 of Civil Code; each of which serves different functions and requires clarification. This thesis argues that tort liability of online platform service providers for omissions should take into consideration the providers’ role as a governor in the domain of speech. They should be held liable for their own acts of governance instead of being held liable for the users who publish infringing speech as vicarious liabilities. In regard to the concept of "danger", this thesis argues that social safety duty of care (Verkehrspflicht) could implies that when users publish defamatory speech that libels against someone's reputation, danger would rise. By storing and disseminating such content to the public, online platforms service providers trigger and sustain the aforementioned danger. As a result, the duty to prevent danger arises for online platform service providers. Their omission, either the lack of inspection or not taking precautionary measures, becomes a breach of duty. Moreover, in terms of the illegality element, the existing framework that is used to assess illegality of defamation involves truth, reasonable investigation, and fair comment. This framework generally focuses on the action of generating harmful speech of the user instead of the omissions of online platform service providers. Taking the differences between subjects of liabilities into account, the existing framework for the assessment of illegality of defamation should be restructured. First, the reasonable operation time should be taken into consideration. Second, we should exclude the consideration of the truthfulness of targeted statements. Whether such a statement concerns public interest should be the only concern in discussion. Third, in regards to the expression of opinions, only appropriateness should be considered regardless of goodness or malice. Lastly, this thesis proposes that notification and awareness, which involve the subjective mindset of the tortfeasor, should be addressed under the negligence element considering that online platform service providers are merely intermediaries for content. The nature of their activities does not involve individual censorship of the contents generated by users, not to mention that they face an overwhelming volume of user-generated information. For that reason, the standard of a prudent person of an online platform service provider should be set as below: Generally speaking, online platform service providers may not foresee and avoid defamation by users. However, when they receive complaints or when certain speech has already triggered massive public discussions, they should foresee and prevent the damages from happening as a prudent person. Their failure to fulfill this duty under such circumstances would be seen as negligence. When such negligence occurs, the legal requirements of the first sentence of Article 184, Paragraph 1 of Civil Code are met, and the tort liability of online platform service providers for omissions shall be established. The above propositions seek to protect the reputation of the injured person while aligning with the nature of online platform service providers' activities, preventing unnecessary burdens for online platform service providers. Moreover, it will avoid excessive sacrifice of freedom of speech and achieve a balance between protection of reputation and freedom of speech.