跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.83.132) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/25 02:59
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:楊劭楷
研究生(外文):Shao-Kai Yang
論文名稱:社群媒體假訊息管制之言論自由分析
論文名稱(外文):Freedom of Speech and the Regulation of Disinformation on Social Media
指導教授:林子儀林子儀引用關係蘇慧婕蘇慧婕引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tzu-Yi LinHui-Chieh Su
口試委員:劉靜怡黃銘輝
口試委員(外文):Ching-Yi LiuEd Ming-Hui Huang
口試日期:2020-07-10
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:165
中文關鍵詞:社群媒體社群媒體上假訊息管制言論自由意見市場理論民主理論自我管制網路科技守門人元管制模式
外文關鍵詞:Social MediaDisinformationFreedom of SpeechMarketplace of Ideas TheoryMarketplace of Ideas of TruthMarketplace of Ideas of DemocracySelf-RegulationSocial Media and Technology of InternetGatekeeperMeta-Regulation
DOI:10.6342/NTU202100082
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:9
  • 點閱點閱:4495
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:671
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
假訊息議題,因社群媒體的興盛,於近年成為重要問題。
本文首先從假訊息之定義出發,認定其為客觀事實錯誤,並探究何謂「客觀真實」,本文在此指出客觀真實與符應論間的關係。
其次,本文將社群媒體上之假訊息現象,區分為新與舊兩個面向。新問題指的是社群媒體作為訊息溝通結構,與以往傳統媒體不同之處。本文指出,不論是訊息產製或傳播,社群媒體的興盛都使得假訊息更容易出現、更容易造成影響。而舊問題,則是指人們對於社群媒體的使用,可能會強化原先人類的行為模式,故社群媒體上之假訊息「對訊息接受者」的影響,因這些行為模式,可能更為嚴重。
探究現象後,本文進一步探究管制社群媒體上假訊息之正當性。就釋義學層次,從德國與美國的比較法層次,本文認為就假訊息是否為言論自由之保障範圍、受到何種保障程度之問題,在不同憲法脈絡中會發生分歧。就德國而言,基本上認為錯誤事實並不在言論自由保障範圍內,例外才受到保護。而美國則認為即便是錯誤事實,也不會當然不受言論自由保障。
故本文選擇進一步探究對美國言論自由實務影響重大的意見市場理論,並透過在理論層次上定位假訊息,討論管制社群媒體上假訊息之正當性。
本文將意見市場理論內涵區分為真理的意見市場和公民的意見市場,並認為假訊息對於意見市場來說,屬於市場失靈,故有一定的管制正當性。就真理的意見市場理論,假訊息所彰顯的不只是新興科技對意見市場發現真理預設的挑戰,而是彰顯意見市場其實不一定與發現真理有關,前者是現象造成的失靈,而後者是理論既有的缺陷。故真理的意見市場,本身即無法處理假訊息所帶來之問題。
而就公民的意見市場理論而言,本文認為,依保護意見市場之目的(公共領域),又可區分為健全民主程序(狹義),或是促進民主自治(廣義)之版本,而不論是何種版本,假訊息皆會對公共領域造成負面影響,進一步影響其目的,故在理論層次,亦有一定的管制正當性,只是必須進一步與政府介入可能帶來的弊害衡量。本文並提出從此理論角度出發,於實際法律之制度設計時,可以考量的降低弊害、提升管制正當性的類型化。
最終,本文討論何為管制社群媒體上假訊息之有效手段,本文透過探究當代社群媒體作為言論傳播之中介、對其平台上言論之管制,認為社群媒體之自我管制作為管制假訊息之手段,會具有缺陷,進而使得社群媒體自我管制,無法有效解決假訊息問題。
因應上述缺陷,本文主張可以有效管制假訊息、兼顧對使用者言論自由權利保障之元管制模式,透過公權力設定政策目標、被管制目標擁有一定之自我管制權限之方式,達到前述兩個政策目標,而此元管制模式之正當性,本文認為可透過社群媒體於當代佔據的資訊守門人地位加以證成。
於提出抽象之元管制模式後,本文並以德國近年通過之網路執行法,作為本文參考的具體立法例,並探究其在我國憲法脈絡,是否合憲。本文認為,網路執行法在我國違憲審查中,可以通過正當性、必要性、適當性之審查,但就衡平性而言,儘管在假訊息管制之部分,本文認為要求社群媒體處理假訊息之公共利益大於社群媒體利益,故能通過衡平性之檢驗,但就保護使用者言論自由權利之部分,網路執行法反而因保護不足,而有違憲之虞,本文並於最終提出能夠適當保護使用者言論自由之可能措施。
Disinformation has become a significant question since the emergence/prevalence of social media.
At the beginning of this thesis, I define disinformation as facts that are objective false, and explore what we mean by objective true. By doing so, I indicate the relationship between objective truth and correspondence theory. That is: A true proposition (or sentence, statement, belief) means that it must correspond to facts or external objective objects. Then I refute some (but not all) philosophical claims that deny the existence of objective truth.
This thesis clarifies the phenomenon of Disinformation on Social media into two dimension, one is the new problem, and the other is the old problem.
Referring to the new problem, I mean the structure of information communication concerning social media is much different from the traditional one. I point out that whether in production or the spread of information, the rise and prevalence of social media have made disinformation more likely to appear and cause more impact.
The old problem refers to some human behavior patterns are amplified when using social media. Therefore, the effect of Disinformation on social media on how people receive and deliver massage, may be more serious due to these existing behavior patterns.
This Thesis further explores the legitimacy of regulating disinformation on social media. At the practical level, I take Germany and the United States as comparative examples of freedom of speech, arguing that the answers to Disinformation problems –not only whether disinformation is in the scope of freedom of speech but also to what degree should we protect it-- will be different concerning different constitutional contexts. As far as Germany is concerned, it basically stated that false facts are not within the scope of freedom of speech protection, and only exception is protected. In contrast, The United States believes that even if the facts are wrong, they will still be protected from freedom of speech.
I choose to further explore these problems by taking the marketplace of idea theory into account. Because it has been the backbone of the development of the freedom of speech in America for a long time, influencing both discourses of academia and the doctrines of freedom of speech. By locating disinformation in the marketplace of idea theory, I focus on the legitimacy of regulating disinformation on social media at the theoretical level.
This thesis distinguishes two versions of marketplace of idea theory. One is the marketplace of idea of truth, the other is the marketplace of idea of democracy. I argue that disinformation is the market failure of both versions, so it is legitimate to regulate disinformation.
For the marketplace of idea of truth, I propose that Disinformation highlights not only the challenge of new technologies making the marketplace of idea of truth difficult to function well to seek truth, but also the theoretical flaw that the marketplace of idea of truth is not necessarily related to the discovery of truth. The former market failure is caused by phenomenal change, and the latter is the fundamental flaws of the presupposition of the theory.
As for the marketplace of idea theory of democracy, By the purpose of protecting marketplace (that is the public discourse), I distinguish two subversions of democratic marketplace: one is to promote effective functioning of the democratic process(in narrow sense), the other is to promote democratic self-governance(in broader sense).
I argue that disinformation will not only cause negative impact on both subversions of marketplace of idea of democracy, but also affect their purpose. Therefore, at this theoretical level, it is legitimate to regulate disinformation, but it must be further measured with the possible harm caused by government.
At last, I propose that when designing the actual legal system to regulate Disinformation, we can take some factors into account to reduce the harm and maintain the legitimacy of the regulation.
In the last part of thesis, I discuss what is an effective mean of controlling Disinformation on social media. I explore the role of contemporary social media as an intermediary of speech dissemination, and it’s capability of controlling speech on its platforms. Then I further examine the self-regulation of social media as the controlling model of Disinformation. I argue this self-regulation model as regulating methods will have defects, and these defects finally make self-regulation of social media unable to effectively solve the problem of Disinformation.
In response to defects above, this thesis proposes the meta-regulation model that can effectively deal with Disinformation and take users’ freedom of speech on social media platform into account. The meta-regulation model requires policy goals set by public power, but at the same time, it lets regulated targets have certain self-regulation discretion to decide how to meet policy goals . And I argue this meta-regulation model can be justified by the status as information gatekeeper occupied by social media in contemporary times.
After proposing the concept of this meta-regulation model, I use Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, also called NetzDG) passed by Germany in recent years as the specific legislative example of meta- regulation model, and examine whether it will be unconstitutional in Taiwan’s constitutional context. I argue that NetzDG as the meta-regulation model, it’s aim of regulating Disinformation and protecting user’s freedom of speech, is legitimate, and NetzDG, as a measure, is suitable and necessary to achieve that regulating aim.
In terms of equitable principle, on the one hand, the public interest of regulating Disinformation outweighs the interest of social media, so it can pass the equitable principle regarding requiring social media regulating Disinformation by force. On the other hand, however, user’s freedom of speech is not sufficiently protected by NetzDG. Therefore, in terms of protection of user’s freedom of speech, NetzDg might be unconstitutional. This thesis finally recommends some appropriate and possible measures to protect users’ freedom of speech.
詳目
謝辭 I
摘要 IX
Abstract XI
簡目 XIV
詳目 XVI
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題提出與案例設計 1
第二節 研究範圍 7
第一項 定義假訊息 7
第二項 定義社群媒體 9
第三節 文獻回顧 11
第四節 研究架構 14
第二章 社群媒體上之假訊息現象:新舊問題 17
第一節 假訊息與客觀真實 17
第一項 客觀真實與符應論 17
第二項 回應否認客觀真實之論證 19
第一款 真實是社會建構 19
第二款 真實是語言的產品 22
第三款 真實是服務於權力 23
第三項 小結 23
第二節 社群媒體上的假訊息現象 24
第一項 社群媒體帶來的新問題:訊息溝通結構改變 24
第一款 訊息的產製:社群媒體VS傳統媒體 25
第一目 新言論中介:Web2.0之便宜言論 25
第二目 舊的言論中介:守門人(gatekeeper)減少 26
第三目 Web2.0:假訊息產製增加 27
第二款 訊息的傳播:注意力有限 28
第一目 資料過濾與同溫層效應 29
第二目 假訊息的傳播放大 31
第三款 小結 32
第二項 社群媒體加重的舊問題:人類行為模式 32
第一款 資訊流瀑與極化 33
第一目 資訊流瀑(information cascades) 33
第二目 群體極化 35
第二款 系統一與系統二 36
第三項 小結 39
第三章 管制社群媒體上假訊息之正當性 41
第一節 假訊息與言論自由保障 41
第一項 德國基本法第5條第1項 41
第一款 區分事實與意見 42
第二款 奧許維茲謊言判決:意見與事實之關聯 43
第二項 美國憲法增修條文第1條:以Alvarez案為例 44
第一款 以虛偽言論保障為例:United States v. Alvarez案 44
第二款 事實與判決理由 45
第三款 從保護範圍到保護程度:意見市場理論之考量 47
第二節 意見市場理論與錯誤言論 48
第一項 意見市場理論 49
第一款 意見市場理論之起源 49
第二款 內涵一:真理的意見市場 50
第一目 發現真理與真理理論 50
第二目 發現真理與意見市場預設 52
第三款 內涵二:公民的意見市場 53
第一目 意見市場與民主運作 54
第二目 民主與意見市場預設 56
第二項 意見市場理論與假訊息 58
第三節 社群媒體上的意見市場失靈 59
第一項 真理的意見市場失靈 60
第一款 現象層次的市場失靈 60
第一目 社群媒體的意見市場結構 61
第二目 社群媒體的意見市場運作 62
第三目 對抗言論法則的失效 63
第二款 從現象失靈到理論失靈 65
第三款 理論層次的市場失靈 66
第一目 真理(Truth)?偏好(preference)? 66
第二目 真理(Truth)與事實(fact) 70
第三目 小結 72
第二項 公民的意見市場失靈 73
第一款 現象層次:公共領域的破碎化 73
第一目 公共領域與假訊息 73
第二目 假訊息對第三方傷害 75
第二款 理論層次:假訊息對「民主」之影響 76
第一目 狹義的民主程序與假訊息 76
第二目 廣義的民主自治與假訊息 79
第三項 市場失靈及假訊息管制 86
第一款 假訊息之傷害與對抗言論 86
第一目 Alvarez案理由與假訊息 86
第二目 德國與美國之釋義學:他山之石 87
第二款 假訊息管制之類型化 88
第四章 社群媒體上假訊息之有效管制手段 93
第一節 社群媒體自我管制之缺陷 93
第一項 網路世界之現象:三角形關係 93
第一款 網路管制之發展 94
第二款 社群媒體平台與言論表達 95
第三款 政府、社群媒體、使用者三角關係 97
第二項 社群媒體對於言論之私人管制 100
第一款 內在審核壓力:社群媒體與使用者 100
第二款 內容審核的外在壓力:社群媒體與政府 102
第三項 社群媒體平台之假訊息管制:自我管制之缺陷 103
第一款 假訊息與私人管制 104
第二款 私人管制的可能不足 105
第三款 私人管制的可能過度 106
第四項 小結 108
第二節 元管制模式之提出與證成 108
第一項 元管制模式之提出 108
第一款 破碎管制空間與元管制作為手段 108
第二款 元管制模式之建構 111
第二項 社群媒體作為媒體:守門人地位 114
第一款 社群媒體作為媒體 114
第一目 社群媒體定位為何重要:制定選擇 114
第二目 新媒體vs溝通結構特別地位 115
第二款 社群媒體於溝通結構之定位:守門人(gatekeeper) 119
第一目 傳統的守門人概念 119
第二目 網路的資訊守門人 121
第三目 社群媒體作為守門人 123
第四目 元管制模式與守門人責任 125
第三節 元管制模式之實例:NetzDG作為立法例 125
第一項 網路執行法作為管制模型之具體案例 126
第二項 德國網路執行法作為立法例:合憲性之討論 132
第一款 網路執行法實施後:現實走向 133
第二款 從我國憲法看元管制模式之合憲性 135
第一目 目的正當性:假訊息管制義務與權利保障 135
第二目 比例原則之審查 137
第三目 小結 140
第五章 結論 141
第一節 設例回顧: 141
第二節 論文結論 142
第三節 未竟之業 144
參考文獻 146
中文專書
林子儀(1999),言論自由與新聞自由,一版,臺北:元照。
林煜騰(2015),論公民與政治權利國際公約下仇恨性言論之管制——以跨國網路為核心,一版,臺北:元照。
中文專書篇章
許宗力,比例原則之操作試論,收於:法與國家權力(二),頁121-140(2007),臺北:元照。
中文期刊論文
許宗力(2002),基本權的功能,月旦法學教室2期,72-80。
何吉森(2018),假新聞之監理與治理探討,傳播研究與實踐,第8卷第2期,1-41。
林照真(2020),假新聞類型與媒體聚合:以2018年臺灣選舉為例,新聞學研究,第142期。頁111-153。
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期,頁109-126。
黃舒芃(2016),比例原則及其階層化操作:一個著眼於司法院釋憲實務發展趨勢的反思,中研院法學期刊,19期,1-52。
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期,5-29。
湯晏甄、蔡宗漢、張傳賢(2017),政黨認同對於政治知識的動機性推理影響,台灣政治學刊,21卷1期,157-217。
劉靜怡(1998),網路社會規範模式初探,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第28 卷第1期,1-45。
劉靜怡(2004),「言論自由」導論,月旦法學教室,26期,73-81。
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期,63-80。
羅承宗(2019),虛假訊息與法律管制-我國現況與建議,台灣法學雜誌,369期,47-62。
胡元輝(2018),商營社群媒體的自律與問責:政治經濟學取徑的批判,傳播、文化與政治,第8期,37-76。
胡元輝(2018),造假有效、更正無力?第三方事實查核機制初探,傳播研究與實踐,8卷2期,43-73。
蘇慧婕(2020),正當平台程序作為網路中介者的免責要件:德國網路執行法的合憲性評析,臺大法學論叢,49卷4期,頁1915-1977。
蘇慧婕(2019),假訊息管制與資訊揭露義務-以選罷法、公投法及其修正草案為中心,月旦法學期刊,第292期,頁42-58。
蘇慧婕(2016),第三帝國陰影下的言論自由保障:論德國聯邦憲法法院在政治極右言論案件中的立場演變,臺大法學論叢,45卷2期,頁395–453。

中文學位論文
鍾禛(2018),《論國家對於假消息之管制模式及其規範分析-國際宣言與比較法的觀點》,國立交通大學科技法律研究所學位論文。
翻譯文章或書籍
Dr. h. c. mult Klaus Stern著,蔡宗珍譯,基本權保護義務之功能——法學上的一大發現,月旦法學雜誌,175期,頁46-59(2009)。
Singer, P . W.. and Emerson T. Brooking著,林淑鈴譯(2019),讚爭:「按讚」已成為武器,中國、俄羅斯、川普、恐怖組織、帶風向者、內容農場,如何操縱社群媒體,甚至……不知不覺統治了你,臺北:任性出版。[Singer, P . W.. and Emerson T. Brooking. LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media. New York:Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.]
英文專書
Arendt, Hannah 1993. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (1993 Reissued in Penguin Books). New York: Penguin Books USA Inc.
Baddeley, Michelle. 2018. Copycats & Contrarians: Why We Follow Others … and When We Don’t. ‎New Haven: Yale University Press.
Baker, C. Edwin. 1989. Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barendt, Eric. 2005. Freedom of Speech. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Charney, John. 2018. The Illusion of the Free Press. Oxford:Hart Publishing.
Fuchs, Cristian. 2014 . Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gillespie, Tarleton. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2012. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London:Penguin Group UK.
Kavanagh, Jennifer and Michael D. Rich. 2018. Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. Santa Monica: CA: RAND Corporation.
Koltay, András. 2019 . New Media and Freedom of Expression Rethinking the. Constitutional Foundations of the Public Sphere. Oxford: Bloomsburry Publishing.
Laidlaw, Emily. 2015. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace: Gatekeepers, Human Rights and. Corporate Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence Lessig. 2006. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books Publisher.
Lewy, Guenter. 2014. Outlawing Genocide Denial: The Dilemmas of Official Historical Truth. Utah: University of Utah Press.
Murray, Andrew. 2019. Information Technology Law: The Law and Society (4th edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Napoli, Philip M. 2001. Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. New Jersey:Hampton Press.
Napoli, Philip M. 2019. Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Pratkanis, Anthony and Elliot Aronson. 2001. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use. and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Riley, Jonathan. 2015. The Routledge Guidebook to Mill's On Liberty. New York: Routledge Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1995. Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
Schauer, Frederick. 1982. Free speech: a Philosophical Enquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sheldon, Pavica. 2015. Social Media: Principles and Applications. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Starr, Paul. 2004. The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications. New York: Basic Books.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1993. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2003. Why Societies Need Dissent. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2018. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. ‎Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2019. Conformity: The Power of Social Influences. New York: New York University Press
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2018. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Susan. 2004. Truth, Autonomy, and Speech Feminist Theory and the First Amendment. New York: New York University Press
英文專書篇章
Andrejevic, Mark. 2020. The Political Function of Fake News: Disorganizd Propaganda in the Era of Automated Media. Pp.19-28 in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, edited by Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew Mcleod. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Barberá, Pablo. 2020. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. Pp. 34-55. in Social Media and Democracy The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, edited by Nathaniel Persily and Joshua A. Tucker. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bell, Emily. 2019. The Unintentional Press: How Technology Companies Fail as Publishers. Pp. 235-253 in The Free speech Century, edited by Lee.c Bollinger and Geoffery R. Stone. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bhagwat, Ashutosh. 2019. Free Speech Categories in the Digital Age. Pp. 88-103 in Free Speech in the Digital Age, edited by Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bickert, Monika. 2019. Defining the Boundaries of Free Speech on Social Media. Pp. 254-271 in The Free speech Century, edited by Lee.c Bollinger and Geoffery R. Stone. New York: Oxford University Press.
boyd, danah. 2011. Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. Pp. 39-59 in A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Zizi Papacharissi. New York: Routledge Press.
Coglianese, Cary & Evan Mendelson. 2010. Meta‐Regulation and Self‐Regulation. Pp. 146-168 in The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, edited by Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Curran, James. 2012. Rethinking internet history. Pp. 34-66 in Misunderstanding the Internet, edited by James Curran, Natalie Fenton, Des Freedman. New York: Routledge Press.
Denardis, Laura. 2020. Introduction: Internet Governance as an Object of Research Inquiry. Pp. 1-20 in Researching Internet Governance: Methods, Frameworks, Futures, edited by Laura DeNardis, Derrick Cogburn, Nanette S. Levinson and Francesca Musiani. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
d'Entreves, Maurizio Passerin. 2001. Arendt’s theory of judgment. Pp. 245-260 in The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt, edited by Dana Villa. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dinwoodie, Graeme. 2020. Who Are Interent Intermediaries. Pp. 37-56 in The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Libility, edited by Giancarlo Frosio. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Elkin-Koren, Niva and Maayan Perel. 2020. Guarding the Guardians: Content Moderation By Online Intermediaries and the Rule of Law. Pp. 669-678 in The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Libility, edited by Giancarlo Frosio. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ferrara, Emilio. 2020. Bots, Elections, and Social Media: A Brief Overview. Pp95-114 in Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social Media: Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities ,edited by Kai ShuSuhang, WangDongwon, and LeeHuan Liu. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Freedman, Des. 2012. Outsourcing internet regulation Pp. 95-120 in Misunderstanding the Internet, edited by James Curran, Natalie Fenton, Des Freedman. New York:Routledge Press.
Freedman, Des. 2012. Web 2.0 and the death of the blockbuster economy Pp. 69-94, in Misunderstanding the Internet , edited by James Curran, Natalie Fenton, Des Freedman. New York: Routledge Press.
Frosio, Giancarlo. 2020. Mapping Online Intermediary Liability, Pp. 3-36, in The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Libility. edited by Giancarlo Frosio. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Frosio, Giancarlo and Sunimal Mendis. 2020. Monitoring and Filtering: European Reform or Global Trend, Pp 544-565. in The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Libility. edited by Giancarlo Frosio. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, Christian. 2018. Propaganda 2.0: Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model in the Age of the Internet, Big Data and Social Media. Pp. 80-91 in The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness, edited by Joan Pedro-Carañana Daniel Broudy Jeffery Klaehn. London: University of Westminster Press.
Galston, William A. 2012. Truth and Democracy: Theme and Variation. Pp. 130-145 In Truth and Democracy, edited by Jeremy Elkins and Andrew Norris. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grimm, Dieter. 2011. The Holocaust Denial Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Pp 557-561 in Extreme Speech and Democracy, edited by Ivan Hare and James Weinstein. New York: Oxford University Press.
Guess, Andrew M, and Benjamin A. Lyons. 2020. Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda, Pp 10-33 in Social Media and Democracy The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, edited by Nathaniel Persily and Joshua A. Tucker. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Hoy, David Couzens. 2012. On Truth and Democracy: Hermeneutic Responses. Pp. 146-153 in Truth and Democracy, edited by Jeremy Elkins and Andrew Norris. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hui Kyong Chun, Wendy. 2006. Did Somebody Say New Media?. Pp. 1-10 in New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, edited By Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Anna Watkins Fisher, and Thomas Keenan. New York: Routledge Press.
Jørgensen, Rikke & Anja Pedersen. 2017. Online Service Providers as Human Rights Arbiters. Pp. 179-199 in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG.
Laidlaw, Emily. 2017. Myth or Promise? The Corporate Social Responsibilities of Online Service Providers for Human Rights, Pp. 135-155 in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG.
Lee-Makiyama, Hosuk, and Rositsa Georgieva. 2017. The Economic Impact of Online Intermediaries Pp. 325-340 in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG.
List, Christian, and Kai Spiekermann. 2016. The Condorcet Jury Theorem and Voter-Specific Truth, Pp. 215-231 in Goldman and His Critics, edited by Brian P. McLaughlin & Hilary Kornblith. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Lodge, Martin, and Lindsay Stirton. 2010. Accountability in the Regulation State. Pp. 349-370 in The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, edited by Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Luetge, Christoph. 2017. Responsibilities of OSPs from a Business Ethics Point of View, Pp. 119-133 in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG.
Metaxas, Panagiotis Takis. 2020. Technology, Propaganda, and the Limits of the Human Intellect, Pp 245-255 in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, edited by Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew Mcleod. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Myers, David G. 2019. Psychological Science Meets a Gullible Post-Truth World, Pp. 77-100 in The Social Psychology of Gullibility: Fake News, Conspiracy Theories, and Irrational Beliefs, edited by Joseph P. Forgas & Roy Baumeister. New York: Routledge Press.
Norris, Andrew. 2012. Cynism, Skepticism, and the Politics of Truth, Pp. 95-113 in Truth and Democracy, edited by Jeremy Elkins and Andrew Norris. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pickard, Victor. 2020. Confronting the Misinformation Society: Facebook’s “Fake News” Is a Symptom of Unaccountable Monopoly Power, Pp. 123-132 in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, edited by Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew Mcleod. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Pokempner, Dinah. 2019. Regulating Online Speech: Keeping Humans, and Human Rights: at the Core. Pp. 224-245 in Free Speech in the Digital Age, edited by Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schulte, Stephanie Ricker. 2020. Fixing Fake News: Self-Regulation and Technological Solutionism, Pp. 133-144 in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, edited by Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew Mcleod. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Scott, Colin. 2010. Standard‐Setting in Regulatory Regimes, Pp. 104-119 in The Oxford Handbook of Regulation, edited by Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, Colin. 2010. Reflexive Governance, Regulation and Meta Regulation: Control or Learning, Pp. 44-63. in Reflexive Governance: Redefining the Public Interest in a Pluralistic World, edited by Olivier De Schutter & Jacoques Lenoble. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Stöcker, Christian. 2020. How Facebook and Google Accidentally Created a Perfect Ecosystem for Targeted Disinformation, Pp129-149 in Disinformation in Open Online Media: First Multidisciplinary International Symposium, MISDOOM 2019, Hamburg, Germany, February 27 – March 1, 2019, Revised Selected Papers, edited by Christian Grimme, Mike Preuss, Frank W. Takes, Annie Waldherr.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2017. New Civic Responsibilities for Online Service Providers, Pp. 1-10 in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG.
Valdez, Andr ́e Calero. 2020.Human and Algorithmic Contributions to Misinformation Online - Identifying the Culprit. Pp3-15 in Disinformation in Open Online Media: First Multidisciplinary International Symposium, MISDOOM 2019, Hamburg, Germany, February 27 – March 1, 2019, Revised Selected Papers, edited by Christian Grimme, Mike Preuss, Frank W. Takes, Annie Waldherr.
Wardle, Claire. 2020. Journalism and the New Information Ecosystem: Responsibilities and Challenges. Pp 71-86 in Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age, edited by Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew Mcleod. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Woolley, Samuel C. 2020. Bots and Computational Propaganda: Automation for Communication and Control. Pp.89-110 in Social Media and Democracy The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, edited by Nathaniel Persily and Joshua A. Tucker. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Woolley, Samuel C., Philip N. Howard. 2019. Introduction: Computational Propaganda Worldwide. Pp. 3-18 in Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media, edited by Samuel C. Woolley & Philip N. Howard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, Tim. 2019. Is the First Amendment Obsolete? Pp. 272-291 in The Free speech Century, edited by Lee.c Bollinger and Geoffery R. Stone. New York: Oxford University Press.
英文期刊論文
Andorfer, Alexandra. 2018. Spreading like Wildfire: Solutions for Abating the Fake News Problem on Social Media via Technology Controls and Government Regulation, Hastings Law Journal 69:1409-1431.
Bambauer, Derek E.. 2006. Shopping Badly: Cognitive Biases, Communications, and the Fallacy of the Marketplace of Ideas, University of Colorado Law Review 77:649-710.
Balkin, Jack M.. 2014. Old-school/New-school Speech Regulation. Harvard Law Review 127:2296-2342.
Balkin, J. M.. 2018. Free speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big data, Private Governance, and New school Speech Regulation. U.C. Davis Law Review 51:1149-1210.
Balkin, Jack M.. 2018. Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review 118:2011-2056.
Balkin, Jack. M.. 2018. The First Amendment in the Second Gilded age. Buffalo Law Review, 66:979-1012.
Barzilai-Nahon, Karine. 2008. Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:1493-1512.
Bezemek, Christoph. 2015. The Epistemic Neutrality of the Marketplace of Ideas: Milton, Mill, Brandeis, and Holmes on Falsehood and Freedom of Speech, First Amendment Law Review 14:159-181.
Blitz, Marc Jonathan. 2018. Lies, Line Drawing, and Deep Fake News, Oklahoma Law Review 71:59-116.
Blocher, Joseph. 2019. Free speech and Justified True Belief. Harvard Law Review 133:439-496.
boyd, danah m.. and Nicole B. Ellison. 2008. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13:210-230.
Brazeal, Gregory. 2011. How Much Does a Belief Cost: Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 21:1-46.
Brietzke, Paul H.. 1997. How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails, Valparaiso University Law Review 31:951-970.
Calvert, Clay, Stephanie McNeff, Austin Vining, and Sebastian Zarate. 2018. Fake News and the First Amendment: Reconciling Disconnect Between Theory and Doctrine. University of Cincinnati Law Review. 86:99-138.
Cavender, Brittainy. 2017. The Personalization Puzzle, Washington University Jurisprudence Review 10:97-122.
Ceron, Andrea. 2015. Internet, News, and Political Trust: The Difference Between Social Media and Online Media Outlets, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20:487-503.
Chander, Anupam. 2012. Facebookistan, North Carolina Law Review. 90:1807-1844.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2018. False Speech and the First Amendment, Oklahoma Law Review 71:1-16.
DeVito, Michael A.. 2017. From Editors to Algorithms, Digital Journalism 5:753-773. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1178592
Fagan, Frank. 2018. Systemic Social Media Regulation, Duke Law & Technology Review 16:393-439.
Flynn, D.J., Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2017. The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics. Advances in Political Psychology 38:127-150.
Fox, A. 2020. Automated political speech: Regulating social media bots in the political sphere. First Amendment Law Review,18(3):114-166.
Fradtte, Jacquelyn E.. 2014. Online Terms of Service: A Shield for First Amendment Scrutiny of Government Action, Notre Dame Law Review 89:947-984.
Gelfert, Axel. 2018. Fake News: A Definition, Informal Logic 38:84-117.
Gellman, Robert. 1996. Disintermediation and the internet, Government Information Quarterly 13:1-8.
Gey, Steven G.. 2008. The First Amendment and the Dissemination of Socially Worthless Untruths, Florida State University Law Review 36:1-22.
Goldberg, David. 2018. Responding to “Fake News”: Is There an Alternative to Law and Regulation, Southwesten Law Review l47:417-447.
Goldman, Alvin I.. 1991. Epistemic Paternalism: Communication Control in Law and Society. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(3):113-131.
Goldman, Alvin I & James C. Cox. 1996. Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas, Legal Theory 2:1-32.
Goldman, Alvin I & Daniel Baker. 2019. Free speech, Fake news, and Democracy. First Amendment Law Review 18:66-141.
Grafanaki Sofia. 2018. Platforms, the First Amendment and Online Speech Regulating the Filters, Pace Law Review 39:111-162.
Greenawalt, Kent. 1989. Free speech Justifications. Columbia Law Review 89:119-155.
Grimmelman, James. 2009. Saving facebook. Iowa Law Review 94:1137-1206.
Gutierrez, K. 2019. Keeping Speech Cheap: The Progressive Case for Free Internet.UCLA Law Review Discourse 67:71-89.
Guzelian, Christopher. 2006. True and False Speech. Public Law & Legal Theory. Research Paper Series 51:669-718.
Guzelian, Christopher. 2014. False speech: Quagmire. San Diego Law Review, 51:19-80.
Haan, Sarah C.. 2019. Facebook's Alternative Facts. Virginia Law Review Online, 105:18-36.
Han, David S.. 2014. The Mechanics of First Amendment Audience Analysis. William & Mary Law Review, 55:1647-1718.
Han, David S.. 2017. Conspiracy Theories and The Marketplace of Facts. First Amendment Law Review 16:178-199.
Han, David S.. 2018. Categorizing Lies. University of Colorado Law Review, 89:613-654.
Hasen, Richard L.. 2018. Cheap Speech and What It Has Done (to American Democracy) , First Amendment Law Review 16:200-231.
Heins, Marjorie. 2013. The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship. Harvard Law Review Forum 127: 325-330.
Helberger, Natali and Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, and Rob van der Noll. 2015. Regulating The New Information Intermediaries as Gatekeepers of Information diversity. Info 17:50-71.
Heldt, Amélie Pia. 2019. Reading Between the Lines and the Numbers: An Analysis of the First NetzDG Reports. Internet Policy Review, 8:1-18. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3413677
Horwitz, Paul. 2012. The First Amendment's Epistemological Problem, Washington Law Review 87:445-494.
Hundley, Annie C.. 2017. Fake News and the First Amendment: How False Political Speech Kills the Marketplace of Ideas, Tulane Law Review 92:497-518.
Hunt, Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31:211-236.
Ingber, Stanley. 1984. The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth, Duke Law Journal 1984:1-91.
Iosifidis, Petros and Leighton Andrews. 2019. Regulating the Internet Intermediaries in a Post-Truth World: Beyond Media Policy. The International Communication Gazette 82:1-20.
Jackson, Benjamin F.. 2014. Censorship and Freedom of Expression in The Age of Facebook. New Mexico Law Review 44:121-168.
Kaesling, Katharina. 2018. Privatising Law Enforcement in Social Networks: Comparative Model Analysis. Erasmus Law Review, 11:151-164.
Kerr, Robert L. 2019. From Holmes to Zuckerberg: Keeping Marketplace-of-Ideas Theory Viable in the Age of Algorithms, Communication Law and Policy 24: 477-512. DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2019.1660543
Klonick, Kate. 2018. The New governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online speech. Harvard Law Review 131:1598-1670.
Kraakman, Reinier H.. 1986. Gatekeepers: The Anatomy of Third-Party Enforcement Strategy. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 2:53-104.
Laidlaw, Emily A.. 2010. Framework for Identifying Internet Information Gatekeepers. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 24:1-16. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2667902
Langvardt, Kyle. 2018. Regulating online content moderation. Georgetown Law Journal, 106:1353-1388.
Levi, Lili. 2017. Real Fake News and Fake Fake News Essays, First Amendment Law Review 16:232-327.
Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett. 2008. Where's The Harm-: Free speech and The Regulation of Lies. Washington and Lee Law Review, 65:1091-1102.
Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett. 2010. Nobody's Fools: The Rational Audience as First Amendment Ideal. University of Illinois Law Review 2010:799-850.
Loewy, Arnold H.. 1993. Freedom of Speech as a Product of Democracy. University of Richmond Law Review 27:427-440.
Magarian, Gregory P.. 2018. Forward into the Past: Speech Intermediaries in the Television and Internet Ages, Oklahoma Law Review 71:237-268.
Manzi, Daniela C.. 2019. Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight against Fake News. Fordham Law Review 87:2623-2652.
Marshall, William P.. 1995. In Defense of The Search For Truth as First Amendment Justification. Georgia Law Review, 30:1-40.
Messenger, Ashley. 2017. The Epistemic and Moral Dimensions of Fake News and the First Amendment, First Amendment Law Review 16:328-341.
Moon, Laura E.. 2019. New Role for Social Network Providers: Netzdg and the Communications Decency Act. Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 28:623-646.
Murchison, Brian C.. 2015. Speech and the Truth-Seeking Value. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 39:55-117.
Napoli, Philip M. 1999. The Marketplace of Ideas Metaphor In Communications Regulation, Journal of Communication Vol 49:151-169.
Napoli, Philip M. 2018. What If More Speech Is No Longer the Solution: First Amendment Theory Meets Fake News and the Filter Bubble. Federal Communications Law Journal 70:55-104.
Norton, Helen. 2012. Lies and the Constitution, Supreme Court Review 2012:161-202.
Nuñez, Fernando.2020. Disinformation Legislation and Freedom of Expression, U.C. Irvine Law Review 10:783-798.
Nunziato, Dawn Carla. 2019. The Marketplace of Ideas Online, Notre Dame Law Review 94:1519-1584.
Obar, Jonathan A. and Steve Wildman. 2015. Social Media Definition and the. Governance Challenge: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Telecommunications Policy 39:745-750.
Parsons, G. 2020. Fighting for attention: Democracy, Free speech, and The Marketplace of Ideas. Minnesota Law Review, 104(5):2157-2256.
Pepp, Jessica, Eliot Michaelson, and Rachel Katharine Sterken. 2019. What's New About Fake News? Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy 16:67-94.
Pielemeier, Jason. 2020. Disentangling disinformation: What makes regulating disinformation so difficult?. Utah Law Review, 2020(4):917-940.
Piety, Tamara R.. 2007. Market Failure in the Marketplace of Ideas: Commercial Speech and the Problem that Won't Go Away, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 41:181-226.
Post, Robert. 2005. Democracy and Equality. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603:24-36.
Post, Robert. 2011. Participatory Democracy and Free Speech. Virginia Law Review 97:477-490.
Rochefort, Alex. 2020. Regulating Social Media Platforms: A Comparative Policy Analysis, Communication Law and Policy, 24:225-260, DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2020.1735194
Sander, B. 2020. Freedom of Expression in the Age of Online Platforms: The Promise and Pitfalls of Human Rights-based Approach to Content Moderation. Fordham International Law Journal 43(4):939-1006.
Sanders, Amy Kristin & Rachael L. Jones. 2018. Clicks at Any Cost: Why Regulation Won't Upend the Economics of Fake News, 2 Bus., Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review2:339-358.
Savino, Emma M.. 2017. Fake News: No One Is Liable, and That Is a Problem, Buffalo Law Review 65:1101-1168.
Scott, Colin. 2001. Analysing Regulatory Space: Fragmented Resources and Institutional Design, Public Law(pre-copy edited version): 1-35.
Schauer, Frederick. 1991. Reflections on the Value of Truth. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 41:699-724.
Schauer, Frederick. 2004. The Boundaries of The First Amendment: Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience. Harvard Law Review 117:1765-1809.
Schauer, Frederick. 2010. Facts and the First Amendment, UCLA Law Review 57:897-920.
Schauer, Frederick. 2011. Harm(s) and the First Amendment. Supreme Court Review 2011:81-112.
Schauer, Frederick. 2017. Free speech, the Search for truth, and The Problem of Collective Knowledge. SMU Law Review 70:231-254.
Schroeder, Jared. 2018. Marketplace Theory in the Age of AI Communicators. First Amendment Law Review 17:22-64.
Schroeder, Jared. 2018. Toward a Discursive Marketplace of Ideas: Reimaging the Marketplace Metaphor in The Era of Social Media, Fake news, and Artificial Intelligence. First Amendment Studies 52:38-60.
Scott, Colin. 2000. Accountability in the Regulatory State. Journal of Law and Society, 27:38-60.
Schulz, Wolfgang. 2018. Regulating Intermediaries to Protect Privacy Online – The Case of the German NetzDG, Hiig Discussion Paper Series 2018-01:1-14.
Singer, J. B. 2006. Stepping Back from the Gate: Online Newspaper Editors and the Co-Production of Content in Campaign 2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83:265-280.
Spottswood, Mark. 2008. Falsity, Insincerity, and the Freedom of Expression, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 16:1203-1278.
Stone-Erdman, Jessica. 2017. Just the (Alternative) Facts, Ma'am: The Status of Fake News under the First Amendment, First Amendment Law Review 16:410-441.
Sullivan, Kathleen M. 1995. Free Speech and Unfree Markets. UCLA Law Review 42:949-966.
Syed, Nabiha. 2017. Real Talk About Fake News: Towards a Better Theory for Platform Governance. Yale Law Journal Forum. 127:337-357.
Tandoc, Edson C. Jr., Zheng Wei Lim, and Richard Ling. 2018 . Defining “Fake News”. Digital Journalism 6:137-153.
Teubner, Gunther. 2017. Horizontal Effects of Constitutional Rights in the Internet: Legal Case: on the Digital Constitution. Italian Law Journal, 3:193-206.
Thorson, E. A., & Stohler, S. 2017. Maladies in the Misinformation Marketplace. First Amendment Law Review 16(Symposium): 442-453.
Tutt, Andrew. 2014. The New speech. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 41:235-298.
Tworek, Heidi and Paddy Leerssen. 2019. An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law. Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression :1-11.
Varat, Jonathan D.. 2018. Truth, Courage, and Other Human Dispositions: Reflections on Falsehoods and the First Amendment. Oklahoma Law Review 71:35-58.
Volokh, Eugene. 1995. Cheap Speech and What It Will Do.Yale Law Journal 104:1805-1852.
Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The Spread of True and False news Online, Science 359:1146-1151.
Waldman, Ari Ezra. 2018. The Marketplace of Fake News. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 20:845-870.
Walters, Ryan M.. 2018. How to Tell a Fake: Fighting Back against Fake News on the Front Lines of Social Media. Texas Review of Law and Politics 23:111-180.
Weaver, R. L. 2020. Social Media Platforms and Democratic Disclosure. Lewis & Clark Law Review 23(4):1385-1416.
Weinstein, James. 2019. Free Speech and Domain Allocation: A Suggested Framework for Analyzing the Constitutionality of Prohibition of Lies. Oklahoma Law Review 71:167-236.
Weinstein, James. 2011. Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine. Virginia Law Review 97:491-514.
Weinstein, J. 2020. What Lies Ahead?: The Marketplace of Ideas, Alvarez v. United States, and First Amendment Protection of Knowing Falsehoods. Seton Hall Law Review, 51(1):135-168.
White, G. Edward. 2019. Falsity and the First Amendment. SMU Law Review 72:513-533.
Wischmeyer, Thomas. 2019. Making Social Media an Instrument of Democracy. European Law Journal 25:169-181.
Wolff, Daniel. 2018. Fundamental Rights in the Digital Era, Horizontal Effect and the Distinction between State and Society in German and European Constitutional Theory.Frontiers of Law in China 13:441-455.
Wonnell, Christopher T. 1986. Truth and the Marketplace of Ideas, U.C. Davis Law Review 19:669-728.
Abby K. Wood & Ann M. Ravel. 2018. Fool Me Once: Regulating Fake News and Other Online Advertising. Southern California Law Review 91:1223-1278.
Wu, Tim. 2018. Is the First Amendment Obsolete?. Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-573:1-27.
Wu, Tim. 2020. Disinformation in the Marketplace of Ideas. Seton Hall Law Review, 51(1):169-174.
Yemini, Moran. 2018. The New Irony of Free Speech. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 20:119-194.
其他類型英文資料
Alibašić, Haris & Jonathan Rose. 2019. Fake News in Context: Truth and Untruths, Public Integrity 21:5:463-468, DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2019.1622359.
Bakir, Vian & Andrew McStay. 2018. Fake News and the Economy of Emotions: Problems, Causes, Solutions. Digital Journalism 6:154-175. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645
Balkin, Jack M.. 2019. How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media (November. 8, 2019). 1-25. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3484114 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3484114
Barron, James. 1988. Celebrating the Day the Martians Landed, Special To the New York Times (September. 16, 1988).
At: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/16/nyregion/celebrating-the-day-the-martians-landed.html?fbclid=IwAR04j0rEwPmqYtzITkeiLXv_32teKy_V_Kz-erVEhU9gCoJizWbmIs_CqKc
Bell, Emily. 2016. Facebook is eating the world, Columbia Journalism Review (Mar.7, 2016). Available at https://www.cjr.org/analysis/facebook_and_media.php.
Brahms, Yael. 2020. Philosophy of Post-Truth. Institute for National Security Studies (2020):1-19. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/resrep23537 .
Bilton, Nick. 2012. Is Twitter a Media or Technology Company? The New York Times (Jul. 25, 2012). Available at https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/is-twitter-a-media-or-technology-company/
Caplan, Robyn, Lauren Hanson, and Joan Donovan. 2018. Dead reckoning: Navigating content moderation after "fake news", Data& Society:1-38.
Dutton, William H. 2017. Fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles are an exaggerated threat. Here's why. World Economic Forum Blog. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/fake-news-echo-chambers-and-filter- bubbles-are-an-exaggerated-threat-heres-why
Echikson, William and Olivia Knodt. Germany’s NetzDG: A Key Test for Combatting Online Hate. CEPS Policy Insight :1-28 (November 22, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3300636
Fiegerman, Seth. 2016. Dear Facebook, you're a media company now. Start acting like one. Mashable (Jun.15, 2016). Available at: https://mashable.com/2016/05/15/facebook-media-company/
Fiveash, Kelly. 2016. “We’re a tech company, we’re not a media company,” says Facebook founder. Arstechnica.com (Aug.30, 2016). Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/germany-facebook-edit-hateful-posts-zuckerberg-says-not-media-empire/
Linda Weiser Friedman & Hershey H. Friedman. 2008. The New Media Technologies: Overview and Research Framework. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1116771 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1116771
Goldman, Alvin I. Free speech, Fake news, and Democracy. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Free-Speech-Fake-News-Democ-2-18-18.pdf (last visited Dec. 5, 2019).
Griffith, Erin. 2017. Memo to Facebook: How to Tell If You’re a Media Company, Wired (Oct.12,2017). Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/memo-to-facebook-how-to-tell-if-youre-a-media-company/
Guynn, Jessica. 2016. Zuckerberg: Facebook isn't a 'traditional' media company, USA Today (Dec. 22, 2016). Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/21/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-not-a-traditional-media-company/95717102/.
Kantrowitz, Alex. 2016. Twitter Embraces Its Role As A Media Company. BuzzFeed. News (Dec. 28, 2016). Available at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/twitter-embraces-its-role-as-a-media-company
Minow, Martha. 2019. The Changing Ecosystem of News and Challenges for Freedom of the Press. LOYOLA LAW REVIEW, NEW ORLEANS, FORTHCOMING, HARVARD PUBLIC LAW WORKING PAPER NO. 19-20. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3378150 .
Napoli, Philip M. and Caplan, Robyn. 2016. When Media Companies Insist They're Not Media Companies and Why It Matters for Communications Policy:1-39 (Mar. 18, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2750148 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2750148.
Quattrociocchi ,Walter, Antonio Scala, and Cass R. Sunstein. 2016. Echo Chambers on Facebook. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110
Schulz, Wolfgang. 2019. Roles and Responsibilities of Information Intermediaries: Fighting Misinformation as a Test Case for a Human Rights–Respecting Governance of Social Media Platforms. Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law. Aegis Series Paper No. 1904 (November 13, 2019). available at https://www.lawfareblog.com/roles-and-responsibilities-information-intermediaries.
Starck, Christian. 2000. State Duties of Protection and Fundamental Rights. available at http://www.puk.ac.za/lawper/2000-1/starck.htm.
Tambini, D. 2017. How advertising fuels fake news, LSE Media Policy Project Blog.
Tushnet, Mark. 2011. Telling Me Lies: The Constitutionality of Regulating False Statements of Fact, Harvard Public Law Working Paper NO. 11-02.
Wardle, Claire and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. Information Disorder Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Available at https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-2017/1680766412 .
Wuil, Joo, Thomas. 2014 .The Worst Test of Truth: The 'Marketplace of Ideas' as Faulty Metaphor. Tulane Law Review: Forthcoming; UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 369.14-20 Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2399272 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2399272
Wu, Tim. 2017. Blind Spot: The Attention Economy and the Law, Antitrust Law Journal, Forthcoming, 1-39. Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2029
Young, Kevin. 2017. Moon Shot: Race, a Hoax, and the Birth of Fake News, The New Yorker . October .21, 2017. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/moon-shot-race-a-hoax-and-the-birth-of-fake-news
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊