仇恨言論的概念，特別是網路仇恨言論，受到各國政府或國際機構的關注。學者，官僚和立法者都認為對於網路上仇恨言論是否應該受到監管仍然意見不一。任何言論管制都將不可避免地帶來言論自由的問題，例如政府能否提出管制仇恨言論的憲法正當性以。現今我們的大部分言論都是在網路上對話，因此政府需要網路平台的幫助來執行這些網路上的言論管制。這樣情形也會帶出私人審查言論的問題。
在這篇論文中，我將討論仇恨言論的概念以及它是否是一種應該受到管制的言論。本文將討論利用網路平台的來管制網路上仇恨言論管制的有效性與正當性。因為政府需要網路平台來管制言論，相關政策將賦予平台前所未見的私人審查言論權力權。本文將討論政府有無權力限制網路平台的的私人言論審查力量，並且如何確保限制網路平台權利時，仍然保護網路平台的商業利益和權利。最後，本論文將給出一個解決方案，確保網路上個人的言論自由受到保護，不被政府或私人言論審查侵害。

The concept of hate speech, especially online hate speech, is a topic address by many governments or international authorities. Scholars, bureaucrats, and legislators all have different opinion on whether online hate speech should be regulated. Any speech regulation will inevitably bring forth the problem of free speech, such as can the government justified these regulations under the constitution. Because most of our public discourse is conducted online in these day, the government need the help of online platforms that host people’s speech to enforce these speech regulation. This will also bring out the problem of private censorship.
In this thesis, I will discuss the concept of hate speech and whether it is a kind of speech that should be regulated. Then this thesis will discuss the validity of the current online speech regulation that involves the help of online platforms. Because the government need the help of the online platforms and most of our discourse is now online, this give the online platforms unprecedent censorship power. This thesis will discuss can the government limit these power of private censorship but also protect the commercial interest and rights of the online platform. Finally, this thesis will give a solution that will ensure that everyone can exercise free speech without being censor by the government or private entity.

Table of Content
I. INTRODUCTION: 1
A. AIM AND PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS 1
B. METHODOLOGY 2
C. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
II. AN OVERVIEW OF HATE SPEECH 6
A. DEFINING HATE SPEECH IN AN ONLINE ENVIRONMENT 6
B. COMPARISON OF SIMILAR CONCEPT 12
C. REASONS SUPPORTING OR AGAINST REGULATING HATE SPEECH 27
D. CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF HATE SPEECH REGULATION 30
E. CHAPTER CONCLUSION 51
III. ONLINE PLATFORMS: WHERE HATE SPEECH ARE REGULATED 52
A. DEFINING ONLINE PLATFORMS 52
B. GOVERNMENT REASONS ON REGULATING ONLINE PLATFORMS 54
C. CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ON ONLINE PLATFORM REGULATION 61
D. INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLE FOR OF ONLINE PLATFORM REGULATION 67
E. CHAPTER CONCLUSION 70
IV. LEGISLATIVE EXAMPLES OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH REGULATION 71
A. PUBLIC-PRIVATE COOPERATION REGULATION 71
B. NGOS, CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP COOPERATION 76
C. INCREASE ONLINE PLATFORM LIABILITIES 76
D. ONLINE PLATFORM SELF-REGULATION 81
E. CHAPTER CONCLUSION 89
V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF TAIWAN’S ONLINE HATE SPEECH REGULATION 91
A. STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND COMMERCIAL INTEREST 92
B. A PROPOSED SOLUTION 94
C. CHAPTER CONCLUSION: 105
VI. THESIS CONCLUSION 107
REFERENCE 109
A. IN ENGLISH 109
B. IN CHINSES 120

Reference

A. In English
1. Articles
 Ashley A. Anderson, The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies, 19 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 373, 383 (2014)
 Beth Elise Whitaker, Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the 'War on Terror' in the Third World, 28 Third World Quarterly, 1017, 1026 (2007)
 Bernard Schwartz, Holmes Versus Hand: Clear and Present Danger or Advocacy of Unlawful Action?, 1994 Sup. Ct. Rev. 209, 240 (1994)
 Bryce Goodman & Seth Flaxman, European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation", 38 AI Magazine 50, 52 (2017)
 Cass R. Sunstein, Free Speech Now, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 255 (1992)
 Cass R. Sunstein, Low Value Speech Revisited, 83 Nw. U. L. Rev. 555 (1989)
 Catherine E. Tucker, Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls, 5 Journal of Marketing Research, 546 (2014)
 Charles R. Lawrence III, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech On Campus, 1990 Duke L.J. 431(1990)
 Christina Mulligan, Technological Intermediaries and Freedom of the Press, 66 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2013)
 Claudia E. Haupt, Regulating Hate Speech--Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don't: Lessons Learned From Comparing The German And U.S. Approaches, 23 B.U. Int'l L.J. 299 (2005)
 Christina E. Wells, Fear and Loathing in Constitutional Decision-Making, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 115, 133 (2005)
 Claudia G. Catalano, Validity, Construction, and Application of Immunity Provisions of Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230, 52 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 37 (2011)
 Dan L. Burk, Trademarks Along the Infobahn: A First Look at the Emerging Law of Cybermarks, 1 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 1 (1995).
 David A. Jacobs, The Ban Of Neo-Nazi Music: Germany Takes On The Neo- Nazis, 34 Harv. Int'l L.J. 563 (1993)
 David R. Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stan L. Rev. 1367 (1996)
 David M. Rabban, The Emergence of Modern First Amendment Doctrine, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1205, 1321 (1983)
 David Riesman, Democracy and Defamation: Control of Group Libel, 42 Columbia Law Review, 727, 728 (1942)
 Doshi-Velez, Finale, and Mason Kortz, Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (2017)
 Eric Goldman, Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism, 8 Yale J. L. & Tech. 188 (2006)
 Eugene Volokh, Freedom Of Speech, Permissible Tailoring And Transcending Strict Scrutiny, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2417 (1996)
 Felix T. Wu, Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 293 (2011)
 Frank Pasquale, Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness, and Accountability in the Law of Search, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 1149, 1207 (2008)
 Frank Pasquale, Platform Neutrality Enhancing Freedom of Expression in Spheres of Private Power, 17 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 487,497 (2016)
 Frederick Schauer, Intentions, Conventions, and the First Amendment: The Case of Cross-Burning, 55 Sup. Ct. Rev. 197, 208 (2003)
 Genevieve Lakier, The Invention of Low-Value Speech, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 2166, 2195 (2015)
 Geoffrey R. Stone, Content Neutral Restrictions, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 46 (1987)
 Geoffrey R. Stone, Content Regulation And The First Amendment, 25 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 189 (1983)
 Gregory M. Dickinson, An Interpretive Framework for Narrower Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 33 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 863 (2010)
 Guy E. Carmi, Dignity Versus Liberty The Two Western Cultures Of Free Speech, 26 B.U. Int'l L.J. 277 (2008)
 Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Colored Speech: Cross Burnings, Epistemics, and the Triumph of the Crits?, 93 Geo. L.J. 575, 631 (2005)
 Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan, Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, 79 (1st ed. 2012).
 Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1, 4 (2004)
 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech and Hostile Environments, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 2295 (1999)
 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1149 (2018)
 Jack M. Balkin, Old-School/new-School Speech Regulation, 127 Harv. L. Rev2296 (2014)
 Jae Hong Lee, Batzel v. Smith & Barrett v. Rosenthal: Defamation Liability for Third-Party Content on the Internet, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 469 (2004)
 Jeffrey M. Shaman, The Theory of Low Value Speech, 48 SMU L. Rev. 297 (1995)
 Jennifer A. Chandler, A Right to Reach an Audience: An Approach to Intermediary Bias on the Internet, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 1095, 1096 (2007)
 Jerry Berman & Daniel J. Weitzner, Abundance and User Control: Renewing the Democratic Heart of the First Amendment in the Age of Interactive Media, 104 Yale L.J. 1619, 1622 (1995)
 James Bohman, Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy, 52 THE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 131 (2004)
 John E. Calfee Richard, Some Effects of Uncertainty on Compliance with Legal Standards, 70 Va. L. Rev. 965 (1984)
 Jonathan A. Obar, Social Media Definition and the Governance Challenge: An Introduction to the Special Issue, 39 Telecommunications Policy, 745 (2015)
 Karine Barzilai-Nahon, Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control, 59 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1493 (2008)
 Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, And Processes Governing Online Speech, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598 (2018).
 Kevin Wallsten, Yes We Can How Online Viewership Blog Discussion Campaign Statements and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video Phenomenon, 7 Journal of Information Technology & Politics 163 (2010)
 Lauren Mellinger, Illusion of Security: Why the Amended Eu Framework Decision Criminalizing "Incitement to Terrorism" on the Internet Fails to Defend Europe from Terrorism, 37 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 339, 340 (2010)
 Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, AUTHORSHIP, AUDIENCES, AND ANONYMOUS SPEECH, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1537, 1574 (2007)
 Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Incendiary Speech and Social Media, 44 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 147 (2011);
 Mari J. Matsuda, Public Response To Racist Speech: Considering The Victim's Story, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2320 (1989)
 Mark A. Graber, Old Wine in New Bottles: The Constitutional Status of Unconstitutional Speech, 48 Vand. L. Rev. 349, 367 (1995)
 Martin H. Redish,The Value of Free Speech, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 591 (1982)
 Marvin Ammori, The "New" New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 2259 (2014)
 Michael Froomkin, FLOOD CONTROL ON THE INFORMATION OCEAN: LIVING WITH ANONYMITY, DIGITAL CASH, AND DISTRIBUTED DATABASES, 15 J.L. & Com. 395 (1996).
 Michael J. Mannheimer, The Fighting Words Doctrine, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1527, 1554 (1993)
 Michael I. Meyerson, Authors, Editors, and Uncommon Carriers: Identifying the "Speaker" Within the New Media, 71 Notre Dame L. Rev. 79 (1995)
 Michel Rosenfeld, Hate Speech In Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1523 (2003).
 Nadine Strossen, Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?, 1990 Duke L.J. 484, 556 (1990)
 Natasha L. Minsker, I Have A Dream--Never Forget”: When Rhetoric Becomes Law, A Comparison Of The Jurisprudence Of Race In Germany And The United States, 14 Harv. BlackLetter L.J. 113 (1998).
 Nathaniel Gleicher, JOHN DOE SUBPOENAS: TOWARD A CONSISTENT LEGAL STANDARD, 118 Yale L.J. 320 (2008)
 Neil Weinstock Netanel, Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 395, 442 (2000)
 Richard Delgado, Words That Wound: A Tort Action For Racial Insults, Epithets, And Name-Calling, 17 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 133 (1982)
 Richard A. Posner, Free Speech in an Economic Perspective, 20 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1, 53 (1986)
 Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL. 1 (1971)
 Robert Cannon, The Legislative History of Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act: Regulating Barbarians on the Information Superhighway, 49 Fed. Comm. L.J. 51 (1996)
 Robert Slonje, The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention, 29 COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR,26,29 (2013)
 Ronald Coase, The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas, 64 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 384 (1974)
 Sanjiv N. Singh, Cyberspace: A New Frontier for Fighting Words, 25 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 283, 284 (1999)
 Stanley Ingber, The Marketplace Of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth, 1984 Duke L.J. 1 (1984)
 Stephen W. Gard, Fighting Words as Free Speech, 58 Wash. U. L. Q. 531, 537 (1980)
 Steven G. Gey, A Few Questions About Cross Burning, Intimidation, and Free Speech, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1287, 1373 (2005)
 Tarleton Gillespie, The politics of ‘platforms’, 12 New Media & Society, 347 (2010)
 Terrica Carrington, Grumpy Cat or Copy Cat? Memetic Marketing in the Digital Age, 7 Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 139 (2016)
 Vincent Blasi, The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 449 (1985)
 William A. Schabas, HATE SPEECH IN RWANDA: THE ROAD TO GENOCIDE, 46 McGill L.J. 141 (2000).
2. Books
 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
 Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (1988)
 EDWARD J. EBERLE, Dignity and Liberty Constitutional Visions in Germany and the United States (1st ed. 2002).
 Geoffrey R. Stone et al., The First Amendment (3rd ed. 2008)
 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, (Oxford University Press 1989)
 YOCHAI BENKLER, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, (2006)
3. Cases
 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
 Anniskette v. State, 489 P.2d 1012, 1014 (Alaska 1971)
 Anderson v. New York Tel. Co., 42 A.D.2d 151 (1973)
 Beauharnais v. People of State of Ill., 343 U.S. 250 (1952)
 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)
 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
 Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980)
 Case C 360/10, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog, EU:C:2012:85
 CG v. Facebook Ireland Ltd (unreported) Court of Appeal 21 December 2016.
 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
 Citizen Publ'g Co. v. Miller, 210 Ariz. 513 (2005)
 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
 City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002)
 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
 Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978)
 Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
 Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
 Denver Area Educ. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996)
 Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1989)
 Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)
 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
 Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
 Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
 Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976)
 Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal. 5th 522 (2018)
 Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 106 (1973)
 Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977)
 Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541, 574 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
 Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 626 (D. Del. 2007)
 Marsh v. State of Ala., 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946)
 Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
 N. A. A. C. P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927 (1982)
 Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)
 Prune Yard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 83 (1980)
 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
 Red Lion Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
 Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 487 (1957)
 Search King Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc., No. CIV-02-1457-M, 2003 WL 21464568, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2003)
 Sikhs for Justice "SFJ", Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
 Smith v. People of the State of California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959)
 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995)
 Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
 Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101, (1940)
 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994)
 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997)
 United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 1950)
 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 469 (2010)
 Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
 Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 324 (1957)
 Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
 Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)

4. News Article
 Adam Satariano, Europe Is Reining In Tech Giants. But Some Say It’s Going Too Far, The New York Times, May 6, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/technology/europe-tech-censorship.html
 Adeel Hassan, Karen Zraick & Alan Blinder, Morris Dees, a Co-Founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Is Ousted, The New York Times, March 14, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html
 BBC News, Facebook 'to be fined $5bn over Cambridge Analytica scandal', BBC NEWS (Jul.13, 2019) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48972327
 BBC, Twitter blocks French government with its own fake news law, BBC, April 3, 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47800418
 Brent Kendall & John D. McKinnon, Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google, The Wallstreet Journal (May 31, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-is-preparing-antitrust-investigation-of-google-11559348795
 Chris Hughes, It’s Time to Break Up Facebook, The New York Times (May 9, 2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html
 Daisuke Wakabayashi, Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jul. 25, 2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html
 Daniel Beekman & Jim Brunner, Podcast: David Neiwert on the rise of right-wing extremism, ‘Alt-America’ and why he got suspended from Twitter, THE SEATTLE TIMES, (21, Jun, 2019) https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/podcast-author-david-neiwert-on-the-rise-of-right-wing-extremism-alt-america-and-why-he-got-suspended-from-twitter/
 David Meyer, Facebook and Google’s Data-Control Tactics Aren’t Just a Privacy Issue Anymore, Fortune (Jul. 4, 2019) https://fortune.com/2019/07/04/facebook-google-data-competition/
 EMILY BIRNBAUM, Twitter suspends EU election campaign accounts for two candidates who were previously banned, The Hill, (Apr. 26, 2019) https://thehill.com/policy/technology/440869-twitter-suspends-eu-election-campaign-accounts-for-two-candidates-who-were
 ERASMUS, Why free speech, hate speech and radicalisation are hard to define, THE ECONOMIST (Feb. 1, 2019) https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/02/01/why-free-speech-hate-speech-and-radicalisation-are-hard-to-define
 Isaac Stanley-Becker, Facebook deletes, and then restores, Elizabeth Warren’s ads criticizing the platform, drawing her rebuke, THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar 12,2019) https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/12/facebook-deletes-then-restores-elizabeth-warrens-ads-criticizing-platform-drawing-her-rebuke/?utm_term=.73787e38a627
 Jim Waterson, Threat to journalists at highest level in 10 years, report says, THE GUARDIAN, (5, Dec, 2018) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/05/threat-journalists-highest-level-10-years-report
 Max Fisher, Inside Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech, New York Times, (Dec. 27, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/world/facebook-moderators.html
 Mathieu Rosemain, Exclusive: In a world first, Facebook to give data on hate speech suspects to French courts, REUTERS (Jun. 25, 2019) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tech-exclusive/exclusive-in-a-world-first-facebook-to-give-data-on-hate-speech-suspects-to-french-courts-idUSKCN1TQ1TJ
 Mike Isaac & Kevin Roose, Facebook Bars Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan and Others From Its Services, THE NEW YORK TIME (May 2, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/technology/facebook-alex-jones-louis-farrakhan-ban.html
 Nick Statt, Leaked Google research shows company grappling with censorship and free speech, THE VERGE (Oct. 10, 2018) https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/17961806/google-leaked-research-good-censor-censorship-freedom-of-speech-research-china
 Reuters, German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account, REUTERS (Jan. 3, 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime/german-hate-speech-law-tested-as-twitter-blocks-satire-account-idUSKBN1ES1AT
 Sadie Levy Gale, Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London, INDEPENDENT (Jun. 4, 2016) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
 Simon Van Zuylen-Wood, “MEN ARE SCUM”: INSIDE FACEBOOK’S WAR ON HATE SPEECH, VANITY FAIR (Feb. 26, 2019) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-facebook-war-on-hate-speech
 Sara Sidner, 'OK' is now a hate symbol, the ADL says, CNN, (Sep. 26, 2019) https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html
 The Guardian, Germany on course to accept one million refugees in 2015, (Dec. 8, 2015) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/germany-on-course-to-accept-one-million-refugees-in-2015

5. Statute & Policy Document
 § 130 StGB
 47 U.S.C. § 230
 Art. 18 GG.
 Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, European Commission, at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_conduct_en.pdf
 Council Directive 2000/31, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1
 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008, Art. 1, 2008 O.J. (L 328) 55
 Freedom Of Expression And The Internet, Organization of American States, at 47-48, OEA/Ser.L/V/II
 General comment No. 34, U.N. Human Rights Committee, 102nd Sess., at 11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011)
 Government of United Kingdom, Online Harm White Paper,5 (Apr., 8, 2019) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf
 Jugendschutz.net, Löschung rechtswidriger Hassbeiträge bei Facebook, YouTube und Twitter [Deletion of illegal hate contents on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter], (Mar. 4, 2017) https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/News/Artikel/03142017_Monitoring_jugendschutz.net.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
 Jugendschutz.net, Monitoring des Beschwerdemanagements von Social-Media-Plattformen bei Hassbotschaften [Monitoring the complaint management of social media platforms in hate messages], (June, 2017) https://www.jugendschutz.net/fileadmin/download/pdf/17-06_Monitoring_Beschwerdemanagement_Social-Media-Plattformen_Hintergruende.pdf
 Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz [NetzDG] [Network Enforcement Act], (Jul 12, 2017) https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/NetzDG_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online A contribution from the European Commission to the Leaders’ meeting in Salzburg on 19-20 September 2018, EUR. PARL. DOC. (COM/2018/640)
 Rebecca MacKinnon, Elonnai Hickok, Allon Bar & Hae-in Lim, Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet intermediaries, 86, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2014), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231162
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, U.N. Human Rights Council, 17th Sess., Agenda Item 3, at 13,20, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/27
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, U.N. Human Rights Council, 32nd Sess., at 22, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/32/38 (2016)
 Věra Jourová, Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online: First results on implementation (2016) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=40573
 Věra Jourová, Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online: One year after (2017) http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=45032
 Věra Jourová, Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online Results of the 3rd monitoring exercise (2018) http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=49286
 Věra Jourová, Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online: Fourth evaluation confirms self-regulation works (2019) https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf
6. Websites
 André Staltz, THE WEB BEGAN DYING IN 2014, HERE'S HOW, (Oct. 30, 2017) https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html
 Anti-Defamation League, Pepe the Frog, Anti-Defamation League (2019) https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog
 Australia Competition, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Commonwealth of Australia (2018) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Digital%20Platforms%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20Report.pdf
 Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (BMJV), Gemeinsam gegen Hasskriminalität im Netz – Wo stehen wir? [Together against hate crime in the network - Where do we stand?], (Sep. 26, 2016) https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Artikel/DE/2016/09262016_Gemeinsam_gegen_Hasskriminalitaet.html
 C-span, Google and Censorship (Jul. 16, 2019) https://www.c-span.org/video/?462661-1/google-censorship&start=NaN
 Daphne Keller, SESTA and the Teachings of Intermediary Liability, 7, (2017) http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/sesta-and-teachings-intermediary-liability
 Facebook, Community Standards Enforcement Report, Facebook (2019) https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement#hate-speech
 Facebook, Hate Speech, Facebook (2019) https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
 Facebook, Misrepresentation (2019) https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentation
 Google, Transparency Report https://transparencyreport.google.com/?hl=en
 JoergSprave Attention YouTube: The Clock is ticking!, YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ
 John Perry Barlow, Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/pages/selling-wine-without-bottles-economy-mind-global-net
 MANILAPRINCIPLES.ORG, Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability (Mar. 24 2015) https://www.eff.org/files/2015/10/31/manila_principles_1.0.pdf
 Nic Newman, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A. L. Levy & Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Reuters Digital News Report 2018, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2018) http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf
 Poynter, Commit to transparency — sign up for the International Fact-Checking Network's code of principles (2019) https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/
 Rebecca MacKinnon, Elonnai Hickok, Allon Bar & Hae-in Lim, Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet intermediaries, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2014) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231162
 Richard Allan, Hard Questions: Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community? (June. 27, 2017) https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-speech/
 Sam Harris, Making Sense with Sam Harris #148 - Jack Dorsey, YouTube (Fe b. 5, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOvbEmufGwY
 Tessa Lyons, Hard Questions: How Is Facebook’s Fact-Checking Program Working?, (June, 14, 2018) https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/hard-questions-fact-checking/
 Twitter, About Verified Account (2019) https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts
 Twitter, Hateful conduct policy (2019) https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy
 Twitter, The Twitter Trust and Safety Council, (2019) https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
 YouTube, Hate Speech Policy (2019) https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en

B. In Chinses

1. Articles
 Chia-Hao Hsu許家豪,性傾向仇恨性言論管制倡議 [Advocating Sexual-Orientation-Based Hate Speech Regulation], (2018) (unpublished LL.M. thesis, Soochow University)
 Chih-Kai Tseng, 仇恨性言論的容忍與禁止－比較法的觀察 [The Tolerance and Restriction of Hate Speech: From the Perspective of Comparative Law], (2013) (unpublished LL.M. thesis, National Taiwan University)
 De-Lan Ye葉德蘭, 貶抑色情作為仇恨言論：由溝通觀點出發 [Depreciating Pornography as Hate Speech: From a Communication Perspective] 101 Forum in Women's and Gender Studies婦研縱橫, 70 (2014)
 JHEN-SHAN Li李震山, 人性尊嚴[Human Dignity], 17 Law Forum法學講座. 1 (May, 2003)
 Jen-Jieh Tien田仁杰, 歧視「外籍新娘」和「大陸新娘」言論之管制倡議－從批判種族理論觀點出發[Regulatory Advocacy of Speech Discriminating against "Foreign Brides" and "Mainland Brides"－Starting from the Perspective of Critical Race Theory], (2007) (unpublished LL.M. thesis, National Taiwan University)
 Nian-Fong Sin辛年豐,死也不得安寧-論死者人性尊嚴與言論自由[Death can't be peaceful - On the human dignity and freedom of speech of the deceased], 14 Judgement Research Compilation判解研究彙編, (Dec, 2010).
 Tsung-hsein Chou周宗憲,人性尊嚴與人民最低限度生活全保障 [Human Dignity And The Minimum Guarantee Of The People's Living], 1239 Judicial Weekly司法周刊. 2 (June, 2005).
 Wei-Chih Chen陳威志, 仇恨性言論管制—以網路厭女現象為例 [Regulating Hate Speech－An Analysis of Online Misogyny in Taiwan], (2018) (unpublished LL.M. thesis, National Taipei University)
 Xinmin Chen陳新民, 憲法學釋論[Constitutional interpretation], 25(7th ed. 2011)
 YONG-MING JHANG張永明, 傳播生態變遷下的傳播自由與媒體責任 [Freedom and Responsibility of the Press in the Changing Media Climate], 170 The Taiwan Law Review月旦法學雜誌, (June 2009)
 YUAN-HAO LIAO廖元豪,仇恨言論管制、族群平等法，與反岐視法[Hate Speech Regulation, Ethnic Equality Law, And Anti-Discrimination Law], 127 Taiwan Law Journal台灣法學雜誌, 1 (May, 2009);
 YUAN-HAO LIA廖元豪, 羞辱弱勢族群的言論自由？種族侮辱言論之限制可能性[The Freedom to Insult Minorites? Limiting Racial Insults], 45 Taiwan Jurist月旦法學教室, 6 (July, 2006)
 YU-LIN JIAN江玉林, 人性尊嚴與人格尊嚴-大法官解釋尊嚴論述分析[Human Dignity and Personal Dignity--Analysis of the Justice's Interpretation of Dignity], 20 Taiwan Jurist月旦法學教室. 116 (June, 2004)
 ZIH-YI LIN林子儀, 言論自由與新聞自由[Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press] 5 (1st ed. 1999).

2. Books
 Cass Sunstein, 網路會顛覆民主嗎?[Republic.com] (WEI-MING HUANG trans., new7 1st ed. 2002).
 FONG-JIAO HE何鳳嬌, The martial law era從戒嚴到解嚴 (1945-1987) (1st ed. 2000)
 FONG-JIAO HE何鳳嬌, Organizing the opposition parties組黨運動 (1st ed. 2000)
 RUEI-CIANG SU蘇瑞鏘, White Terror in Taiwan: Disposal of Taiwan's Political Cases after the War白色恐怖在臺灣 : 戰後臺灣政治案件之處置 (1st ed. 2014)
 YAN-SIAN JHANG張炎憲, 二二八事件責任歸屬研究報告[Research report on responsibility for the 228 massacre] (1st ed. 2006) (Chinese)

3. Cases
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 414
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 445
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 485
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 509
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 550
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 557
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 567
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 617
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 623
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 634
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 644.
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 656
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 664
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 678
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 702
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 738
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 744
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 753
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 756
 Shih Tzu [Interpretation of Constitutional Court of Taiwan] No. 766

4. News Article
 曾韋禎, 不只辱台是鬼島 郭冠英譏老兵無知 讚戒嚴德政, LIBERTY TIME (Feb. 5, 2016) https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/956404
 王君琳, 譴責戕害人權的法西斯言論，要求台聯黨 立刻嚴懲廖本煙, 苦勞網 (Apr. 4, 2006) https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/11882
 陳鈺馥, 罵蔡沒下一代 新黨楊世光：我就是人身攻擊, LIBERTY TIME (July. 6, 2019) https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2841491
5. Statute
 著作權法 [Taiwan Copyright Act], Article 3
6. Websites
 Judicial Yuan, 106年司法院及所屬機關業務統計結果摘要分析 [Summary of the statistical results of the business of the courts and their affiliates in the year of 2017], Judicial Yuan(2017), at https://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/jsi/home.htm#b02%E5%9C%B0%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E6%96%B0%E6%94%B6%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6