本文以美墨加協定的社群媒體免責條款為開端，在掀起社群媒體監管的時代中，兩大模式的社群媒體監管互相碰撞。從通訊端正法於1996年立法以來，經過20幾年的判例解釋，法院對通訊端正法的解釋趨於明確且清晰，但對於現實的非法資訊影響逐漸擴大，通訊端正法面對嚴峻的挑戰。本文擬以判例分析，從通訊端正法立法前後的判例觀察，以美國法院在判例中的見解，勾勒通訊端正法免責條款要件的輪廓。從美國對於通訊端正法第230條的反思中，社會對於資訊內容的監管期待社群媒體可以發揮守門人的功能，保護使用者不受惡意言論的侵害，但美國仍將免責條款放上國際協定，對於加拿大、墨西哥產生影響，有逐步擴張的野心。
為阻擋科技巨頭的入侵，歐盟制定數位服務法，希望透過責任義務使社群媒體能夠發揮作用，以政府管制的方式督促中介服務提供者保護使用者的基本權利。我國則在數位服務法草案出爐後，將數位服務法的條文引進國內法，制定數位中介服務法草案，引起社會關注與輿論壓力，各種草案問題浮出水面。本文分析的美國通訊端正法、美墨加協定、歐盟數位服務法、以及我國數位中介服務法草案，皆為監管數位媒體的重大法案，期許在觀察各法案後，可以為我國數位媒體監管政策盡一份心力，持續推動數位媒體監管。

In the era of social media regulation, the two models of social media immunity provision against each other. Since the law was enacted in 1996, after more than 20 years of precedent interpretation, the court's interpretation of the law has become more clear and explicit. However, the impact of illegal information on reality is gradually ex-panding, and the Communications Decency Act is facing serious challenges. We intend to analyze the precedents, through observe the precedents before and after the legisla-tion of the Communications Decency Act, and draw the outline of the requirements of the social media immunity provision of the Communications Decency Act based on the opinions of the American courts in the precedents. From the United States' reflection on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the society's supervision of infor-mation content expects that social media can play the role of gatekeepers to protect us-ers from malicious speech, but the United States still adds the immunity provision in international agreements , has an impact on Canada and Mexico, and has the ambition to gradually expand.
In order to block the invasion of Big Tech, the European Union has formulated the Digital Services Act, hoping to make social media play a role through responsibility and obligation, and urge intermediary service providers to protect the natural rights of users in a way of government accountability. In my country, after the draft of the Digital Ser-vices Act was released, the provisions of the Digital Service Act were introduced into domestic law, and the draft Digital Intermediary Services Act was formulated, which attracted social attention and pressure from public opinion, and various draft problems surfaced. The U.S. Communications Decency Act, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union's Digital Services Act, and my country's Draft Digital Intermediary Services Act analyzed in this article are all major bills regulating digital media. A dedicated effort to continue to promote digital media regulation.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究方法 4
一、文獻分析法 4
二、案例分析法 4
三、法制方向比較分析法 5
第三節 研究限制 5
第二章 社群媒體免責條款 5
第一節 社群媒體免責條款之歷史進程 6
一、通訊端正法第230條立法前 6
二、通訊端正法第230條 9
三、通訊端正法第230條立法後 11
四、美墨加協定第19.17條 19
第二節 通訊端正法第230條的問題 20
一、言論自由的挑戰 20
二、缺乏平台問責制度 23
三、免責範圍過於廣闊 24
第三節 美墨加協定第19.17條與通訊端正法第230條之差異 25
一、責任豁免差異 25
二、排除適用與義務 26
第三章 美墨加協定社群媒體免責條款之影響 27
第一節 於美國之爭議 27
一、要求社群媒體免責條款退出國際協定 27
二、貿易促進授權法到期問題 27
第二節 對墨加兩國媒體管制之影響 29
一、加拿大 29
二、墨西哥 33
第三節 與美墨加協定第19.17條相近似的國際協定與談判 33
一、美日數位貿易協定 34
二、數位貿易談判 36
第四節 歐盟數位服務法 38
一、美國通訊端正法與歐盟數位服務法之比較 39
二、數位服務法的問題 43
第四章 對台灣社群媒體管制之影響 44
第一節 台灣數位媒體管制現況 44
第二節 台灣媒體管制的建置 46
一、馬尼拉中介者責任原則 46
二、數位中介服務法草案 48
第五章 結論 57
第一節 朝向美國通訊端正法模式之可能性 58
第二節 效法歐盟數位服務法模式之可能性 59
參考文獻 60

中文專書之篇章

1. 李治安(2014)，〈網路服務提供者民事免責事由之要件分析〉，收於：劉孔中（編），《國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討》，頁451-490，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所。
2. 劉定基(2018)，〈試評「數位通訊傳播法」草案〉，收於：彭芸（編），《「匯流、治理、通傳會」論文集》，頁283-309，新北：風雲論壇。

中文期刊論文

1. 王琬菁、王彥章、張心衡(2022)，〈美日數位貿易協定帶給台灣的啟示〉，《臺灣經濟研究月刊》，45卷5期，頁99-105。
2. 江雅綺、陳俞廷(2021)，〈從電子商務指令到歐盟數位服務法草案　論歐盟 ISP 責任架構之演變〉，《全國律師》，25卷7期，頁31-44。
3. 李姿瑩(2021)，〈歐盟數位服務法草案簡介與其對國內平台規範之借鏡〉，《科技法律透析》，33:6期，頁15-22。
4. 李雅萍(1996)，〈美國網路界抗議通訊端正法案並對之提起違憲訴訟〉，《資訊法務透析》，8卷4期，頁11-12。
5. 沈菊川(2020)，〈從美國處理歐盟、NAFTA 模式分析「美國優先」對CPTPP 成員國可能影響〉，《國會季刊》，48卷3期，頁46-73。
6. 阮韻蒨(2019)，〈平臺經營者對於使用者侵權行為之連帶責任探討〉，《科技法律透析》，31卷11期，頁40-48。
7. 林文宏(2021)，〈歐盟執委會提出「數位服務法」及「數位市場法」草案〉，《公平交易委員會電子報》，166期，頁1-3。
8. 林思妤(2022)，〈美國「貿易體系保護法案」初探〉，《經貿法訊》，299期，頁1-5。
9. 范姜真媺(2019)，〈網路服務提供者法律責任之探討－以日本為例〉，《法學叢刊》，64卷3期，頁45-77。
10. 范瑞華(2002)，〈特定電氣通信服務提供者損害賠償責任之限制暨發信者資料揭示法〉，《萬國法律》，121期，頁108-110。
11. 郭戎晉(2004)，〈網際網路服務提供者免責規範單一立法模式之探討〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，71期，頁54-81。
12. 郭戎晉(2008)，〈Web2.0與法律——部落格(Blog)誹謗議題之研究〉，《法學新論》，1期，頁145-167。
13. 郭戎晉(2011)，〈網路言論傳播中介者責任與其免責規範之研究－以美國通訊端正法實務發展爲中心〉，《科技法律透析》，23卷4期，頁20-44。
14. 郭戎晉(2014)，〈網路言論傳播中介者責任之探討－以臺灣高等法院臺中分院 103 年度上易字第 54 號民事判決為觀察對象〉，《科技法律透析》，26卷12期，頁6-10。
15. 陳麗芬(2014)，〈「貿易促進授權法Trade Promotion Authority, TPA」與國會在貿易政策中的角色〉，《貿易政策論叢》，21期，頁45-62。
16. 楊智傑(2019)，〈歐盟與德法網路平台假訊息責任立法比較與表意自由之保護－借鏡歐洲法院網路平台誹謗責任之判決〉，《憲政時代》，45:1期，頁46-106。
17. 楊智傑(2020)，〈網路平台業者之責任與消費者保護之落實〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，387期，頁89-124。
18. 葉茂林(2007)，〈日本ISP業者責任限制之立法研究〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，100期，頁71-93。
19. 劉徑綸(2021)，〈歐盟數位服務法與數位市場法草案初探〉，《科技法律透析》，33卷3期，頁51-58。
20. 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，頁63-80。
21. 劉靜怡、羅秉成、林福岳、劉定基、黃銘輝、蘇慧婕、徐彪豪(2019)，〈假訊息之規範途徑及其爭議〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，292期，頁60-91。
22. 蔡碩庭(2018)，〈網路服務提供者侵害著作權之民事責任〉，《政大智慧財產評論》，15:1期，頁163-216。
23. 鄭嘉逸(2020)，〈網路中介者的「合理」責任避風港義務－由美國最新發展簡評臺灣高等法院 100 年度上字第 752 號判決〉，《科技法律透析》，32卷3期，頁54-60。
24. 黎家興(2022)，〈元宇宙與歐盟數位服務法及數位市場法草案簡析〉，《月旦會計實務研究》，51期，頁100-109。
25. 蕭郁溏(2018)，〈以比較法觀點規範網路服務提供者於防制性隱私內容外流之責任與義務〉，《政大法學評論》，154期，頁151-237。
26. 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〉，《憲政時代》，43:3期，頁425-476。

中文研究報告

1. 王牧寰(2021)，〈因應數位通訊傳播服務發展之規管趨勢與法制革新研析委託研究採購案〉，國家通訊傳播委員會委託財團法人電信技術中心期末報告。
2. 王牧寰(2021)，〈數位科技應用發展暨我國匯流法制革新規劃研究委託研究採購案〉，國家通訊傳播委員會委託財團法人電信技術中心期末報告。
3. 陳人傑(2003)，〈網際網路服務提供者法律責任與相關法制之研究〉，行政院經濟建設委員會委託財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心研究報告。

英文專書

1. GERALD R. FERRERA & STEPHEN D. LICHENSTEIN & MARGO E. K. REDER & RAY AUGUST & WILLIAM T. SCHIANO, CYBERLAW: YOUR RIGHT IN CYBERSPACE 185 (2001).

英文期刊論文

1. Aina Turillazzi & Federico Casolari & Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi, The Digital Services Act: An Analysis of Its Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (2022).
2. Andrea L. Julian, Freedom of Libel: How An Expansive Interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 230 Affects the Defamation Victim in the Ninth Circuit, 40 IDLR 509 (2004).
3. Andrej Savin, The Eu Digital Services Act: Toward a more Responsible Internet, 24 No. 7 JINTLAW 1. (2021).
4. Anthony Ciolli, Chilling Effects: The Communications Decency Act and the Online Marketplace of Ideas, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 137 (2008).
5. Benjamin Volpe, From Innovation to Abuse: Does the Internet Still Need Section 230 Immunity?, 68 Cath. U. L. Rev. 597 (2019).
6. Blaine Goodwin, Regulating Twitter As A Public Utility to Ensure Nondiscrimina-tion, 50 Cumb. L. Rev. 597 (2020).
7. Brian C. McManus, Rethinking Defamation Liability for Internet Service Provid-ers, 35 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 647 (2001).
8. Brian Leary, Safe Harbor Startups: Liability Rulemaking Under the DMCA, 87 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1135 (2012).
9. Caitlin McKeown, Facebook, Defamation, and Terrorism: Who Is Responsible for Dangerous Posts on Social Media?, 26 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 163 (2017).
10. Chapin Cimino, Freeing Speech and the First Amendment Value of Promoting Public Discussion, 42 T. Marshall L. Rev. 67 (2016).
11. Cory Batza, Trending Now: The Role of Defamation Law in Remedying Harm from Social Media Backlash, 44 Pepp. L. Rev. 429 (2017).
12. Danielle Keats Citron & Benjamin Wittes, The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans S 230 Immunity, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 401 (2017).
13. Dave Hauser, The DMCA and the Privatization of Copyright, 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 339 (2008).
14. David Lukmire, Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decency Act?: The Reverberations of Zeran v. America Online, 66 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 371 (2010).
15. Donna Higgins, Google saved from Canadian court's delisting order, 2017 WL 5243574 (2017).
16. Edward Fenno & Christina Humphries, Protection Under CDA S 230 and Re-sponsibility for "Development" of Third-Party Content, Comm. Law. (2011).
17. Eric Goldman, The Complicated Story of Fosta and Section 230, 17 First Amend. L. Rev. 279 (2018).
18. Hadley M. Dreibelbis, Social Media Defamation: A New Legal Frontier Amid the Internet Wild West, 16 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 245 (2021).
19. Haley Halverson, Ending Immunity of Internet-Facilitated Commercial Sexual Exploitation Through Amending the Communications Decency Act, 21 J. Internet L. 3 (2018).
20. Heather Saint, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: The True Culprit of Internet Defamation, 36 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 39 (2016).
21. Isaac Rounseville, Drawing A Line: Legislative Proposals to Clarify the CDA, Reinforce Consumer Rights, and Establish A Uniform Policy for Online Market-places, 60 Jurimetrics J. 463 (2020).
22. Jae Hong Lee, Batzel v. Smith & Barrett v. Rosenthal Defamation Liability for Third-Party Content on the Internet, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J., at 471 (2004).
23. Jonathan A. Friedman & Francis M. Buono, Limiting Tort Liability for Online Third-Party Content Under Section 230 of the Communications Act, 52 Fed. Comm. L.J. 647 (2000)..
24. Julio Sharp-Wasserman & Evan Mascagni, A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Would Make Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act More Effective, 17 First Amend. L. Rev. 367 (2019).
25. Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act and the Common Law of Defamation: A Convergence Thesis, 20 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 195 (2018).
26. Kurt Lewin, Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research, 1(2) Human Relations, 143, (1947).
27. Linda O’Brien, ADVERTISING—D. Conn.: FTC granted summary judgment against marketers using fake news sites to promote weight loss products, VitalLaw (2015).
28. Liu, Han-Wei, Exporting the First Amendment through Trade: the Global 'Con-stitutional Moment' for Online Platform Liability, Georgetown Journal of Interna-tional Law, Vol. 53, No. 1 (2022).
29. Lukas WIEWIORRA & Ilsa GODLOVITCH & WIK-Consult, The digital Ser-vices Act and the Market Act- a forward-looking and consumer-centred perspec-tive (2021).
30. Matthew G. Jeweler, The Communications Decency Act of 1996: Why § 230 is Outdated and Publisher Liability for Defamation Should be Reinstated Against Internet Service Providers, 8 UPTJTLP 3 (2007).
31. Michael L. Smith, Search Engine Liability for Autocomplete Defamation: Com-bating the Power of Suggestion, U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y (2013).
32. Neil Fried, Dodging the Communications Decency Act When Analyzing Libel Li-ability of on-Line Services:, 1 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1 (1999).
33. Nina I. Brown, Fight Terror, Not Twitter: Insulating Social Media from Material Support Claims, 37 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2017).
34. Patrick J. Carome, C. Colin Rushing, Anomaly or Trend? The Scope of § 230 Immunity Challenged by Two Courts, 22-SPG COMLAW 3 (2004).
35. Peter M. McCamman, Chatting Up A Storm: Noah v. Aol Time Warner and Ex-tending Federal Civil Rights Liability to Internet Chat Rooms, 12 CommLaw Conspectus 199 (2004).
36. Tori Smith & Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, Appendix: An Analysis of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), The Heritage Foundation BACKGROUNDER 3379 (2019).
37. Vanessa S. Browne-Barbour, Losing Their License to Libel: Revisiting S 230 Im-munity, 30 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1505 (2015).
38. Varty Defterderian, Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com: A New Path for Section 230 Immunity, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 563 (2009).

英文研究報告

1. Emily Laidlaw, Mapping Current and Emerging Models of Intermediary Liability (2019).
2. Jason A. Gallo & Clare Y. Cho, Social Media: Misinformation and Content Mod-eration Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service (2021).
3. L. Comm’n. Ontario, Notice and Takedown: A Quicker, Modern Process for Online Defamation Disputes, Defamation Law in the Internet Age ch.8 (2020).
4. Valerie C. Brannon & Eric N. Holmes, Section230: An overview, Congressional Research Service (2021).
5. Vivek Krishnamurthy & Jessica Fjeld, CDA 230 Goes North American? Examin-ing the Impacts of the USMCA’s Intermediary Liability Provisions in Canada and the United States, University of Ottawa Centre for Law, Technology and Society (2020).

英文網頁資料

1. ACCO, “Keep CDA 230 Out Of Trade Agreements”, https://www.counteringcrime.org/keep-cda-230-out-of-trade-agreements.
2. Crowell, “Expansion of Section 230 of U.S. Communications Decency Act with July 1 implementation of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”, https://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/AlertsNewsletters/all/Expansion-of-Section-230-of-US-Communications-Decency-Act-with-July-1-implementation-of-US-Mexico-Canada-Agreement-USMCA.
3. Derechos Digitales, ” Mexican Congress’ implementation of USMCA IP provisions threatens democracy and digital rights”, https://www.derechosdigitales.org/14755/mexican-congress-implementation-of-usmca-ip-provisions-threatens-democracy-and-digital-rights/.
4. Disruptive Competition Project, “Setting the Digital Standard for U.S. Trade Agreements”, https://www.project-disco.org/21st-century-trade/080919-setting-the-digital-standard-for-u-s-trade-agreements/.
5. Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Enforcement Overreach Could Turn Out To Be A Real Problem in the EU’s Digital Services Act”, https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2022/02/enforcement-overreach-could-turn-out-be-real-problem-eus-digital-services-act.
6. Electronic Frontier Foundation, “How Mexico's New Copyright Law Crushes Free Expression”, https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/07/how-mexicos-new-copyright-law-crushes-free-expression.
7. European Commission, “Europe 2020”, https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.
8. Facebook, “NetzDG Transparency Report”, https://transparency.fb.com/sr/netzdg-report-english-fb-jul-22.
9. FICDC, “Online Content, Digital Platforms and Governance: Cross-National Challenges”, https://ficdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MARCH-_-No12.pdf.
10. GlobalTrade, “The USMCA: State of Play on Internet Intermediary Liability”, https://www.globaltrademag.com/the-usmca-state-of-play-on-internet-intermediary-liability/.
11. Government of Canada, “Technical paper”, https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/harmful-online-content/technical-paper.html#a1.
12. Harvard Business Review, “It’s Time to Update Section 230”, https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230.
13. Hugh Stephens Blog, “Did Canada get “Section 230” Shoved Down its Throat in the USMCA?”, https://hughstephensblog.net/2019/02/10/did-canada-get-section-230-shoved-down-its-throat-in-the-usmca/.
14. Hugh Stephens Blog, “Section 230 is Dangerous–Keep it Out of Trade Negotiations”, https://hughstephensblog.net/2019/09/02/section-230-is-dangerous-keep-it-out-of-trade-negotiations/.
15. Hugh Stephens Blog, “Thank You Professor! “Explaining” Section 230 to Canadians”, https://hughstephensblog.net/2021/10/04/thank-you-professor-explaining-section-230-to-canadians%EF%BF%BC/.
16. Hugh Stephens Blog, “Will Article 19.17 of the USMCA/CUSMA Influence Canadian Court Proceedings? (The Long—or Short?—Arm of Section 230)”, https://hughstephensblog.net/2021/03/15/will-article-19-17-of-the-usmca-cusma-influence-canadian-court-proceedings-the-long-or-short-arm-of-section-230/.
17. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsg%2fOK3H8qae8NhIDi53MecJ8Es8JxwwaL1HQ8hgVMkgor%2ba2BnDTW%2fHC6BIyM8TPJNF%2f6qe%2bcdb0NBnXp%2bA57rBA17cvjmBwuivD2gq5FYEj.
18. Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, https://manilaprinciples.org/.
19. Meta, “Regulatory and Other Transparency Reports”, https://transparency.fb.com/data/regulatory-transparency-reports/.
20. Mondaq, “Mexico: Technological Protection Measure Safe Harbors And Making Available Rights On Mexican Copyright Law”, https://www.mondaq.com/mexico/copyright/968542/technological-protection-measure-safe-harbors-and-making-available-rights-on-mexican-copyright-law.
21. Quartz, “Facebook, Google, and Amazon are big winners in the new NAFTA deal”, https://qz.com/1410473/facebook-fb-google-goog-and-amazon-amzn-are-big-winners-in-the-new-nafta-deal/.
22. REUTERS INVESTIGATES, “Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar”, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-hate/.
23. Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, “USMCA Provisions on Intellectual Property, Services, and Digital Trade”, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/usmca-provisions-intellectual-property-services-and-digital-trade.
24. Technology & Marketing Law Blog, “Does the FTC Get a Free Pass From Section 230?–FTC v. LeadClick”, https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/09/does-the-ftc-get-a-free-pass-from-section-230-ftc-v-leadclick.htm.
25. Technology & Marketing Law Blog, “Good News! USMCA (a/k/a NAFTA 2.0) Embraces Section 230-Like Internet Immunity”, https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/10/good-news-usmca-a-k-a-nafta-2-0-embraces-section-230-like-internet-immunity.htm.
26. The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, “European Parliament Votes on Constitution for the Internet”, https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/european-parliament-votes-on-constitution-for-the-internet.
27. The Verge, “New algorithm bill could force Facebook to change how the news feed works”, https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/10/22927472/klobuchar-lummis-algorithm-bill-section-230-misinformation-teenager-mental-health.
28. ThePrint, “India-US digital trade is going through a bad patch. USTR Tai’s visit can begin fixing it”, https://theprint.in/opinion/india-us-digital-trade-is-going-through-a-bad-patch-ustr-tais-visit-can-begin-fixing-it/766135/.
29. Torys LLP quarterly, Torys Quarterly: Canadian Sector Report, https://www.torys.com/our-latest-thinking/publications/2021/11/risks-of-liability-emerging-for-online-platforms-in-canada.
30. TORYS QUARTERLY, “Media and communications: Risks of liability emerging for online platforms in Canada”, https://www.torys.com/our-latest-thinking/publications/2021/11/risks-of-liability-emerging-for-online-platforms-in-canada.
31. WORLD TRADE ONLINE, “WTO e-commerce text: Section 230 language, exceptions to data rules”, https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/wto-e-commerce-text-section-230-language-exceptions-data-rules.

中文網路新聞

1. Etoday新聞雲(01/26/2022)，《數位通訊傳播法》卡關！NCC將待織組法修法後再推進，https://www.ettoday.net/news/20220126/2178636.htm。
2. Newtalk新聞(08/25/2020)，〈泰政府要求封殺批泰皇「皇家市場」百萬粉絲團 臉書採取法律行動反制〉，https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-08-25/455713。
3. udn轉角國際(05/29/2020)，〈怪獸對決：川普與社群網路龍頭們的「通訊端正法」戰爭？〉，https://global.udn.com/global_vision/story/8662/4599574。
4. 中時新聞網(08/16/2022)，〈數位中介服務法公開說明會 前NCC委員憂：行政、立法機關介入專責機構〉，https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20220816002102-260407?chdtv。
5. 中華經濟研究院WTO和RTA中心(05/19/2021)，〈美國貿易授權法案即將到期，拜登政府暫無時間表〉，https://web.wtocenter.org.tw/Page.aspx?pid=356763&nid=39。
6. 中華經濟研究院WTO和RTA中心(12/09/2021)，〈美國眾議員提出法案以提升美國在印太地區之經濟領導地位〉，https://web.wtocenter.org.tw/Mobile/page.aspx?pid=364694&nid=15483。
7. 公視新聞網(08/21/2022)，NCC回應「數位中介法草案」 稱僅為初版並未強推，https://news.pts.org.tw/article/596080。
8. 台灣人權促進會(08/29/2022)，〈數位中介服務法草案主要優缺點，你看懂了嗎？〉，https://www.tahr.org.tw/news/3235。
9. 立法院法案評估(03/29/2022)，兒童及少年性剝削防制條例部分條文修正草案，https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6588&pid=218393。
10. 立法院法案評估(12/13/2017)，〈數位通訊傳播法草案〉，https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6588&pid=164867。
11. 自由時報(08/16/2022)，〈台美貿易倡議談判將啟動 學者：應納入數位平台監管〉，https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/4027137。
12. 行政院(03/10/2022)，積極保護性侵害犯罪受害人權益 政院通過「性侵害犯罪防治法」修正草案及「兒童及少年性剝削防制條例」部分條文修正草案，https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/cc7bed3d-a7af-4657-9506-3e126eee62ae。
13. 風傳媒(08/25/2015)，〈Twitter進軍台灣 鎖定企業商務市場〉，https://www.storm.mg/article/63563。
14. 紐約時報中文網(03/08/2022)，扼殺媒體自由，普丁關上俄羅斯「開放」的大門，https://cn.nytimes.com/world/20220308/russia-ukraine-putin-media/zh-hant/。
15. 國家通訊傳播委員會(06/29/2022)，〈NCC公布「數位中介服務法」草案，以網路治理精神共同建構自由、安全、可信賴之網路環境〉，https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=47684。
16. 國家通訊傳播委員會(08/02/2022)，〈NCC將舉辦「數位中介服務法」草案公開說明會及公聽會，聽取各界意見〉，https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=47817。
17. 國家通訊傳播委員會(08/21/2022)，〈NCC回應各界針對數位中介服務法草案之指教〉，https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=47911。
18. 報導者(10/07/2019)，〈圍繞羅興亞人的資訊戰：當臉書變失控巨獸，緬甸政府反成最大贏家？〉，https://www.twreporter.org/a/asia-disinformation-fake-news-myanmar-government-facebook。

英文網路新聞

1. EURACTIV.com(05/17/2021), “Digital agenda: Autumn/Winter Policy Briefing”, https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/digital-agenda-autumn-winter-policy-briefing/.
2. European Parliament News(05/07/2022), “Digital Services: landmark rules adopted for a safer, open online environment”, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34364/digital-services-landmark-rules-adopted-for-a-safer-open-online-environment.
3. INDEPENDENT(2/20/2020), “YouTube refuses father's request to remove video of daughter's killing”, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/youtube-alison-parker-murder-ftc-a9348356.html.
4. REUTERS INVESTIGATES(12/09/2021), Rohingya refugees sue Facebook for $150 billion over Myanmar violence, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/rohingya-refugees-sue-facebook-150-billion-over-myanmar-violence-2021-12-07/.
5. REUTERS(08/25/2020), “After block, new Facebook group criticising Thai king gains 500,000 members”, https://www.reuters.com/article/thailand-facebook-idUKL4N2FR2PB.
6. The Guardian(12/06/2021)，”Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide”, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence.
7. The Meghalayan(06/02/2022)，”IT deliberates forming appeals panel”, https://themeghalayan.com/it-deliberates-forming-appeals-panel/.
8. The New York Times(05/10/2022), “Trump’s banishment from Facebook and Twitter: A timeline”, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/technology/trump-social-media-ban-timeline.html.
9. The New York Times(08/25/2020), “Facebook Plans Legal Action After Thailand Tells It to Mute Critics”, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/world/asia/thailand-facebook-monarchy.html.