财新传媒
位置:博客 > 李汶龙 > 欧美网络法年度述评2019(十之九):英国网络空间新治理模式——“网络伤害”

欧美网络法年度述评2019(十之九):英国网络空间新治理模式——“网络伤害”

20194月,负责网络治理的英国政府部门DCMS(全称为Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport)发布了《网络伤害白皮书》 (Online Harm White Paper)[1] 所谓网络伤害,在报告中泛指来自互联网的各种形式的伤害。英国议会成员Jeremy Wright在序言中写道,网络给整个社会带来的诸多利益,也潜藏着各式各样的伤害来源。宽泛的“伤害”定义表明英国这一新的网络治理模式辐射范围之广,涵盖诸多治理议题,例如(儿童)性虐待、恐怖主义行径、移民犯罪、现代奴隶制、极端/复仇色情、网络骚扰、仇恨犯罪、鼓励或协助性自杀、煽动暴力、违禁品交易(例如毒品、武器等)、藐视法庭或干扰法律程序、(在社交网络上)发送色情短信等等。此外,还有一些有争议的网络行为没有准确的定义,也被纳入到《白皮书》的治理范围之内。这包括网络欺凌与“恶搞”(trolling)、极端主义行为和内容、强迫性行为、虚假信息、煽动自我伤害等等。关于白皮书的结构、主要措施以及如何落实,Home Office News Team发布了一份关于这一讨论的factsheet,清晰地梳理了各个面向,可供读者了解大意。[2]

白皮书一出,立即在媒体和社交平台上激起热议[3], 也成为本年度英国——乃至欧洲范围内——网络治理的焦点。来自英国内外的多个组织予以回应,据称DCMS总共收到了超过2000份公众意见。[4]

尤为值得关注的是Journal of Media law 20199月的一期网络伤害的专题。其中很多讨论源于牛津Bonavero Institute of Human Rights同年6月份组织的一场专题讨论会。[5]

专题四篇文章各有所长,讨论了白皮书的不同面向,剖析了综合治理模式的优劣。导言中,牛津法学院副教授Jacob Rowbottom表示《白皮书》对于传媒法律领域而言时一件大事。由于所覆盖的法律问题在英国已存在救济机制,在从基础上又提出对网络伤害的综合治理,可能会对整个领域带来结构性的变革。[6] 类似地,其他几位学者一致性地表达了对这一新治理模式的担忧。网络直里是否需要这样一剂强行针?涵盖甚广的综合治理模式是否科学?是否会对言论环境以及基本权利构成威胁?这些问题是几篇论文讨论的焦点。

来自埃塞克斯大学的Lorna Woods教授是推进这一治理模式的核心人物。白皮书强调地平台“注意义务” (duty of care)可以在她同年度发表的文章中找到端倪。[7] 她的专题文章也着力于此,讨论注意义务与既有规范之间的联系。Woods认为网络治理不应该完全依靠“安全港”机制(既平台在之情的情况下有义务及时删除或撤下违法或者违规的内容)。治理的焦点应该放在通过平台的架构设计来避免伤害上。尽管白皮书没有明言,Woods教授认为政府采取的新模式不谋而合。[8]

牛津互联网研究院的Victoria Nash教授讨论了网络伤害治理的范围。[9] 她认为在什么是违法和什么是“合法但有害”的区分上,我们并没有形成一条清晰的界限。因此,治理“有害”行为需要审慎,尤其是在缺乏足够的事实和证据的情况下。Nash教授提出了若干点建议,例如非法内容治理先行(这样可以有更多的时间寻找“有害内容或行为”的证据)、暂缓处理有争议性的网络内容(尤其是考虑到对言论环境的负面影响)。Nash还强调了程序正义的重要性。平台在一定程度上已经成为了私有部门执法者[10];像公有部门一样,平台也应遵循正当程序原则。此外,Nash认为平台还需要对一些自由裁量行为负责(包括关于平台架构、隐私政策以及用户协议等)。

来自伦敦政治经济学院的Damian Tambini撰文讨论了“区别治理”的可能性。[11] 考虑到白皮书涵盖范围之广,综合治理里路未必适用于所有的网络伤害情形。Tambini博士认为综合治理的里路行不通;作为解决方案,他提出明确区分(可以明确定义的)违法情形以及合法的(但是很难清晰定义)情形。对于前者,政府的管制应该更加直接有效;而对于后者,政府应当采取一些软性措施,例如监控评估网络有害内容,并且让平台变得更加“透明”。

最后,同样来自牛津Bonavero Institute of Human Rights的博士后研究员Stefan Theil开展了对比研究。英国白皮书之外,德国去年出台的NetzDG Law(可译作“网络执行法”)也掀起了一场热议。[12] 根据这部新法,德国社交媒体应当允许用户举报网络非法内容并及时删除,否则将面临最高5千万欧元的罚款。这部联邦层面的法律旨在治理网络仇恨言论,但短短一年之间引发了大量争议性删帖。比较两国治理里路,Theil认为综合性治理在实践中存在诸多难题,例如标准不明确导致地选择性执法。在他看来,网络伤害的治理应该基于准确的定义和充分的科学证据。Theil的文章还提到了对部分(中小型)公司提供责任豁免。

[1] Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), 'Online Harm White Paper' (DCMS White Paper, April 2019) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper See also a Summary of Online Harms White Paper in plain language https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/811923/EASY_READ_Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf
[2] Home Office News Team, 'Online Harms White Paper Factsheet' (Factsheet. 8 April 2019)  https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/08/online-harms-white-paper-factsheet/
[3] See for example, Alex Hern, Online harms white paper: could regulation kill innovation? (The Guardian, 4 April 2019)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/04/online-harms-white-paper-regulation-without-killing-innovation In contrast, see John Naughton, 'The white paper on online harms is a global first. It has never been more needed' (The Guardian, 14 April 2019)  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/14/white-paper-online-harms-global-first-needed-tech-industry-dcms-google-facebook. Gian Volpicelli, 'All that's wrong with the UK's crusade against online harms' (WIRED, 9 April 2019) https://www.wired.co.uk/article/online-harms-white-paper-uk-analysis. Blayne Haggart and Natasha Tusikov, 'What the U.K.s Online Harms white paper teaches us about internet regulation' (LSE Blog, 29 April 2019)  https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2019/04/29/what-the-u-k-s-online-harms-white-paper-teaches-us-about-internet-regulation/
[4] Response from Doteveryone https://doteveryone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ONLINE-HARMS-WHITE-PAPER-Doteveryone-response_July2019.pdf.
Response from the Carnegie Trust
https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/blog/online-harms-response-cukt/
Response from Privacy International https://privacyinternational.org/advocacy/3027/privacy-internationals-response-uks-open-consultation-online-harms-white-paper
Response from Swansea Cyber threats Research Center https://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Response-to-the-Online-Harms-White-Paper.pdf
Response from ART19 https://www.article19.org/resources/uk-article-19-response-to-online-harms-white-paper/
Response from the Electoral Commission https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/changing-electoral-law/transparent-digital-campaigning/response-online-harms-white-paper
Response from IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1716/online-harms-white-paper-response-from-ipso.pdf
Response from Bonavero Institute https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/bonavero_response_online_harms_white_paper_-_3-2019.pdf
Response from the ICO https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultation-responses/2019/2615232/ico-response-online-harms-20190701.pdf
Response from the Alan Turing Institute  https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/publications/dcms-and-home-office-consultation-online-harms-white-paper
Response from KCL Centre for Media, Communication & Power https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/cmcp/cmcp-submission-to-dcms-consultation-on-online-harms-white-paper.pdf
Response from the Internet Watch Foundation https://www.iwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/IWF%20Online%20Harms%20White%20Paper%20Response_0.pdf
Response from 5 Rights Foundation https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/2019-07-01-final-5rights-response-online-harms-white-paper.pdf
Response from Children's Commissioner https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/2019/08/27/childrens-experiences-of-online-harm-and-what-they-want-to-do-about-it/
Response from Mozilla https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2019/07/02/building-on-the-uk-online-harms-white-paper/
Response from the Inforrm's Blog https://inforrm.org/2019/07/20/online-harms-white-paper-some-consultation-responses/
[5] Journal of Media Law Symposium: Online Harms White Paper (Volume 11(1), September 2019) https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjml20/11/1?nav=tocList
[6] Jacob Rowbottom, ‘Introduction: Online Harms White Paper Symposium’ (2019) 11(1) Journal of Media Law 1-5
[7]
Lorna Woods, ‘Duty of Care’ (2018) 46(4) InterMEDIA 17-21
[8]
Lorna Woods, ‘The Duty of Care in the Online Harms White Paper’ (2019) 11(1) Journal of Media Law 6-17
[9]
Victoria Nash, ‘Revise and Resubmit? Reviewing the 2019 Online Harms White Paper’(2019) 11(1) Journal of Media Law 18-27
[10] 关于这一主题详见《哈佛法律评论》于2018年刊载的一篇文章 Kate Klonick, ‘The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech’ (2018) 131 Harvard Law Review 1598
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2937985
[11] Damian Tambini, ‘The Differentiated Duty of Care: A Response to the Online Harms White Paper’(2019) 11(1) Journal of Media Law 28-40
[12] Kirsten Gollatz, Martin J. Riedl and Jens Pohlmann, Removal of online hate speech in numbers (LSE Blogs, 16 August 2018)
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2018/08/16/removals-of-online-hate-speech-in-numbers/



推荐 0