政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/74242
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113324/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51149453      線上人數 : 884
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/74242


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/74242


    題名: 論網路匿名言論之保障－以身分揭露程序為中心
    A Study on the Protection of Anonymous Online Speech: Focusing on the Procedure for Disclosing the Identity of Anonymous Speakers
    作者: 鍾安
    Chung, An
    貢獻者: 劉定基
    Liu, Ting Chi
    鍾安
    Chung, An
    關鍵詞: 匿名言論
    資訊隱私
    匿名性
    網路匿名言論
    網路鬆綁效應
    責任
    網路實名制
    策略性訴訟
    網路服務提供者
    網路內容提供者
    個人資料保護法
    Anonymous Speech
    Information Privacy
    Anonymity
    Online Anonymous Speech
    Online Disinhibition Effect
    Liability
    Real-Name Verification System
    Strategic Lawsuit
    Internet Service Provider
    Internet Content Provider
    Personal Data Protection Act
    日期: 2013
    上傳時間: 2015-04-01 10:01:38 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 　　在網路世界中，人們以匿名表達意見遠比現實生活中更為容易，這件事已劇烈地改變了匿名言論的量與質。從好的面向看，匿名帶來自主，讓異議者可以透過網路匿名，表達可能永遠都不敢在眾人面前說出來的真正想法，讓觀念市場變得多元豐富；另一方面，匿名提高了追究責任的困難。相較於現實世界的言論，損害他人或構成犯罪的惡質網路匿名言論，將造成影響更深遠且永久的傷害。
    　　目前，關於網路匿名言論的管制方式，世界各國政府都是仰賴「事後追懲模式」和「實名認證模式」的其中一種。前者是網路使用者原則上可以匿名地發表言論，但如果發表不當言論並造成傷害，受害者或國家可以揭露其身份以對其展開司法追訴；後者是網路使用者在張貼言論前，必須先向國家機關指定的網路業者交出個人真實身份資料以進行驗證後，才能匿名發言，或甚至完全禁止以匿名方式發言，讓網路使用者感受到被眾人監督的壓力，不敢發表不當內容。
    　　本文主張，網路匿名言論是受到憲法所保障的權利，而「事後追懲模式」相較於「實名認證模式」，較能調和不同權利間的衝突。不過，儘管我國政府採取此模式，卻在設計民刑事訴訟制度時，漏未導入匿名言論權利的思考，導致網路匿名表意者一經策略性訴訟攻擊，真實身份就會立即暴露，使得匿名表意自由不過徒有虛幻表象。因此，本文建議，為落實對匿名言論自由的保護，立法者宜參考美國法，修改部分訴訟法來處理此問題。
    　　On the internet, people can express themselves anonymously far easier than in the physical world. This fact has dramatically changed both the quantities and qualities of anonymous speech. On the bright side, anonymity brings more autonomy. Dissenters can express their real opinions, which they might never have the courage to speak out in public. It, in turn will promote the diversity and integrity of the marketplace of ideas. Yet, anonymity also makes it more difficult to hold the speakers accountable. In addition, compared to speech in the real physical world, malicious online anonymous speech will cause more serious permanent harms.
    　　Today, governments around the world are either relying on the “Ex Post Compensation and Punishment” approach or the “Real-Name Verification System” to regulate online anonymous speech. Under the former approach, internet users can express their opinions anonymously, but if the content of their speech is malicious and causes damages to other people, the victim can seek disclosure of the speaker’s identity in order to take legal actions against the speaker. In contrast, under the latter system, internet users have to provide their personal information (real identities) to the ISPs or ICPs appointed by governments and complete the verification process before they can post their words. Some real name systems go even further by banning anonymous speech completely. By making users feel like they are being supervised by the public, the real name system wishes to deter indecent contents
    　　This thesis argues that online anonymous speech is protected by the Constitution, and the ‘Ex Post Compensation and Punishment’ is a preferred approach because it can better balance the conflicting rights. In Taiwan, although the government has chosen the ‘Ex Post Compensation and Punishment’ approach, current civil/criminal procedural laws and practices afford little protection to online anonymous speakers. The plaintiff, who is allegedly harmed by the anonymous speech, can easily bring a “Strategic Lawsuit,” with the sole purpose of obtaining the identity of the online anonymous speaker. Consequently, this thesis suggests that, in order to better protect the freedom of anonymous speech, the legislators of Taiwan should refer to U.S. laws and practices and revise several provisions of Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure.
    參考文獻: 一、中文部分：
    （一）專書
    1. 池泰毅（編），個資法百問，2013年1月。
    2. 吳庚、陳淳文，憲法理論與政府體制，2013年9月。
    3. 李惠宗，憲法要義，六版，2012年9月。
    4. 林子儀，言論自由之理論基礎，初版二刷，2002年11月。
    5. 林山田，刑法各罪論（上），五版，2006年11月。
    6. 林俊益，刑事訴訟法概論（上），十三版，2012年9月。
    7. 林俊益，刑事訴訟法概論（下），十版，2011年2月。
    8. 林祝興、張明信，資訊安全導論，2009年4月。
    9. 林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法（上），七版，2013年9月。
    10. 林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法（下），七版，2013年9月。
    11. 法治斌、董保城，憲法新論，五版，2012年9月。
    12. 姜世民，民事訴訟法（下），2013年5月。
    13. 陳新民，憲法學釋論，修正七版，2011年9月。
    14. 陳樸生，刑事訴訟法實務，十二版，1997年。
    15. 黃東熊，刑事訴訟法論，四版，1989年。
    16. 劉佐國、李世德，個人資料保護法釋義與實務：如何面臨個資保護的新時代，2012年12月。
    17. 蔡震榮，警察職權行使法概論，修訂二版，2011年11月。
    18. 蕭家捷、賴文智，個人資料保護法Q&A，2013年1月。
    19. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，四版，2013年9月。

    （二）期刊、專書論文
    1. 王正嘉，網際網路上之刑法妨害名譽罪適用與界限—以實體與虛擬的二分社會論之，政大法學評論，第128期，頁143-202，2012年8月。
    2. 王兆鵬，告訴乃論案件與強制處分─以經濟分析論，載：當事人進行主義之刑事訴訟，頁31-56，2004年5月。
    3. 王兆鵬，重新定義高科技時代下的搜索，載：新刑訴‧新思維，頁57-92，2004年10月。
    4. 王兆鵬，檢察官之偵察門檻與人權保障－偵查權之發動與限制，檢察新論，第7期，頁90-131，2010年1月。
    5. 王明禮，網路空間匿名言論之管制，資訊法務透析，第8期第3卷，頁31-36，1996年3月。
    6. 李惠宗，裁判書上網公開與個人資訊自決權的衝突，月旦法學雜誌，第154期，2008年3月，頁21-34。
    7. 李榮耕，論偵察機關對通信記錄的調取，政大法學評論第115期，頁115-147，2010年6月。
    8. 李榮耕，電磁記錄的搜索及扣押，臺大法學論叢，41卷3期，頁1055-1116，2012年9月。
    9. 林珊如，網路敵意及網路沉迷--兩種去社會抑制行為之相關研究，教育與心理研究，27期2卷，頁325-352，2004年6月。
    10. 胡凌，中國網路實名制管理：由來、實踐與反思，中國網路傳播研究，2010年1月。
    11. 張乃文，Web2.0網站平台管理之法制議題研析─以網路實名制與揭露使用者身分資料為中心，科技法律透析，頁42-60，2009年6月。
    12. 許家馨，民刑誹謗二元體系的形成與分析，載：第二屆司法制度實證研究國際研討會，2011年6月。
    13. 郭戎晉，初探「網路罷凌」（Cyber Bullying）衍生之法律議題，科技法律透析，第21卷4期，頁15-20，2009年4月。
    14. 廖元豪，邊緣異議者的武器—匿名發表論之言論自由，載：司法院大法官99年度學術研討會—解釋憲法與言論自由之保障（上冊），2010年12月18日。
    15. 廖元豪，我按讚，但你不知道我是誰─匿名的表現自由，月旦法學教室，第129期，頁9-11，2013年7月。
    16. 劉定基，從查證義務論「實際惡意」原則在臺灣民事判決的適用，載：新世紀宏觀法學的研究與展望—劉鐵錚教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集（一），頁331-360，2008年10月。
    17. 劉定基，「個人資料保護法」初論，臺灣法學雜誌，第159期，頁1-8，2010年9月。
    18. 劉定基，析論個人資料保護法上「當事人同意」的概念，月旦法學雜誌，第218期，頁146-167，2013年7月。
    19. 劉定基，個人資料的定義、保護原則與個人資料保護法適用的例外（上），月旦法學教室，第115期，頁42-54，2012年5月。
    20. 劉靜怡，電腦網路世界之新興言論自由議題，月旦法學雜誌，第25期，頁141-148，1997年6月。
    21. 劉靜怡，從美國聯邦最高法院Reno v. ACLU案判決談網路內容規範的過去、現在與未來，月旦法學雜誌第32期，頁99-114，1997年12月。
    22. 劉靜怡，資訊社會的規範困境：臺灣網際網路法律發展的歷史考察，載：第四屆資訊科技與社會轉型研討會，2001年12月。
    23. 劉靜怡，數位時代的「記者特權」：以美國法制之發展為論述中心，新聞學研究，第98期，頁139-192，2009年1月。
    24. 劉靜怡，不算進步的立法：「個人資料保護法初步評析」，月旦法學雜誌，第183期，頁147-164，2010年8月。

    （三）學位論文、學生論文
    1. 張建博，推行網路實名制相關法律問題研究，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2012年6月。
    2. 曾馨瑩、林純如，以社交焦慮傾向和感知匿名性探討社群媒體中的自我揭露行為，2012年中華傳播學會年會（學生組）論文，2012年7月。
    3. 韓寧，微博實名制之合法性探究—以言論自由為視角，《法学》，2012年第4期，2012年5月。

    （四）翻譯著作
    1. KUROSE, JAMES F., & ROSS, KEITH W., 電腦網際網路（COMPUTER NETWORKING: A TOP-DOWN APPROACH FEATURING THE INTERNET），吳佳榮、黃彩嵐譯，2006年。

    二、英文部分：
    （一）書籍
    1. ARENDT, HANNAH, THE HUMAN CONDITION (1998).
    2. BAILEY, DENNIS, THE OPEN SOCIETY PARADOX (2004).
    3. BARRY, BRUCE, SPEECHLESS: THE EROSION OF FREE EXPRESSION IN THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE (2007).
    4. DELFINO, MICHEL A., & DAY, MARY E., BE CAREFUL WHO YOU SLAPP (2002).
    5. GOLDSMITH, JACK, & WU, TIM, WHO CONTROLS THE INTERNET (2006).
    6. KUHN, MARTIN, FEDERAL DATAVEILLANCE: IMPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY PROTECTIONS (2007).
    7. LESSIG, LAWRENCE, CODE 2.0 (2006).
    8. LINSKY, MARTIN, IMPACT: HOW THE PRESS AFFECTS FEDERAL POLICYMAKING (1986).
    9. PRING, GEORGE W., & CANAN, PENELOPE, SLAPPS: GETTING SUED FOR SPEAKING OUT (1996).
    10. PUTNAM, ROBERT D., BOWLING ALONE: THE COLLAPSE AND REVIVAL OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY (2000).
    11. SKUPIN, MICHAEL, ANONYMITY IN WESTERN LITERATURE (2009).
    12. SOLOVE, DANIEL, THE FUTURE OF REPUTATION: GOSSIP, RUMOR, AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET (2007).
    13. SOLOVE, DANIEL, & SWARTZ, PAUL, INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW (4th Edition, 2011).
    14. STRYKER, COLE, HACKING THE FUTURE: PRIVACY, IDENTITY, AND ANONYMITY ON THE WEB (2012).
    15. SUNSTEIN, CASS R., ON RUMORS (2009).

    （二）專書論文
    1. Barendt, Eric, Privacy and Freedom of Speech, in NEW DIMENSIONS IN PRIVACY LAW: INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES 11 (Andrew T. Kenyon & Megan Richardson eds., 2006).
    2. Blau, I. & Caspi, A., Studying Invisibly: Media naturalness and Learning, in EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH: A NEW APPROACH TO STUDYING THE EFFECTS OF MODERN TECHNOLOGIES ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 193 (Ned Kock ed., 2010).
    3. Cho, Daegon, Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A poison or Cure for Privacy?, in ECONOMICS OF INFORMATION SECURITY AND PRIVACY III 239 (B. Schneier ed., 2012).
    4. Davenport, David, Anonymity on the Internet: Why the price May Be Too High, in COMPUTERS IN SOCIETY : PRIVACY, ETHICS, AND THE INTERNET 447 (Joey F. George eds., 2004).
    5. Forster, Edward, Anonymity: An Enquiry, in TWO CHEERS FOR DEMOCRACY 93 (1972).
    6. Froomkin, A. Michael, The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage, in BORDERS IN CYBERSPACE: INFORMATION POLICY AND THE GLOBAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE. 129 (Brain Kahn & Charles Nesson eds., 1997).
    7. Froomkim, A. Michael, Anonymity and the Law in the United States, in LESSONS FROM IDENTITY TRAIL 441 (Ian Kerr et al., eds., 2009).
    8. Leitner, John M., Korean Netizen Equality in the Shadow of Real Name Verification, in THE LAW IN THE INFORMATION AND RISK SOCIETY 105 (Gunnar Duttge & Sang Won Lee eds., 2011).
    9. Levmore, Saul, The Internet’s Anonymity Problem, in THE OFFENSIVE INTERNET 51 (Saul Levmore & Martha C. Nassbaum eds., 2010).
    10. Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government, in ON LIBERTY AND OTHER ESSAYS 205 (John Gray ed., 1991).
    11. Pfitzmann, Andreas, & Köhntopp, Marit, Anonymity, Unobservability, and Pseudonymity - A Proposal for Terminology, in DESIGNING PRIVACY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 3 (Hannes Federrath ed., 2001).
    12. Posner, Richard A., The Speech Market and the Legacy of Schenck, in ETERNALLY VIGILANT: FREE SPEECH IN THE MODERN ERA 120 (Lee C. Bolliger and Geoffrey R. Stone eds., 2002).
    13. Redish, Martin H., Freedom of Expression, Political Fraud, and the Dilemma of Anonymity, in THE ADVERSARY FIRST AMENDMENT 151 (2013).
    14. Schopenhauer, Arthur, The art of literature, in THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER 347 (translated by T. Bailey Saunders, 1902).

    （三）期刊論文
    1. Balla, Donald P., John Doe Is Alive and Well: Designing Pseudonym Use in American Courts, 63 Ark. L. Rev. 691 (2010).
    2. Boudin, Chesa, Note: Publius and the Petition: Doe v. Reed and the History of Anonymous Speech, 120 YALE L.J. 2140 (2011).
    3. Branscomb, Anne, Anonymity, Autonomy and Accountability: Challenges to the First Amendment in Cyberspaces, 104 YALE L.J. 1639 (1995).
    4. Carr, George H., Note, Application of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrine to Anonymity in the Networld, 44 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 521 (1996).
    5. Chilson, Jessica L., Unmasking John Doe: Setting a Standard for Discovery in Anonymous Internet Defamation Cases, 95 VA. L. REV. 389 (2009).
    6. Cho, D., Kim, S., & Acquisti, A., Empirical Analysis of Online Anonymity and User Behaviors: The Impact of Real Name Policy, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3041 (2012).
    7. Ciolli, Anthony, Liability Of Web 2.0 Intermediaries Under State Consumer Fraud Statutes: A Case Study, 79 MISS. L.J. 831 (2010).
    8. Citron, Danielle Keats, Cyber Civil Rights, 89 B.U. L. REV. 61 (2009).
    9. Crump, Catherine, Data Retention: Privacy, Anonymity, and Accountability Online, 56 STAN. L. REV. 191 (2003).
    10. Davis, Brian, Rying Eyes: How Government Access To Third-Party Tracking Data May Be Impacted By United States v. Jones, 46 NEW ENG. L. REV. 843 (2012).
    11. Denison, Michael C., SLAPP HAPPY: Courts Continued to Refine the Reach of the Anti-SLAPP Law in Numerous Decisions in 2010, 34-JUN L.A. LAW. 21 (2011).
    12. Ferry, Anne, Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word, 33 NEW LITERARY HIST. 193 (2002).
    13. Fisher, Linda E., Guilt by Expressive Association: Political Profiling, Surveillance, and the Privacy of Groups, 46 ARIZ. L. REV. 621 (2004).
    14. Fraser, Barry, Regulating the Net: Case Studies in California and Georgia Show How Not To Do It, 9 LOY. CONSUMER L. REP. 230 (1997).
    15. Froomkin, A. Michael, Flood Control on the Internet Ocean: Living with Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Datebases, 15 J.L. & COM. 395 (1996).
    16. Furman, Joshua R., Cybersmear Or Cyber-Slapp: Analyzing Defamation Suits Against Online John Does As Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 213 (2001).
    17. Gardner, James, Anonymity and Democratic Citizenship, 19 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 927 (2011).
    18. Garlinger, Patrick P., Privacy, Free Speech, And The Patriot Act: First And Fourth Amendment Limits On National Security Letters, 84 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1105 (2009)
    19. Garry, Patrick M., Anonymous Sources, Libel Law, and the First Amendment, 78 TEMP. L. REV. 579 (2005).
    20. Gleicher, Nathaniel, Note, John Doe Subpoenas: Toward a Consistent Legal Standard, 118 YALE L.J. 320 (2008).
    21. Hanamirian, Jocelyn V., The Right to Remain Anonymous: Anonymous Speakers, Confidential Sources and the Public Good, 35 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 119 (2011).
    22. Hardy, Trotter, The Proper Legal Regime for “Cyberspace,” 55 U. PITT. L. REV. 993, 1051 (1994).
    23. Heverly, Robert A., Cyberbullying from Classroom to Courtroom: Contemporary Approaches to Protecting Children in a Digital Age, 22 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 475 (2012).
    24. Karl, Donald J., Comment, State Regulation Of Anonymous Internet Use After ACLU of Georgia V. Miller, 30 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 513 (1998).
    25. Kirtley, Jane E., Mask Shield, and Sword: Should the Journalist’s Privilege Protect the Identity of Anonymous Posters to News Media Websites?, 94.MINN.L.REV. 1478 (2010).
    26. Kissinger, Ashley I., & Larsen, Katharine, Protections for Anonymous Online Speech, 1068 PLI/P 815 (2011).
    27. Lee, Tien, Who’s Afraid of Anonymous Speech? McIntyre and the Internet, 75 OR. L. REV. 117 (1996).
    28. Leitner, John M., Identifying the Problem: Korea’s Initial Experience with Mandatory Real Name Verification on Internet Portals, 9 KOREAN L. 83 (2009).
    29. Leitner, John M., To Post Or Not To Post: Korean Criminal Sanctions For Online Expression, 25 TEMP. INT`L & COMP. L.J. 43 (2011).
    30. Levi, Lili, Dangerous Liaisons: Seduction and Betrayal in Confidential Press-Source Relations, 43 RUTGERS L. REV. 609 (1991).
    31. Levine, Noah, Establishing Legal Accountability for Anonymous Communication in Cyberspace, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 1526 (1996).
    32. Lidsky, Lyrissa, & Cotter, Thomas, Authorship, Audiences, and Anonymous Speech, 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1537 (2007).
    33. Lidsky, Lyrissa, Public Forum 2.0, 91 B.U. L. REV. 1975 (2011).
    34. Lidsky, Lyrissa, Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 DUKE L.J. 855 (2000).
    35. Lynch, Matthew, Closing the Orwellian Loophole: The Present Constitutionality of Big Brother and the Potential for a First Amendment Cure, 5 FIRST AMEND. L. REV. 234 (2007).
    36. Marsh, Tanya D., In Defense Of Anonymity On The Internet, 50-APR RESG 24 (2007).
    37. Mazzotta, Matthew, Note, Balancing Act: Finding Consensus on Standards for Unmasking Anonymous Internet Speakers, 51 B.C. L. REV. 833 (2010).
    38. McGeveran, William Mrs. McIntyre`s Checkbook: Privacy Costs of Political Contribution Disclosure, 6 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1 (2003).
    39. McGeveran, William, Mrs. McIntyre`s Persona: Brining Privacy Theory to Election Law, 19 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 859 (2011).
    40. Mcnealy, Jasmine, A Textual Analysis of the Influence of Mcintyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in Cases Involving Anonymous Online Commenters, 11 FIRST AMEND. L. REV. 149 (2012).
    41. Meiklejohn, Alexander, The First Amendment Is an Absolute, 1961 SUP. CT. REV. 245 (1961).
    42. Milani, Adam A., Doe V. Roe: An Argument For Defendant Anonymity When A Pseudonymous Plaintiff Alleges A Stigmatizing Intentional Tort, 41 WAYNE L. REV. 1659 (1995).
    43. Moore, Susanna, The Challenge of Internet Anonymity: Protecting John Doe on the Internet, 26 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 489 (2009).
    44. Ness, Scott, The Anonymous Poster: How to Protect Internet Users` Privacy and Prevent Abuse, 2010 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 8 (2010).
    45. Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., & Schouten, A., Precursors of adolescents’ use of visual and audio devices during online communication. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No.5, 2473 (2007).
    46. Prosser, William L., Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 384 (1960).
    47. Richards, Robert D., A Slapp In The Facebook: Assessing The Impact Of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation On Social Networks, Blogs And Consumer Gripe Sites, 21 DEPAUL J. ART, TECH. & INTELL. PROP. L. 221 (2011).
    48. Sandeen, Sharon K., In For A Calf Is Not Always In For A Cow: An Analysis Of The Constitutional Right Of Anonymity As Applied To Anonymous E-Commerce, 29 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 527 (2002).
    49. Shepard, Jason M., & Belmas, Genelle, Anonymity, Disclosure and First Amendment Balancing in the Internet Era: Developments in Libel, Copyright, and Election Speech, 15 YALE J.L.&TECH. 92 (2012).
    50. Shepard, Jason, & Belmas, Genelle, Anonymity, Disclosure and First Amendment Balancing in the Internet Era: Developments in Libel, Copyright, and Election Speech, 15 YALE J. L. & TECH. 92 (2012).
    51. Sobel, David L., The Process That “John Doe” Is Due: Addressing the Legal Challenge to Internet Anonymity, 5 VA. J.L. & TECH. 3 (2000).
    52. Solove, Daniel J., Articles, The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure, 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 112 (2007).
    53. Solove, Daniel J., Conceptualizing Privacy, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1087 (2002).
    54. Stein, Edward, Queers Anonymous: Lesbians, Gay Men, Free Speech, and Cyberspace, 38 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 159 (2003).
    55. Stieglitz, Eric J., Notes & Recent Developments, Anonymity on the Internet: How Does It Work, Who Needs It, and What Are Its Policy Implications, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 1395 (2007).
    56. Strandburg, Katherine J., Freedom of Association in a Networked World: First Amendment Regulation of Relational Surveillance, 49 B.C. L. REV. 741 (2008).
    57. Strickland, Caroline E., Applying McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission to Anonymous Speech on the Internet and the Discovery of John Doe’s Identity, 58 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1537 (2001).
    58. Suler, John, The Online Disinhibition Effect, CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, Vol. 7, No. 3, 321 (2004).
    59. SunKel, Megan M., Comments, And the I(SP)’s Have It . . . But How Does One Get It? Examining the Lack of Standards for Ruling on Subpoenas Seeking to Reveal the Identity of Anonymous Internet Users in Claims of Online Defamation, 81 N.C.L. REV. 1189 (2003).
    60. Teich, A., Frankel, M.S., Kling, R. & Lee, Y., Anonymous Communication Policies for the Internet: Results and Recommendations of the AAAS Conference. INFORMATION SOCIETY, 15(2). (1999).
    61. Ugelow, Lisa, & Hoffman, Lance J., Fighting On A New Battlefield Armed With Old Laws: How To Monitor Terrorism In The Virtual World, 14 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1035 (2012).
    62. Volokh, Eugene, Deterring Speech: When Is It “McCarthyism”? When Is It Proper?, 93 CALIF. L. REV. 1413 (2005).
    63. Warren, Samual D., & Brandeis, Louis D., The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
    64. Wells, James A., Exporting SLAPPS: International Use of The U.S. “SLAPP” to Suppress Dissent and Critical Speech, 12 TEMP. INT`L & COMP. L.J. 457 (1998).
    65. Weston, Patrick, American Civil Liberties Union Of Georgia V. Miller, 14 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 403 (1999).
    66. Wilson, Matthew J., E-Elections: Law in Asia & Online Political Activities, 12 WYO. L. REV. 237 (2012).
    67. Zansberg, Steven D., Support Anti-Slapp Legislation, 29-FEB COMM. LAW. 2 (2013).
    68. Zarsky, Tal Z., Thinking Outside the Box: Considering Transparency, Anonymity, and Pseudonymity as Overall Solutions to the Problems of Information Privacy in the Internet Society, 58 U. MIAMI L. REV. 991 (2004).

    （四）網路資源
    1. O`Reilly, Tim, What Is Web 2.0, Web2.0 (2005), available at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
    2. Portal, Broadband, OECD Broadband Statistics (Dec., 2011), available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadbandportal-pressrelease-dec2011.htm
    3. The Article 29 Working Party’s Opinion 4/2007 On the Concept of Personal Data (June, 2007), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學研究所
    97651040
    102
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0976510402
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[法律學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    040201.pdf2247KbAdobe PDF27463檢視/開啟
    040202.pdf2355KbAdobe PDF23049檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋