馬尼拉原則(Manila Principles)繁體中文版
緣由:
 
做法:直接編輯下方的中文翻譯,底線代表在最下方有定義。
目前進度:原則主文翻譯完成,已經去函 EFF 詢問放到官網一事,在此之前,現在的版本也放在 GitHub 上,並可透過 GitBook 線上閱讀或下載。附件(最下方只有英文或簡中版部分)陸續翻譯中。
 
英文簡體中文授權:EFF CC BY 3.0 US
繁體中文:推動網路中立性立法貢獻者 CC BY 4.0
 

馬尼拉原則之中間人責任 MANILA PRINCIPLES ON INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

INTRO
All communication over the Internet is facilitated by intermediaries such as Internet access providers, social networks, and search engines. The policies governing the legal liability of intermediaries for the content of these communications have an impact on users’ rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to privacy.
With the aim of protecting freedom of expression and creating an enabling environment for innovation, which balances the needs of governments and other stakeholders, civil society groups from around the world have come together to propose this framework of baseline safeguards and best practices. These are based on international human rights instruments and other international legal frameworks.
Uninformed intermediary liability policies, blunt and heavy-handed regulatory measures, failing to meet the principles of necessity and proportionality, and a lack of consistency across these policies has resulted in censorship and other human rights abuses by governments and private parties, limiting individuals’ rights to free expression and creating an environment of uncertainty that also impedes innovation online.
The framework presented here should be considered by policymakers and intermediaries when developing, adopting, and reviewing legislation, policies and practices that govern the liability of intermediaries for third-party content. Our objective is to encourage the development of interoperable and harmonized liability regimes that can promote innovation while respecting users’ rights in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
 
引言
所有網際網路上的通訊,都是由網際網路接取服務提供者、社交網路和搜索引擎等中間人所促成的。規範中間人對這些通訊內容負有法律責任的政策,對使用者的多項權利產生影響,包括表達自由、結社自由和隱私權等。
為保障表達自由和創造利於創新的環境,以調和政府和其他利害關係人的需求,來自世界各地的公民社會團體共同合作,提出了此基本保護措施和最佳實務的框架。這些原則皆建立在國際人權文書和其他國際法律框架的基礎上。
未受通知的中間人責任政策、生硬而嚴厲的管制措施、不符合必要性及比例原則,以及政策缺乏一致性,使得政府和民間機構得以進行審查及其他違反人權的濫用行為,限制了個人自由表達的權利,也創造出不確定的環境來阻礙線上創新。
政策制定者和中間人在制定、採用和審查涉及中間人對第三方內容負責的法律、政策和實務做法時,應該對這裡提出的框架予以考慮。我們的目標是鼓勵建立可交互運作、和諧的責任制度,既可以促進創新又能依照《世界人權宣言》、《公民及政治權利國際公約》,和《聯合國工商業與人權指導原則》尊重使用者權利。
 
1 Intermediaries should be shielded from liability for third-party content
  1. Any rules governing intermediary liability must be provided by laws, which must be precise, clear, and accessible.
  1. Intermediaries should be immune from liability for third-party content in circumstances where they have not been involved in modifying that content.
  1. Intermediaries must not be held liable for failing to restrict lawful content.
  1. Intermediaries must never be made strictly liable for hosting unlawful third-party content, nor should they ever be required to monitor content proactively as part of an intermediary liability regime.
 
1 中間人應免於對第三方內容承擔責任
  1. 任何管理中間人責任的規定必須由法律制定,且務必做到準確、清晰和易懂。
  1. 中間人沒有參與修改內容的情況下,中間人應該免於對第三方內容承擔責任。
  1. 中間人不得因沒有限制合法內容而被追究責任。
  1. 中間人不得因託管違法的第三方內容被追究無過失責任,也不得在中間人責任制度中要求中間人對內容主動進行監控
 
2 Content must not be required to be restricted without an order by a judicial authority
  1. Intermediaries must not be required to restrict content unless an order has been issued by an independent and impartial judicial authority that has determined that the material at issue is unlawful.
  1. Orders for the restriction of content must:
  1. Provide a determination that the content is unlawful in the jurisdiction.
  1. Indicate the Internet identifier and description of the unlawful content.
  1. Provide evidence sufficient to document the legal basis of the order.
  1. Where applicable, indicate the time period for which the content should be restricted.
  1. Any liability imposed on an intermediary must be proportionate and directly correlated to the intermediary’s wrongful behavior in failing to appropriately comply with the content restriction order.
  1. Intermediaries must not be liable for non-compliance with any order that does not comply with this principle.
2 沒有司法機關命令,不得要求對內容進行限制
  1. 除非一個獨立且公正的司法機關發布命令認定爭議內容為非法,否則不得要求中間人對內容進行限制。
  1. 對內容進行限制的命令必須
  1. 認定該內容在其管轄區域內屬於非法。
  1. 指出網際網路識別符並對描述非法內容。
  1. 提供充分的證據證明命令的法律基礎。