川普總統防止在線審查的行政命令(中英文對照全文)

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

Issued on: May 28, 2020

防止在線審查的行政命令

發佈日期:2020年5月28日

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

根據美國憲法和美利堅合眾國法律賦予我的總統職權,現命令如下:

Section 1.  Policy.  

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

第1節 政策 

言論自由是美國民主的基石。 我們的開國元勳們通過《憲法第一修正案》保護了這項神聖的權利。 表達和辯論思想的自由是我們作為自由人的一切權利的基礎。

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

在一個長期以來崇尚言論自由的國家中,我們不能允許幾個為數不多的在線平台,來為美國人手工挑選哪些言論可以在互聯網上被訪問和傳達。 這種做法從根本上說是非美國的和反民主的。 當大型、有影響力的社交媒體公司,審查他們不同意的觀點時,它們就會行使危險的權力。 它們不再只是被動的公告板,而應該被視為內容的生產者。

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

近年來,在線平台的增長,使有關將《第一修正案》的理想應用於現代通信技術的重要問題被提了出來。 今天,許多美國人過社交媒體和其他在線平台來關注新聞、與親朋好友保持聯繫、分享對時事的看法。 結果在許多方面,這些平台都相當於21世紀的公共廣場。

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

Twitter、Facebook、Instagram和YouTube發揮著,即便不是史無前例的,卻也是巨大的力量,影響對公共事件的解釋,審查、刪除或使信息消失,並控制人們能看見、什麼不能看見。

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

作為總統,我已經明確表示了,對在互聯網上進行自由和公開辯論的承諾。 這種在網絡上的辯論與在我們的大學中、市政廳里和我們家中的辯論同等重要。 這對維持我們的民主至關重要。

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms flagging」 content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

在線平台正在進行選擇性的審查制度,損害了我們全國的辯論。成千上萬的美國人報告了各種令人不安的事情,其中包括:在線平台「標記」一些內容為不當內容,即便它們沒有違反任何服務條款的規定;未經事先通知並毫無解釋的情況下更改公司政策,從而達到對某些觀點不利的效果;在毫無預警、沒有解釋、也不給追索權的情況下,刪除內容甚至整個帳戶。

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

Twitter現在以帶有明顯政治偏見的方式,有選擇地決定在某些推文上貼上警告標籤。據報道,Twitter似乎從來沒有在另一位政客的推文上貼這樣的標籤。就在上周,亞當·希夫(Adam Schiff)議員還繼續兜售他久違了的通俄門騙局來誤導他的追隨者,而推特從未舉報這些推文。毫不奇怪,Twitter負責所謂網站完整性」的職員,在自己的推文中還誇耀了自己的政治偏見。

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for human rights,」 hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

與此同時,網絡平台也援引前後矛盾、非理性和毫無根據的理由來審查或限制美國人在國內的言論,一些網絡平台正從中國等外國政府傳播的攻擊性和虛假信息中獲利。例如,一家美國公司為中國共產黨創建了一個搜索引擎,該引擎會將「人權」的搜索列入黑名單,隱藏對中國共產黨不利的數據,並跟蹤確定適合被監視的用戶 。它還在中國建立了研究合作夥伴關係,為中國軍方提供直接利益。還有一些公司接受了中國政府的付費廣告,這些廣告散布有關中國大規模監禁少數宗教人士的虛假信息,從而助長了這些侵犯人權的行為。它們還加大了中國在海外的宣傳力度,包括允許中國政府官員利用其平台傳播有關COVID-19大流行起源的錯誤信息,以及破壞香港的民主抗議活動。

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

作為一個國家,我們必須在今天的數字通信環境中培養和保護不同的觀點,在這個環境中,所有美國人都可以而且應該有發言權。我們必須從網絡平台上尋求透明度和問責制,並鼓勵使用標準和工具來保障和維護美國話語的完整性、開放性和言論自由。

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  

第2節 對網絡審查的保護

(a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

(a) 美國的政策是建立明確的基本規則,以促進互聯網上的自由和公開辯論。主導這場辯論的基本規則中最突出的是《通訊規範法案》第230(c)條規定的豁免條款,《美國法典匯編》第47編230(c)條。美國的政策是應該澄清這種豁免的範圍:豁免不應該超出其文本和目的,那些聲稱給用戶提供保護言論自由和開放的論壇,實際上是利用他們對重要通信手段的權力進行欺騙,或藉口通過審查某些觀點扼殺自由和公開辯論的行為。

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a publisher」 of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability protection」 to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking」 of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.」  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

第230(c)條旨在解決早期法院的判決,即如果網絡平台限制訪問其他人發佈的某些內容,因此,它將成為誹謗等侵權行為在其網站上發佈的所有內容的「發佈者」。正如第230(c)條的標題所表明的,該條款為從事阻止有害內容的「善良的撒瑪利亞人」的交互式計算機服務(如在線平台)的提供者提供有限責任「保護」。特別是,國會尋求為試圖保護未成年人免受有害內容侵害的網絡平台提供保護,並旨在確保此類供應商不會因為刪除有害內容而受到打擊。該條款還旨在進一步明確國會的願景,即互聯網是一個「政治話語真正多元化的論壇」。《美國法典匯編》第47編第230(a)(3)條。條款所提供的有限保護在解釋時應考慮到這些目的。

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from civil liability」 and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable on account of」 its decision in good faith」 to restrict access to content that it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.」  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in good faith」 to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

特別是第230(c)(2)條明確提出了對 「民事責任」的保護,並規定一個交互式計算機服務提供商不得「基於」其「誠信」的決定,限制訪問其認為「淫穢,淫蕩,淫蕩,骯臟,過度暴力,騷擾或其他令人反感」的內容而承擔責任。美國的政策是確保在法律允許的最大範圍內,不歪曲此規定,以為網絡平台提供責任保護,這些平台非但沒有 “善意 “地刪除令人反感的內容,反而採取欺騙性或藉口性的行動(往往違反其聲明的服務條款),壓制不同意的觀點。第230條並不是為了讓少數公司成長為巨頭,以促進公開論壇辯論為幌子,控制我們全國討論的重要渠道,然後在這些巨頭利用其權力審查其不喜歡的內容並壓制其觀點時,為其提供全面豁免權。當交互式計算機服務提供者刪除或限制對內容的訪問,並且其行為不符合第230(c)(2)(A)條的標準時,它將從事編輯行為。美國的政策是,此類提供者應適當失去該條的有限責任保護,並承擔與非網絡提供商一樣的任何傳統編輯和出版商的責任。

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(b) 為推進本條款第(a)子條所述的政策,所有行政部門和機構應確保其對第230(c)條的施用正確反映了該條的狹義目的,並在這方面採取一切適當行動。 此外,在本命令發佈之日起60天內,商務部長(部長)應在與司法部長協商後,通過國家電信和信息管理局(NTIA)採取行動,向聯邦通信委員會(FCC)提交規則制定申請,要求FCC盡快提出法規,以澄清:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(i) 第230條(c)(1)項和(c)(2)項之間的相互作用,特別是要澄清和確定在何種情況下,交互式計算機服務的提供者如果限制對內容的訪問,其將不受(c)(2)(A)項特定的保護,同時也不能根據(c)(1)項主張保護,因為該項僅規定,不得將提供者視為提供第三方內容的出版人或發言人,並且不對提供者對其自身編輯決定提出責任。

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not taken in good faith」 within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be taken in good faith」 if they are:

(ii) 在何種條件下,限制獲取或提供材料的行動不是第230條(c)(2)(A)項中的的 “善意地 “採取的行動的意思,特別是是否可以 “善意地 「採取行動當它們是:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(A) 具有欺騙性、托辭性或與供應商的服務條款不一致;或

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(B) 在沒有提供足夠的通知、合理的解釋或有意義的陳述機會後採取的;以及

(iv) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

(iv) NTIA得出的任何其他建議條例可能適合推進本節第(a)小節所述的政策。

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  

第3節 保護聯邦納稅人的錢不被用於限制自由言論的在線平台的融資。

(a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(a) 各行政部門和機構的負責人應審查其機構在支付給在線平台的廣告和營銷方面的聯邦支出。 這種審查應包括花費的金額、接受聯邦資金的在線平台,以及可用於限制其接受廣告資金的法定權力。

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(b) 自本命令發佈之日起30天內,各機構負責人應向管理和預算辦公室主任報告其調查結果。

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

(c) 律政司須審查本條第(b)款中所述報告所指明的每一個網上平台所施加的基於觀點的言論限制,並評估是否有任何網上平台因觀點歧視、欺騙消費者或其他不良做法而成為政府言論的問題載體。

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  

第4節 對不公平或欺騙行為或慣例的聯邦審查。

(a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.」  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(a) 美國的政策是,推特(Twitter)和臉書(Facebook)等大型在線平台作為當今促進言論和思想自由流動的重要手段,不應限制受保護的言論。最高法院指出,社交媒體網站,作為現代的公共廣場,「可以為一個公民提供最強大的機制,讓他或她的聲音被聽到」 引用於Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017)。通過這些渠道進行溝通,對於有意義地參與美國民主,包括向民選領導人請願,已經變得非常重要。這些網站為公眾提供了一個重要的論壇,供其他人參與自由表達和辯論。參見PruneYard購物中心訴Robins案,《美國判例匯編》第447卷第74、85-89頁(1980年)。

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(b) 2019年5月,白宮推出了一個科技偏見舉報工具,允許美國人舉報在線審查事件。 在短短幾周內,白宮就收到了超過1.6萬起關於在線平台根據用戶的政治觀點對用戶進行審查或以其他方式對用戶採取行動的投訴。 白宮將把收到的此類投訴提交給司法部和聯邦貿易委員會(FTC)。

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(c) 公平貿易委員會應考慮根據《美國法典》第15篇第45條,酌情並根據適用法律採取行動,禁止在商業中或影響商業的不公平或欺騙性行為或慣例。 這種不公平或欺騙性行為或慣例可能包括第230條所涵蓋的實體以不符合這些實體對這些慣例的公開陳述的方式限制言論。

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

(d) 對於包括社交媒體平台 “推特”(Twitter)在內的大型在線平台,聯邦貿易委員會還應根據其法律授權,考慮投訴是否涉嫌違反了本命令第4(a)條規定的政策。 聯邦貿易委員會應考慮編寫一份報告,說明此類投訴,並在符合適用法律的前提下,將報告公佈於眾。

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.

第5節 國家審查不公平或欺騙性行為或做法和反歧視法。

 (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(a) 司法部長應設立一個工作組,負責執行禁止在線平台從事不公平或欺騙性行為或做法的州法規。 工作組還應制定示範立法,供現有法規不能保護美國人免受這種不公平和欺騙性行為和慣例的州的立法機構審議。工作組應酌情並在符合適用法律的情況下,邀請各州總檢察長進行討論和協商。

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(b) 本命令第4(b)節所述的投訴將在符合適用法律的情況下與工作組分享。工作組還應收集以下方面的公開資料:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(i) 根據用戶選擇關注的其他用戶,或與其他用戶的互動,加強對用戶的審查。

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(ii) 根據政治傾向或觀點的跡象來壓制內容或用戶的算法。

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iii) 當與中國共產黨或其他反民主協會或政府有關聯的賬戶實施時,允許採取其他不允許的行為的差別政策;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(iv) 依賴第三方實體,包括承包商、媒體組織和個人等有偏見的第三方實體來審查內容;以及

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

(v) 限制有特殊觀點的用戶在平台上與其他情況類似的用戶相比在平台上賺錢的能力的行為

Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

第6節 立法。 司法部長應制定一項有助於促進本命令的政策目標的聯邦立法提案。

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term online platform」 means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

第7節 定義。 在本命令中,”在線平台 「一詞是指允許用戶創建和分享內容或參與社交網絡的任何網站或應用程序,或任何一般搜索引擎。

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. 

第8節 一般條款。

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(a) 此行政令的任何內容均不得被用來損害或影響:

(i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(i) 法律授予行政部門或機構或其負責人的權力;或

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(ii) 管理和預算辦公室主任與預算、行政或立法提案有關的職能。

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) 本命令的執行應符合適用的法律,並視有無撥款情況而定。

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(c) 本命令無意也不會產生任何實質性或程序性的權利或利益,任何一方可在法律或衡平法上對美國、其部門、機構或實體、其官員、僱員或代理人或任何其他人強制執行。

翻譯:【文青】【jennifer】【Michelle】 校對:【V%】

0
3 則留言
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Find More to that Topic: gnews.org/zh-hant/216606/ […]

0
trackback
11 月 前

… [Trackback]

[…] Find More on to that Topic: gnews.org/zh-hant/216606/ […]

0
trackback

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here on that Topic: gnews.org/zh-hant/216606/ […]

0

熱門文章

Isaiah4031

“but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint” 【Isaiah 40:31】 5月 29日, 2020