社群媒體已成為現代社會中主要的資訊交流場域，其透過內容節制與推薦機制所影響之資訊可見度，對言論自由與公共討論產生重要影響，並引發社群媒體內容節制行為是否構成受憲法保障之言論行為，以及國家介入平台內容治理之合憲界線等爭議。本文以美國聯邦最高法院Moody v. NetChoice所揭示之爭點切入，探討社群媒體是否具有編輯裁量及其憲法上之保護程度。本文認為，在現行美國言論自由保護體系下，以傳統媒體編輯裁量為分析基礎，難以完全回應大型社群媒體於現代資訊環境中所扮演之角色，以及其內容節制與推薦機制對公共討論所造成的影響。基此，本文採取健全民主程序說作為言論自由之討論基礎，在承認社群媒體作為私人實體，其內容節制行為原則上受言論自由保障之前提下，主張國家可以透過不干涉編輯裁量核心之內容中立規範，合理限制平台之權利。本文進一步以歐盟數位服務法為規範參考對象，比較歐盟與美國之管制取徑，並以二者之憲政文化與制度背景，分析造成不同之規範方式的理由。最後，本文認為，我國不宜直接移植外國規範模式，而應以我國言論自由保障為前提，透過透明度、救濟與程序性義務等內容中立措施，回應社群媒體所引發之言論自由問題。;Social media platforms now function as central sites of information exchange and public discourse. Through content moderation and recommendation systems, they shape the visibility of speech in ways that significantly affect freedom of expression and democratic deliberation. These practices raise fundamental constitutional questions: whether platform moderation decisions should be understood as protected speech, and how far the state may go in regulating platform governance without violating constitutional guarantees. This Article examines these questions through the lens of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice. It argues that prevailing First Amendment doctrine—largely grounded in the editorial discretion of traditional media—does not fully capture the role played by dominant social media platforms in the contemporary information environment, nor the effects of algorithmic moderation on public discourse. Building on a democratic-process–oriented account of free speech, this Article maintains that social media platforms remain private actors whose moderation decisions are, in principle, entitled to constitutional protection. At the same time, it contends that the state may adopt content-neutral regulatory measures that respect the core of editorial discretion while addressing the systemic risks posed by platform governance. Drawing on the EU Digital Services Act as a comparative reference point, the Article shows that the regulatory divergence between the European Union and the United States reflects deeper differences in constitutional culture and institutional design. Against this comparative background, it argues that Taiwan should not directly transplant either model. Instead, consistent with Taiwan’s commitment to freedom of expression, regulatory efforts should focus on content-neutral, procedural mechanisms—such as transparency requirements, remedial frameworks, and procedural obligations—to respond to the free-speech challenges generated by social media governance.
