摘要
算法在日常生活中的作用日益重要。但在美国,言论自由正在或已经变成商业巨头抵抗算法规制的一张"万能牌"。他们主张算法计算和呈现的结果相当于一个人想说什么,对算法的干预和规制是对言论自由的侵犯。在已有司法判决中,算法的言论自由主张均得到了法庭支持。言论自由变成了算法规制一道难以逾越的门槛。围绕"算法是否应受言论自由保护",学界目前讨论多采本质主义进路,从主体要件(算法是不是人)和客体要件(算法是不是言论)展开。总体而言,算法反对者在主体问题上占优,而算法支持者则仰仗报纸和电子游戏等先例,在客体问题上占优。同时,一种"发言者本位vs.听众本位"的实用主义进路开始出现,这种进路在一定程度上展现了超越本质主义进路的可能性,并对思考算法与言论的延伸问题———强人工智能的言论———有一定借鉴意义。
The role of algorithms in everyday life is increasingly important.In the United States,free speech has become a“wild card”for giant companies to resist algorithmic regulation.They argue that how algorithms operate and show their results equals to an individual’s expression.Therefore,regulating algorithms equals to infringing upon one’s freedom of speech.This stance has been supported by court decisions.Freedom of speech has become an insurmountable threshold for regulating algorithms.By reviewing and analyzing the current discussion,this article argues that the current approach can be labeled as essentialism.It divides the question of“whether algorithms is speech”into two sub-questions:the first is the question of subject,which focuses on whether algorithms can be treated as a“person”;the second is the question of object,which studies whether the result of algorithms can be treated as“speech”.While the opponents of algorithms have the edge on the question of subject,the proponents relying on precedents such as newspapers and video games have prevailed over the question of object.By exposing the limitation of the essentialist approach,a“listener-based v.speaker-based”approach shows the possibility of transcending the essentialist approach,and might be more pragmatic and helpful in dealing with the extended problem of algorithm and speech,namely Strong AI’s speech.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第5期122-139,共18页
Global Law Review
作者简介
左亦鲁,北京大学法学院助理教授。
