馬尼拉原則（Manila Principles）繁體中文版

緣由：

• 在匯流 N 法是否支持「網路中立性」討論會中，Ming-Hsuan 介紹了馬尼拉原則（Manila Principles），儘管網站有簡體中文版，但其中有些許錯誤，且用語與繁體中文不盡相同，故有此校對／翻譯計畫。

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。

英文與簡體中文授權：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

• :exclamation:編輯此頁，至少需同意成果以 CC BY 4.0授權釋出，如需標示個人姓名，則請填寫在貢獻者後方。

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

• intermediary 看要怎麼翻比較通用或一望即知。
• Request -> intermediary -> Response -> Intermediary -> Request
• wiki 有個 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E9%97%B4%E4%BA%BA%E6%94%BB%E5%87%BB 中間人攻擊 的定義
• Intermediary Bank => 中間行

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.
2. Intermediaries should be immune from liability for third-party content in circumstances where they have not been involved in modifying that content.
3. Intermediaries must not be held liable for failing to restrict lawful content.
4. 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。
2. 在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。
3. 中間人不得因沒有限制合法內容而被追究責任。
4. 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。

• 請問 @elaine 改託管是法律名詞還是什麼理由嗎？（網站）代管才是台灣用法，國教院也是這麼翻。
• 嗯，我再想想，這邊 hosting 範圍應該比網站代管更廣泛，就用託管好了。

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.
2. Orders for the restriction of content must:
   1. Provide a determination that the content is unlawful in the jurisdiction.
   2. Indicate the Internet identifier and description of the unlawful content.
   3. Provide evidence sufficient to document the legal basis of the order.
   4. Where applicable, indicate the time period for which the content should be restricted.
3. 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.
4. 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。
2. 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。
   2. 指出網際網路識別符並對描述非法內容。
   3. 提供充分的證據證明命令的法律基礎。
   4. 在適用情況下，指出限制內容的時段。
3. 如果中間人沒有適當地遵守內容限制的命令，中間人所須承擔的一切責任必須與該不當行為合乎比例並直接相關。
4. 如果內容限制的命令不符合此項原則，中間人不得被要求對沒有遵守該命令負責。

3 Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process

• Consistent with Principle II, intermediaries should not be required to restrict content without an order from a judicial authority.  In the event that governments or private complainants request content restriction, the following principles apply.
1. Intermediaries must not be required to substantively evaluate the legality of third-party content.
2. A content restriction request pertaining to unlawful content must, at a minimum, contain the following:
   1. The legal basis for the assertion that the content is unlawful.
   2. The Internet identifier and description of the allegedly unlawful content.
   3. The consideration provided to limitations, exceptions, and defences available to the user content provider.
   4. Contact details of the issuing party or their agent, unless this is prohibited by law.
   5. Evidence sufficient to document legal standing to issue the request.
   6. A declaration of good faith that the information provided is accurate.
3. Content restriction requests pertaining to an intermediary’s content restriction policies must, at the minimum, contain the following:
   1. The reasons why the content at issue is in breach of the intermediary’s content restriction policies.
   2. The Internet identifier and description of the alleged violation of the content restriction policies.
   3. Contact details of the issuing party or their agent, unless this is prohibited by law.
   4. A declaration of good faith that the information provided is accurate.
4. Intermediaries who host content may be required by law to respond to content restriction requests pertaining to unlawful content by either forwarding lawful and compliant requests to the user content provider, or by notifying the complainant of the reason it is not possible to do so  (‘notice and notice’). Intermediaries should not be required to ensure they have the capacity to identify users.
5. When forwarding the request, the intermediary must provide a clear and accessible explanation of the user content provider’s rights, including in all cases where the intermediary is compelled by law to restrict the content a description of any available counter-notice or appeal mechanisms.
6. If intermediaries restrict content hosted by them on the basis of a content restriction request, they must comply with Principle VI on transparency and accountability below.
7. Abusive or bad faith content restriction requests should be penalized.

3 內容限制請求必須清晰、明確，且依照正當程序

• 抱歉，我這邊 Chrome 不能用會當，不知有無改動什麼（好像 ），所以剛剛回復上一版。
• 還好ＸＤ只是建議due process可以翻成正當法律程序～
• 抱歉影響建議，只是看上下文，似乎也不只是指法律？如第五條標題，或是這裡，也有所謂憲法上正當程序。
• 好吧好像兩種都有人用～～我也不是很清楚哈哈，只是過去都翻成正當法律程序而已～～

• 與第二條原則一致，在沒有司法機關命令的情況下，中間人不得被要求對內容進行限制。如果政府或私人投訴要求內容限制，則適用下列原則：
1. 中間人不得被要求對第三方內容的合法性進行實質性評估。
2. 針對非法內容的內容限制請求至少必須包含下列項目：
   1. 主張該內容為非法的法律依據。
   2. 網際網路識別符及據稱非法內容的描述。
   3. 對使用者內容提供者提供適用的限制、例外，和抗辯判斷基準。
   4. 除法律禁止的情況外，請求發起方或其代理人的聯繫方式。
   5. 足以證明該請求法律依據的證據。
   6. 所提供資訊正確無誤的善意聲明。
3. 屬於中間人內容限制政策之內容限制請求，至少必須包含下列項目：
   1. 爭議內容違反中間人內容限制政策的原因。
   2. 網際網路識別符及據稱違反內容限制政策情況的描述。
   3. 除法律禁止的情況外，請求發起方或其代理人的聯繫方式。
   4. 所提供資訊正確無誤的善意聲明。
4. 代管內容的中間人得依法律規定對關於非法內容的內容限制請求作出回應，將合法並符合條件的請求轉發給使用者內容提供者，或者通知投訴人不能這麼做的原因（「通知與通知」）。不得要求中間人確保其有能力識別使用者。
5. 在轉發請求時，中間人必須對使用者內容提供者的權利提供清晰易懂的解釋，包含一切狀況下法律強制中間人對內容進行限制時任何適用之反通知或上訴機制。
6. 如果中間人基於內容限制請求對他們代管的內容進行限制，他們必須遵守下方關於透明度和問責機制的第六條原則。
7. 濫用或惡意的內容限制請求應該受到處罰。

4 Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality

Laws, orders and practices restricting content must be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society:

1. Any restriction of content should be limited to the specific content at issue.
2. When restricting content, the least restrictive technical means must be adopted.
3. If content is restricted because it is unlawful in a particular geographical region, and if the intermediary offers a geographically variegated service, then the geographical scope of the content restriction must be so limited.
4. If content is restricted owing to its unlawfulness for a limited duration, the restriction must not last beyond this duration, and the restriction order must be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains valid.

4 法律、內容限制命令，和實務做法必須通過必要性和比例原則的檢驗

在一個民主社會中，法律、內容限制命令，和實務做法必須具備必要性並合乎比例：

1. 所有內容限制必須局限於特定之爭議內容。
2. 在對內容進行限制時，必須採用限制性最低的技術手段。
3. 如果內容是因為在特定地理區域屬於違法而被限制，而中間人針提供因地域而異的服務，那麼內容限制應局限於該地理範圍內。
4. 如果內容是因為在一定期間內屬於非法而被限制，那麼限制不能持續超過該期間，並應該定期檢視限制命令以確保其仍然有效。

5 Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process

1. Before any content is restricted on the basis of an order or a request, the intermediary and the user content provider must be provided an effective right to be heard except in exceptional circumstances, in which case a post facto review of the order and its implementation must take place as soon as practicable.
2. Any law regulating intermediaries must provide both user content providers and intermediaries the right of appeal against content restriction orders.
3. Intermediaries should provide user content providers with mechanisms to review decisions to restrict content in violation of the intermediary’s content restriction policies.
4. In case a user content provider wins an appeal under (b) or review under (c) against the restriction of content, intermediaries should reinstate the content.
5. An intermediary should not disclose personally identifiable information about a user without an order by a judicial authority.  An intermediary liability regime must not require an intermediary to disclose any personally identifiable user information without an order by a judicial authority.
6. When drafting and enforcing their content restriction policies, intermediaries should respect human rights.  Likewise, governments have an obligation to ensure that intermediaries’ content restriction policies respect human rights.

5 法律、內容限制政策，和實務做法必須遵循正當程序

1. 除有特殊情況，否則基於命令或請求而對任何內容進行限制之前，中間人和使用者內容提供者必須被賦予有效的陳述權。在特殊情況下，必須盡快對該命令及其執行進行事後審查。
2. 任何規範中間人的法律必須賦予使用者內容提供者和中間人對內容限制命令的上訴權。
3. 使用者內容提供者違反中間人的內容限制政策，中間人應對其提供複查內容限制決定的機制。
4. 如果使用者內容提供者在根據（b）上訴成功或者根據（c）的複查否決內容限制，中間人應恢復內容。
5. 中間人不應於沒有司法機關命令時揭露關於使用者的個人識別資訊。中間人責任制度不得要求中間人在沒有司法機關命令時揭露任何個人識別之使用者資訊。
6. 中間人草擬和執行其內容限制政策時應該尊重人權。同樣地，政府也有義務確保中間人的內容限制政策尊重人權。
7. 這邊 @ming-hsuan 的一個建議也被洗掉，我憑記憶加上「否則」，其他我先不動好了，如確定的話請直接改。
8. 已改～～覺得原先a讀起來意思上可能有歧異所以小修正一下
9. 為免我這邊又有什麼程式衝突狀況，明天再來看哪些地方有編輯，再放到 Github。

6 Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices. 

1. Governments must publish all legislation, policy, decisions and other forms of regulation relevant to intermediary liability online in a timely fashion and in accessible formats. 
2. Governments must not use extra-judicial measures to restrict content. This includes collateral pressures to force changes in terms of service, to promote or enforce so-called “voluntary” practices and to secure agreements in restraint of trade or in restraint of public dissemination of content. 
3. Intermediaries should publish their content restriction policies online, in clear language and accessible formats, and keep them updated as they evolve, and notify users of changes when applicable. 
4. Governments must publish transparency reports that provide specific information about all content orders and requests issued by them to intermediaries. 
5. Intermediaries should publish transparency reports that provide specific information about all content restrictions taken by the intermediary, including actions taken on government requests, court orders, private complainant requests, and enforcement of content restriction policies. 
6. Where content has been restricted on a product or service of the intermediary that allows it to display a notice when an attempt to access that content is made, the intermediary must display a clear notice that explains what content has been restricted and the reason for doing so.                                                         
7. Governments, intermediaries and civil society should work together to develop and maintain independent, transparent, and impartial oversight mechanisms to ensure the accountability of the content restriction policies and practices.                                                      
8. Intermediary liability frameworks and legislation should require regular, systematic review of rules and guidelines to ensure that they are up to date, effective, and not overly burdensome. Such periodic review should incorporate mechanisms for collection of evidence about their implementation and impact, and also make provision for an independent review of their costs,  demonstrable benefits and impact on human rights.                                                                   

6 透明度和問責機制必須建立在法律、內容限制政策和實務做法中

• 去找標點符號規則來看，中文中多種並列，最後兩個用連詞連接即可，除非是「以及」，則前面可用原先的逗號，另，標題不加句號。
1. 政府必須以及時和易存取的格式在線上公布所有與中間人責任相關的法律、政策、決定及其他形式的規定。
2. 政府不得使用非司法措施對內容進行限制。這包括間接施壓強迫更改服務條款，推動或執行所謂「自律」的做法，以及達成限制交易或限制公開傳播內容的協議。
3. 中間人應該以清楚的語言和易存取的格式在線上公布其內容限制政策，在更動時及時更新，並將變動適時通知使用者。
• clear language建議直譯成「清楚的語言」之類的就好，白話和清楚的語言可能不一定等同
1. 政府必須發布透明度報告，提供關於其發給中間人之所有內容命令和請求的特定資訊。
2. 中間人應該發布透明度報告，提供其所為之所有內容限制的特定資訊，包括對政府請求、法律命令和私人投訴請求採取的行動，以及內容限制政策的執行情況。
3. 如果中間人可以在其產品或服務上顯示通知，那麼當使用者試圖存取其中被限制的內容時，中間人必須顯示明確通知，以解釋什麼內容被限制以及這麼做的理由。
4. 政府、中間人和公民社會應該共同努力建立和維護獨立、透明、公正的監督機制，以確保可對內容限制政策與實務做法進行問責。
5. 應於中間人責任框架和法律中，要求就規定及指引進行定期、系統性檢視，以確保它們為最新、有效，且不過分繁瑣。這類定期檢視應納入有關其執行情形及影響的證據蒐集機制，並應制定規章，對它們的代價、實質利益，及人權影響進行獨立審查。
• 應於中間人責任框架和法律中，要求就規定（rule）及指引（guidelines）進行定期、系統性的審查，以確保它們是最新、有效、且不過分繁瑣。這類的定期審查應納入有關其執行情形及影響評估的證據蒐集機制，並應制定規章，以對該審查的成本、實質利益及人權影響進行獨立檢視。
• 我衡量彙整一下三人翻的，應該不須放原文，影響後的「評估」會轉換原意，review 應可統一翻審查，costs 改譯代價應較符合文意。

• h我實在看不懂their在指誰，是指review嗎？還是mechanisms? 是英文太差了嗎Ｑ＿Ｑ？上面是當作review來翻的情形，但是當作mechanisms就完全不是這樣翻了ＱＱ
• 被 review 的 rules and guidelines。
• 當初也有想是不是指rules and guidelines，畢竟文法上才合理，但他們這樣寫大家真的都看得懂嗎囧，然後如果是這樣，要不要在“其”後面加上掛號(譯註:指規定及指引)之類的

Definitions

• Internet intermediaries bring together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet. They give access to, host, transmit and index content, products and services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide Internet-based services to third parties.
• Governments are the parties who issue content restriction orders, which have the force of law in a particular jurisdiction. Except where otherwise specified, references to governments include not only the executive branch of government, but also courts.
• Intermediary liability refers to the legal liability of Internet intermediaries for content contributed by, or activities carried out by, third parties.
• User content provider refers to users who upload material or share material with others via an intermediary.
• Content restriction requests are requests issued directly to intermediaries by private third parties for the restriction, including the removal, blocking, or filtering of information, or executive requests that seek to induce intermediaries to restrict content under their terms of service or by an untested allegation that such content is illegal.
• Content restriction orders are court orders and executive orders which are legally binding for the restriction, including removal, blocking, or filtering of online content or platforms.
• Content includes information, expression and communication provided by users.

• 最後一項出自 EFF 給的文件，但網頁版好像沒有放。

定義

• 網際網路中間人連接或促進第三方在網際網路的價值交換。他們提供存取、託管、傳輸，並索引源自於網際網路上第三方的內容、產品和服務，或對第三方提供基於網際網路的服務。
• 政府這一方發布內容限制法令，其在特定管轄區具有法律效力。除非另有說明，所指稱之政府不僅包括政府的行政部門，也包括法院。
• 中間人責任是指網際網路中間人對第三方所提供之內容或由第三方進行之活動的法律責任。
• 使用者內容提供者指的是任何藉由中間人上傳東西或分享東西給其他人的使用者。
• 內容限制請求是由私人第三方直接向中間人發出的限制請求，包括刪除、封鎖或過濾資訊，或試圖促使中間人根據其服務條款（或未經檢驗的「該內容為非法」主張）限制內容的執行請求。
• 內容限制命令是具有法律約束力之限制的法院命令和行政命令，包括刪除、封鎖或過濾線上內容或平台。
• 內容包含使用者呈現之資訊、表達和通訊。

關於中間人責任的一般性問題 General questions about intermediary liability

1. Why is intermediary liability important?

Given the amount of potentially unlawful or harmful content that is transmitted through their services and their technical capabilities to control access to that content, internet intermediaries are under increasing pressure from governments and interest groups to act as ‘gatekeepers’ of the Internet. This is usually done through the adoption of laws that hold intermediaries financially or criminally responsible if the intermediary fails to filter, block or remove content which is deemed illegal. This often results in private companies censoring content on behalf of the state without appropriate safeguards or accountability mechanisms.

1. 中間人責任為什麼重要？

由於潛在違法或有害內容通過中間人服務傳輸的數量，而中間人又有控制這些內容被存取的技術能力，網際網路中間人被政府和利益團體日益施壓扮演網際網路「守門員」。常見做法是通過法律，當中間人沒有過濾、阻擋或移除被視為非法的內容時，中間人將承擔財務或刑事責任。這往往導致民營公司代表國家對內容進行審查，而沒有適當的保障或問責機制。

2. What are the different models of intermediary liability?

There are several models of liability around the world. These can be broadly categorized into three models:

Expansive protections from liability – Intermediaries are not responsible for content produced by others so long as they have not intervened in that content. The intermediary is only required to restrict content when ordered to do so by a court or other independent adjudicatory body. For example, this is the model in the United States (except for alleged copyright infringements) and in Chile.

Conditional immunity from liability – Intermediaries are required to comply with predefined procedures to be granted immunity from liability of content on their platforms and networks. Two distinct systems of the conditional immunity or safe harbor model currently in practice include:

Notice and Takedown - The intermediary restricts content on receipt of a notice from a third party as per legal procedures

Notice and Notice - The intermediary passes on a third party notice to the user who uploaded the content.

For example in Singapore, Ghana, Uganda, South Africa and the EU, intermediaries are effectively immune from liability if they comply with notice and takedown procedures. Canada is an example of a conditional immunity model of liability that follows a notice and notice procedure.

Primary liability – Intermediaries can be held liable for all content on their platforms and networks and consequently, may face both criminal and civil sanctions. This often leads to intermediaries monitoring, identifying, and pro-actively removing content in order to avoid sanctions. For example, in Thailand intermediaries are generally held primarily liable for content and this leads them to actively monitor the content on their networks.

 2. 中間人責任有哪些不同的模式？

世界各地有數種不同的責任模式。它們大致上可分為三種模式：

廣泛免除責任－只要中間人沒有干涉他人發表的內容就不對該內容負責。中間人只需在法院或其它獨立裁判機構的要求下對內容進行限制。比如美國（除非聲稱著作權侵權）和智利就採用這種模式。

有條件免除責任－中間人必須遵守既定程序，以免除對其平台和網路上的內容負責。目前在實務上，有條件免除責任或安全港模式包括兩個不同系統：

通知與移除－中間人在收到第三方按照法律程序發出的通知後對內容進行限制。

通知與通知－中間人將第三方通知轉發給上傳內容的使用者。

例如在新加坡、迦納、烏干達、南非和歐盟，中間人只要遵守通知與移除程序就可以有效地被免除責任。加拿大則是按照通知與通知程序進行有條件免除責任的一個例子。

主要責任－中間人可以因其平台和網路上的所有內容被追究責任，並可能因此受到刑事和民事處罰。這往往導致中間人為了避免受處罰而對內容進行監控、識別和前攝性移除。例如在泰國，中間人一般都被要求對內容承擔主要責任，這使得他們積極主動地對其網絡上的內容進行監控。

3. What model of intermediary liability do the Manila Principles support?

The Manila Principles support expansive protections from liability for intermediaries, derived from the notion that intermediaries should not be held liable for content produced by others and may only remove content when ordered to do so by a court. The fact that intermediaries have the technical means to prevent access to content does not qualify them as the best placed to evaluate the ‘illegality’ of the content in question. Such a determination should be primarily a matter for an independent judicial body, and not a private company.

However, the Manila Principles recognise that a notice-and-notice model may also be appropriate to deal with issues that do not involve allegations of serious criminality such as defamation or copyright claims. For this reason, the Manila Principles recommend a number of procedural safeguards that should be included as part of a safe harbour model with a notice-and-notice system in order to be compatible with human rights standards (see question 9).

While the Manila Principles reject notice-and-takedown procedures and the primary liability model, we stress that at the bare minimum, where such models and procedures exist, they must lay down procedural safeguards that must be respected in order to protect freedom of expression.

3. 《马尼拉原则》支持哪一种中介方责任模式?

《马尼拉原则》支持对中介方广泛免除责任，该模式认识到中介方不应该为他人发布的内容负责，且只能在受到法院命令的情况下才能移除内容。中介方具有阻止内容被获取的技术手段这一事实并不意味着他们是评断内容是否为“非法”的最佳人选。这一决定应主要由独立的司法机构做出，而非私营公司。

然而《马尼拉原则》认识到，在不涉及诽谤或版权所有等严重犯罪的指控时，“通知与通知”模式也不失为一种得当的处理方法。因此，为了符合人权标准，《马尼拉原则》推荐将一些程序保障纳入附带“通知与通知”系统的安全港模式（请见问题9）。

虽然《马尼拉原则》反对“通知与移除”程序和主要责任模式，但是我们强调采取这些模式和程序的政府至少应该为保护言论自由制定并严格遵守程序保障。

4. Do the Manila Principles support the use of a graduated response or “three strikes” system for copyright infringements?

No. Although it is permissible under the Manila Principles to forward a notice to a user that their content has been reported as allegedly infringing the law, this would not require an intermediary to forward notices that a user has merely accessed allegedly infringing content through an intermediary. On a related point, the Manila Principles also specify that intermediaries should not be required to disclose personally identifiable user information without a judicial order.

4. 《马尼拉原则》是否支持对侵害知识产权行为实行分级回应或者“三振出局”的制度?

不支持。《马尼拉原则》虽然允许向用户转发其内容被指违法的通知，但并不要求中介方把通知转发给仅仅通过中介方获取了被指违法的内容的用户。相关地，《马尼拉原则》还规定了中介方不得在没有司法命令的情况下被要求公开可使个人身份暴露的信息。

《马尼拉原则》在实践中对不同类型的中介方的适用

5. What should a content host do on receipt of a notice from a third party that asks for a user’s content to be removed?

The first thing the host should consider is the format of the removal request—is the notice an order from a court with jurisdiction over the host? If not, the host should consider doing nothing. If the law does not make the host liable for that content, either immediately or after receipt of such a notice (and the Manila Principles recommends that it shouldn’t), then the most the content host should do is to forward the notice to the user who uploaded the content. This allows users to act on alleged illegal content if they wish to, by either complying with the notice for removal or contesting it in the court. In some cases (particularly where large volumes of requests are made), it will be proper for the intermediary to charge for this on a cost recovery basis.

5. 内容托管方在收到第三方要求移除某用户内容的通知时应如何处理?

内容托管方应该考虑的第一件事是移除内容通知的形式—这个通知是来自是对内容托管方具有管辖权的法院的命令吗？如果不是，那么内容托管方可考虑不采取任何行动。如果法律确实要求托管方内容发布的即刻或在收到通知后对该内容负责（《马尼拉原则》不建议这种做法），那么内容托管方最多只能将通知转发给上传内容的用户。这样可以让用户凭自己的意愿对被指非法的内容做出处理，即选择依照通知移除内容还是在法庭上对通知提出挑战。在某些情况下（尤其在接收到大量请求时）中介方可以按成本价格对此进行收费。

6. Do the Manila Principles also apply to search engines and domain providers?

Broadly, search engines and domain hosts are treated similarly to other intermediaries, in that, they should not restrict access to any content (which would include removing a search result or blocking a domain name) without a judicial order. An exception to the treatment of intermediaries who do not host content, is that they are not expected to pass on notices of alleged illegality (after all, they may not even know who the content provider is).

6. 《马尼拉原则》是否适用于搜索引擎和域名提供商? 

宽泛来讲，搜索引擎和域名提供商与其他中介方基本类似，同样不得在没有司法命令的情况下限制获取任何内容（包括移除搜索结果或阻挡域名）。不同之处在于这些中介方本身并不托管内容，因此不需要转发指控内容非法的通知（毕竟它们可能根本不知道内容提供者是谁）。

7. What if a third party requests content to be removed and that content is also against the host’s terms of service?

In that case, the restriction of the content is within the discretion of the host, and not strictly a response to the notice at all. But the host should avoid allowing its terms of service to be used as a back door for streamlined content removal by third parties. How can it avoid this? By adopting and incorporating the Manila Principles on transparency, accountability and procedural fairness. These include making sure that its policies are clearly expressed ahead of time, giving the user the chance to appeal the decision to restrict the content pursuant to those policies, and disclosing the restriction in its transparency reporting.

7. 如果第三方要求删除的内容恰好也违反了内容托管方的服务条款怎么办?

在这种情况下，对内容的限制由托管方全权决定，而且严格来说，根本不算作是对通知的回应。但是托管方应该避免让其服务条款被第三方利用成为轻松移除内容的后门。托管方应该如何避免这种情况呢？采纳和融合《马尼拉原则》中关于透明化、问责制度和程序公平的条款。这包括确保在事前对其政策作出清晰的表述，给予用户对根据其政策作出的限制内容的决定进行上诉的机会，以及在其透明化报告中公开内容限制的信息。

8. But what if the law requires the content to be removed on receipt of a notice from a third party (“notice and takedown”)—does that make the Manila Principles irrelevant?

No, though an intermediary has to comply with the law, they can limit the impact of the content restriction by following other aspects of the principles; as explained in the next answer.

8. 但是如果有法律要求在收到第三方通知后立即删除内容（“通知与移除”），那么《马尼拉原则》是否不再适用?

否。虽然中介方必须服从法律，但他们仍旧可以遵照《原则》的其他方面以减少内容限制的影响。下一题的回答对此做出了解释。

9. How should an intermediary minimize the impact of complying with an order to remove content on users rights?

For example, intermediaries should forward the notice to the user who uploaded the content and, in doing so, describe any available counter-notice or appeal mechanisms that the user can use to have the content reinstated. Intermediaries should also make sure that they have the technical means to reinstate the content, if such an appeal succeeds. And they should limit the restriction of the content, in terms of how much is restricted, over what geographical area, and for what time period, to the minimum necessary. If the service they provide allows them to display a notice in the place where the restricted content would otherwise be found, they should also do that.

9. 中介方应该如何将按照命令删除内容对用户权利的影响最小化?

例如，在将通知转发给上传内容的用户时，中介方应该对用户可用来争取内容被恢复的反通知或上诉机制进行介绍。中介方还应该确保其拥有在用户胜诉后恢复内容的技术手段。中介方还应该将限制内容的范围、地理区域、时长等限制在必要最低。如果其提供的服务允许，中介方还应在被限制的信息原本所在的位置显示通知。

10. But some content really does need to be taken offline without a court order—what do the Manila Principles recommend in such a situation?

Emergency circumstances do sometimes arise. In most of these cases, the intermediary may have discretion to act within their terms of service, as explained above. But there should still be no compulsion on an intermediary to act without a judicial order. The Manila Principles do, however, allow for such an order to be made without a judicial hearing in cases that are clearly and narrowly defined by law as exceptional circumstances (we do not attempt to itemize what these circumstances might be). Even in those cases, a hearing to review the order and the implementation of the order must subsequently be available.

10. 但是有的内容确实需要在没有法院命令的情况下被删除，《马尼拉原则》对这种情况有何建议?

紧急情况确实时有发生。同前文所述，在大多数紧急情况下中介方可以遵照其服务条款全权处理。但是中介方还是不应该在没有司法命令的情况下贸然冲动行事。而如果事实符合法律对特殊情况的清晰狭隘的定义（我们不试图逐项列举这些情形），《马尼拉原则》允许不举行司法听审即颁发命令。但即使这样，事后也必须举行听审对命令和命令的执行情况进行复审。

11. Why don’t the Manila Principles place limits on the grounds on which intermediaries can limit content that they host under their terms of service?

In general, intermediaries who host content ought to be able to decide what they do and don’t want to host; this freedom has contributed to the development of the Internet into such a diverse and dynamic ecosystem.  For this reason we do not wish to compel intermediaries to accept user content for hosting, or seek to evaluate the reasons why they choose not to (just as the Principles do not evaluate the various substantive grounds on which content may be prohibited by law).  Instead, the Principles require that whatever terms of service intermediaries apply must be clear and transparent, and that a user must be able to appeal against their application.  Intermediaries are also obliged to respect human rights, and governments to ensure that they do so.  Finally, while the Manila Principles do not cover the substantive content of intermediaries’ terms of service, there are various other projects that do.

11. 为什么《马尼拉原则》不对中介方在按照服务条款限制其托管的内容时可以提出的依据作出约束?

大体来讲，托管内容的中介方应该可以自行决定他们想和不想托管的内容；这样的自由促使互联网发展成如此多元化又充满活力的生态系统。因此我们不希望强迫中介方托管用户内容，也不试图评估他们拒绝托管内容的原因（就像《原则》不评估法律禁止内容的各种实质性理由一样）。《原则》反而要求中介方在适用任何服务条款时都务必做到清楚透明，并且保障用户可以针对条款的适用提出上诉。中介方还有义务尊重人权，政府应该确保中介方履行该义务。最后，虽然《马尼拉原则》没有涵盖中介方服务条款的实质内容，但是许多其它项目涉及这些内容。

Notice of Content Ristriction Generator

This form is to be used by Internet intermediaries (such as platforms and hosts) to construct a draft notice that can be sent to a user when a third party has requested that their content be restricted, whether or not any action has yet been taken in in response to that request. The aim is to provide information that is more useful and complete for the user than if the third party request were merely forwarded as-is.

Who made the content restriction request?

When did you receive the content restriction request?

MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecMonth

Day12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031Day

Year20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017Year

What is or was the URL or location of the content the subject of the restriction request?

When did the user upload this content?

MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecMonth

Day12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031Day

Year20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017Year

Hour123456789101112Hour

:

Minute000102030405060708091011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859Minute

 am 

pm

What time did the user upload this content?

The issue raised by the person sending the notice is that it is alleged to be 

copyright/trademark infringement

an invasion of privacy

defamation

hate speech

obscenity

other

Does the request allege that the content is unlawful?

yes

no

Does the request allege that the content is against your terms of service?

yes

no

Copy and paste the text of the notice you received or paste a link to a PDF version.

Have you restricted the content already?

yes

no