정보화정책 (Informatization Policy)

한국지능정보사회진흥원 (National Information Society Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

미국 인터넷 내용규제의 정치: 신제도주의로 본 연방통신품위법 230조 개정 논의

The Politics of Internet Content Regulation in the U.S.: A Case Study on Communications Decency Act Section 230 Reform with New Institutionalist Approach

  • 투고 : 2022.06.07
  • 심사 : 2022.07.11
  • 발행 : 2022.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 미국 연방통신품위법 230조의 개정 논의를 신제도주의의 관점에서 분석하였다. 지금까지 내구력을 유지하며 미국 인터넷 내용규제의 기본틀을 구성해왔던 연방통신품위법 230조의 면책 조항은 오늘날 중대한 전환에 직면해 있다. 이 조항을 개폐하려는 정치적 시도들이 초당적인 협력으로 진행되고 있기 때문이다. 역사적 제도주의의 관점으로 연방통신품위법 230조의 개폐 논의를 분석한 결과, 미국 인터넷 내용규제 레짐의 변동은 가짜뉴스나 개인 정보 유출과 같은 외생적 사건과 함께, 행위자 간의 경쟁과 갈등이라는 내생적 요인이 복합적으로 작용해 발생한 것으로 여겨진다. 이상의 분석은 한국의 인터넷 내용규제 거버넌스의 제도개선과 방향성에 대해서도 함의를 지닐 수 있다.

This research analyzes the potential reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act through the new institutionalist approach. The immunity provision of the Section 230, which has developed the U.S. Internet content regulation regime and protected big tech firms, is facing a significant change today. The chambers of Congress have attempted to limit the immunity shield for platforms with bipartisanship. As a result of analysis through the perspective of historical institutionalism, a critical change could come from external events including fake news controversies and data privacy scandals, as well as endogenous factors such as conflicts among actors. The discussion deals with the possible direction of Internet content regulation reforms in Korea.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, S. (2021). "The US response to fake news." 2021 International Media Law Research. Seoul: Press Arbitration Commission.
  2. Braun, J. & Eklund, J. (2019). "Fake News, Real Money: Ad Tech Platforms, Profit-Driven Hoaxes, and the Business of Journalism." Digital Journalism, 7(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1556314
  3. Capoccia, G. (2016). "When do institutions "bite"? Historical institutionalism and the politics of institutional change." Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1095-1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015626449
  4. Capoccia, G. & Kelemen, D. (2007). "The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism." World Politics, 59, 341-369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
  5. Chang, W. (2005). "The Policy of Contents Regulation on the Internet of EU." Journal of International Area Studies, 8(4), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.18327/jias.2005.01.8.4.275
  6. Chang, W., Gil, J., Kim, J., Min, H. & Choi, J. (2021). "Political Participation and Decision-Making in an Era of Digital Transformation and Innovations in Legislature and Party Politics." Broadcast and Communications Policy Studies, 2021-0-00008, 38-58.
  7. Congressional Records (2021). S574. February 8.
  8. Congressional Research Service (2022). "Children and the Internet: Legal Considerations in Restricting Access to Content." CRS Report, March 14.
  9. Culpepper, P. & Thelen, K. (2020). "Are We all Amazon Primed? Consumers and the Politics of Platform Power." Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 288-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852687
  10. Dwoskin, E. (2021). "Facebook's reversal on banning claims that covid-19 is man-made could unleash more anti-Asian sentiment." Washington Post, May 28.
  11. Emmenegger P. (2021). "Agency in historical institutionalism: Coalitional work in the creation, maintenance, and change of institutions." Theory and Society, 50, 607-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09433-5
  12. Flew, T. (2019). "The Platformized Internet: Issues for Internet Law and Policy." Journal of Internet Law, 3-16.
  13. Flew, T., Martin, F. & Suzor, N. (2019). "Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance." Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
  14. Flick, D. (2017). "Combatting fake news: alternatives to limiting social media misinformation and rehabilitating quality journalism." Science and Technology Law Review, 20(2), 374-405.
  15. Gold, A. & McGill, M. (2021). "The fractured tech lobby's uphill battles." Axios, January 14.
  16. Hacker, J. (2004). "Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state." American Political Science Review, 98, 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001121
  17. Hacker, J. & Pierson, P. (2014). "After the 'master theory': Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis." Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001637
  18. Hall, P. & Taylor, R. (1996). "Political science and the three new institutionalisms." Political Studies, 44, 936-957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
  19. Hwang, S. (2010). "A Constitutional Study on the Internet and Election Campaign." Journal of Media Law, Ethics and Policy, 9(1), 177-229.
  20. Ikenberry, J. (1988). "Conclusion: An Institutional Approach to American Foreign Economic Policy." International Organization, 42(1): 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300007189
  21. Jones, B. & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  22. Jung, K. (2022). "A Study of Restriction on Untrue Facts under the Public Officials Election Act." Study of Election, 16, 147-170.
  23. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown and Company.
  24. Kelly, H. & Guskin, E. (2021). "Americans widely distrust Facebook, TikTok and Instagram with their data, poll finds." Washington Post, December 22.
  25. Krasner, S. (1984). "Approaches to the state." Comparative Politics, 16, 223-246. https://doi.org/10.2307/421608
  26. Legeyt, C. (2022). "Congress must act to preserve the future of local journalism." The Hill, May 16.
  27. Levi, M. (2008). "Reconsiderations of Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis." In Lichbach, M. & Zuckerman, A. (ed.) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  28. MacCarthy, M. (2021). "Back to the future for Section 230 reform." Brookings, March 17.
  29. Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Napoli, P. (2021). "Back from the dead again: The specter of the Fairness Doctrine and its lesson for social media regulation." Policy & Internet, 13, 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.253
  31. Nieborg, D. & Helmond, A. (2019). "The political economy of Facebook's platformization in the mobile ecosystem: Facebook Messenger as a platform instance." Media, Culture, & Society, 41(2), 196-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818384
  32. OECD. (2021). Competition Issues concerning News Media and Digital Platforms, OECD Competition Committee Discussion Paper
  33. Millhiser, I. (2022). "The Supreme Court shuts down Texas's attempt to seize control of social media - for now." Vox, May 31.
  34. Mullin, J. (2021). "Changing Section 230 Won't Make the Internet a Kinder, Gentler Place." Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 17.
  35. Park. A. (2019). "A Critical Perspective on Regulating 'Fake News' & Disinformation." Journal of Communication Research, 56(2), 113-155. https://doi.org/10.22174/JCR.2019.56.2.113
  36. Powell, W. (1991). "Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis." In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (ed.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Roberts, C. & Geels, F. (2019). "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 221-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.019
  38. Sabatier, P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press.
  39. Scott, R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities. CA: Sage.
  40. Senate Congressional Record. (2021). S.574. February 8.
  41. Skorup, B. & Huddleston, J. (2020). "The erosion of publisher liability in American law, section 230, and the future of online curation." Oklahoma Law Review, 72(3), 635-673.
  42. Soares, I. (2017). "The fake news machine: Inside a town gearing up for 2020." CNN Money, September 16.
  43. Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Timmer, J. (2017). "Fighting falsity: Fake news, Facebook, and the first amendment." Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 35(3), 669-706.
  45. US Congress https://www.congress.gov (Retrieved on June 5, 2022).
  46. Wagner, B. (2013). "Governing Internet Expression: How Public and Private Regulation Shape Expression Governance." Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 10, 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2013.799051
  47. Weisbaum, H. (2018). "Trust in Facebook has dropped by 66 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal." NBC News, April 19.