Empirical Analysis And Legal Improvement Of Internet Information Content Supervision Measure

The rapid development of the Internet has brought new challenges to the regulatory field,and shaping a clean and upright cyberspace is to build a beautiful spiritual home for netizens.The National Cyberspace Administration of China has launched a series of special activities on "Qinglang",continuously focusing on nine aspects of network problems mainly caused by "self media" chaos.It has simultaneously regulated network chaos and protected the rights and interests of netizens,achieving good regulatory results.Since the establishment of the National Internet Information Office,a large number of internet regulations have been continuously established,and at the same time,innovative measures have been taken to regulate internet information content.These measures are widely used in practice,but they have also been controversial in various aspects.Although a systematic,comprehensive,and three-dimensional governance system has been initially established,the field of online information content regulation still faces a dilemma-regulatory measures must effectively respond to the rapid development of business formats and enrich the institutional practice of administrative supervision;It must operate within the framework of rigid constraints of administrative rule of law,in accordance with the basic requirements of legalization.This article conducts empirical analysis on the "Selected Cases of Administrative Law Enforcement Guidance for Cyberspace Administration" and recent typical regulatory cases.Based on the analysis of the characteristics and principles of regulatory measures,it explores the current regulatory status and problems of harmful information on the Internet by sorting out existing laws and regulations and relevant law enforcement practices.Suggestions for improving the rule of law in cyberspace supervision are proposed,mainly divided into the following parts:The first part differentiates and analyzes the legal concept of Internet information content supervision,and classifies the adverse information of the supervision object.The connotation of distinguishing regulation from governance is different from the content governance involving multiple entities such as government,society,and market.Regulation emphasizes the primary role of administrative departments.Compare the regulatory measures of online credit with traditional regulatory measures;The second part elaborates on the legal basis of regulation and the theory of collaborative governance,providing theoretical support and guidance for analyzing the principles of regulatory measures;The third part analyzes typical regulatory cases to identify the types,usage characteristics,and principles of regulatory measures.And the legal problems existing in the regulatory measures are put forward,that is,the power limitation and right protection under the legislation of "fragmentation",the power and responsibility distribution under the complexity of the regulatory subject,the rationality of the scope of management and the refinement of the regulatory standards.The fourth part summarizes the legislative and institutional experience of Germany and Russia,compares the regulatory concepts and practices of the United States,Europe,Japan,and South Korea,and summarizes the inspiration for China’s internet regulation;The fifth part proposes legislative suggestions on the establishment of regulatory measures,the accountability mechanisms of different entities,and the determination of regulatory scope based on the principle of comparison.It also proposes suggestions on the improvement of the operational mechanism of regulatory measures from the aspects of legal regulation of the regulatory power of internet information content,reasonable allocation of regulatory power,effective restriction of regulatory power,and realization of rights protection,Propose implementation guarantee suggestions for improving the legalization of regulatory measures in terms of the implementation path and supporting mechanisms for the transformation of regulatory measures into a rule of law.