A Study on the Constitutional Balancing Mechanism Between Freedom of Speech and Content Moderation on Digital Platforms

Abstract

The ever-expanding power of digital platforms to moderate content has placed the constitutional protection of freedom of speech in a structural predicament. Using constitutional balancing theory as an analytical framework and employing a combination of normative analysis, comparative research, and case studies, this study systematically examines the source of power, operational logic, and impact pathways of digital platform content moderation on freedom of speech. The study finds that the legitimacy of platforms’ content moderation powers remains ambiguous. Currently, constitutional norms are insufficient to address speech management by private entities, and there is a lack of stable institutional coordination between platform self-regulatory mechanisms and external oversight. Based on this, this paper proposes a balancing mechanism centered on platform self-regulation—the “moderate-constitutional-horizontal effect extension”—which advocates for institutional arrangements such as improving procedural safeguards, strengthening transparency disclosure obligations, and introducing independent review bodies to promote a dynamic balance between the protection of freedom of speech and platform content governance. The study demonstrates that the effective operation of constitutional balancing mechanisms in the digital age depends on redefining the constitutional status of platforms and establishing institutional solutions that create a structural tension between private law autonomy and public law regulation, thereby providing a normative foundation for the sustained protection of digital expression rights.