郭国汀：美國言論自由发展簡史 [1]
郭国汀：美國言論自由发展簡史(自由圣火首发稿)
文章摘要: 美國言論自由憲政權利的發展史表明：言論自由首先表現為對政府權力的嚴格限制，並通過憲法第一修正案禁止國會通過任何禁止言論自由的法律，否則因違憲而無效，而美國最高法院確實反復宣告美國政府頒佈的眾多法規因違憲而無效。
作者 : 郭国汀,
發表時間：11/21/2007
言论自由（表达自由）是联合国一系列公约反复加调,也是几乎世界各国宪法明文规定的基本人Quan.言论自由是人之为人不可剥夺的最重要的一项基本自由.思想自 由、出版自由、宗教信仰自由、结社组党自由与之密切相关。思想自由若无言论自由支撑也就没有意义；如果没有言论自由，出版自由毫无意义；要是没有言论自 由，宗教信仰自由也将不复存在。没有言论自由，人必将成为奴隶，而非有自由意志的人。没有言论自由，决不可能有人Quan，也不可能有法治，因为没有人Quan的法治 只能是伪法治。因此，言论自由是最基本的人Quan，也是最重要的政治权利。然而任何权利都是人们在与政府长期反复斗争中争来的，言论自由权亦不例外。今日美国 是全球言论最自由的国度之一，美国言论自由发展史颇具典型意义，对吾国言论自由权的实现具有重要借鉴指导价值。此论题值得深入研讨，本文仅是抛砖引玉 ，以期国人高度重视之。
1 殖民地时期的言论自由状况
The most stringent controls on speech in the colonial period were controls that outlawed or otherwise censored speech that was considered blasphemous in a religious sense. A 1646 Massachusetts law, for example, punished persons who denied the immortality of the soul. In 1612, a Virginia governor declared the death penalty for a person that denied the Trinity under Virginia's Laws Divine, Moral and Martial, which also outlawed blasphemy, speaking badly of ministers and royalty, and "disgraceful words."
美國殖民時期當局對言論自由，主要是对褻瀆宗教言論的限制。例如1646年马州法律规定否定灵魂不灭的言论构成犯罪；而1612年维州州长竟将否定三位一体说者处死。
2 1700年美国仍适用英国煽动性诽谤政府法规范言论
During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive. An English seditious libel law made criticizing the government a crime. According to the English Court of the Star Chamber, the King was above public criticism and statements critical of the government were forbidden. Chief Justice Holt, writing in 1704, explained the apparent need for the prohibition of seditious libel, "if people should not be called to account for possessing the people with an ill opinion of the government, no government can subsist. For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it." The objective truth of a statement in violation of the seditious libel law was not a defense.
1700年以前，依英國煽动性诽谤法（在美國適用）煽動性誹謗政府或其首腦均構成犯罪，王座法院认定國王不應受公眾批評，而且陈述客观事实并不能成为抗辩理由。
3 1735年美國言論自由得以確立的首個案例
The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger's publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.
盡管法官不接受[真實]事實抗辯，但辯護律師卻說服陪審團最终認定被告無罪，突顯了陪審團在刑事訴訟中的巨大作用。而中Gong专Zhi暴政下的所謂人民陪審制度，徒有陪審其名而無陪審員決定罪與非罪實權之實。
4．1791年美国宪法第一修正案正式确立言论自由至高无尚
Amendment I Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
第一條修正案。國會不得制定有關下列事項的法律 :確立一種宗教或禁止信教自由:剝奪言論自由或出版自由:或剝奪人民和平集會及向政府要求伸冤的權利。
5． 1798年美國言論自由的首個反彈
In 1798, Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts. The law prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States." set out punishments for publishing of up to two years' imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President).
The law did allow truth as a defense and required proof of malicious intent. The Federalists under President John Adams aggressively used the law against their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Act was a major political issue in the 1800 election, and after he was elected President, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act. The Act was repealed and the Supreme Court never ruled on its constitutionality.
該煽动反政府法是對憲法第一修正案的悖離，此罪没有使用暴力的前提条件，但须是故意诽谤才构成此罪，因此該法規定真實事實可作為抗辯理由，且控方 須證明行為人主觀惡意，此点较之前述英国煽动反政府法是个进步。但該法僅实施三年，隨後即被傑佛遜總統廢棄；同時因該法被拘捕判刑的數十人全部無罪釋放。 中國刑法中的反革命煽動罪，即今日之刑法第 105条第2款之煽動顛覆國家政權罪，較230年前的美國煽动反政府法，還要落後反动得多。實踐中即便批評中Gong的言論完全屬實，幾無例外全被中Gong專制暴政 無罪重判，且檢察官甚至無需證實被告的主觀惡意！
6． 1850年代及1860年初美国内战时期的言論自由
As the controversy over slavery intensified during the 1850s, some states and municipalities enacted laws prohibiting "agitation" over the issue, but the First Amendment did not then apply to the states or their municipalities, and, in any event, those laws soon disappeared along with slavery itself. During the Civil War, federal authorities detained thousands of persons who had expressed Southern sympathies, but those who had merely spoken, and not acted, for the South almost always were released quickly.
1850年代，美國南部各州曾頒布法規禁止煽動黑奴闹事，但因第一修正案僅適用於聯邦法而不適用於州法（第14修正案才規定第一修正案同樣對州法 適用），且由於奴隸制本身很快即消失，故該法未引起宪法权利之争。美国內戰期间聯邦政府拘捕了數千名有同情南方言論的異議人士，但對於僅有言說而無行動者 很快均釋放。
7． 1917年言論自由憲政时代的到来
The era of "freedom of speech" as a matter of adjudicated constitutional law began during World War I, with the trials of various persons who opposed and tried to obstruct United States participation in the war. Ever since, there has been a large amount of litigation over the definition of "speech" and the extent to which that speech is protected. A few questions that have been raised over the years indicate the scope and complexity of "freedom of speech" in American law:
·Is advocacy of illegal conduct constitutionally protected?
·Are false slanderous statements protected?
·Are obscene or pornographic words and depictions protected?
·Are commercial advertisements protected?
。Is nonverbal conduct protected when it is used to communicate ideas?
言論自由真正成為憲法爭议並由最高法院定论始於第一次世界大戰。因反战言论引发了大量涉言论诉讼，也促使法院考虑：煽动非法行为是否受宪法保护？ 虚假的诽谤性言论是否受保护？猥亵或色情言论是否受保护？商业广告是否受保护？用于表达观念的非语言性行为是否受第一修正案保护？美国最高法院审理了一系 列此种涉及言论自由的案件。限于篇幅将另文专论。
8． 1940年史密斯法強調必須有煽動[暴力]才構成此罪 。
The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 is a United States federal statute that made it a criminal offense for anyone to" knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association." The Act is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, mostly on the left. From 1941 to 1957, hundreds of socialists were prosecuted under the Smith Act. The first trial, in 1941, focused on Trotskyists, the second trial in 1944 prosecuted alleged fascists and, beginning in 1949, leaders and members of the Communist Party USA were targeted. Prosecutions continued until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional. The statute remains on the books, however.
這是美國主要用于對付共產党 暴力宣傳的法律，1957年被最高法院判定該法違憲而廢止。美國對付共產黨的法律明定必須有煽動用暴力推翻政府才構成犯罪，質言之，那怕共產黨用和平言論 煽動推翻美國政府仍然無罪。美國最高法院的法官是真正的法官，而中Gong最高法院則絕大多數屬貨真價實的偽法官，或被閹割了法官，因為正直誠實有真才實學的法 律人，是不屑與中Gong專制暴政同流合污的。中Gong掌控的人大常委會在修訂刑法時明知故意地設立了[和平言論]煽动反革命宣传罪即煽動顛覆國家政權罪！而且无需 证明行为人的主观恶意也无须证明政府利益是否受到了实际损害，纯属典型的恶法。亦可見中Gong專制暴政自知其非法性，脆弱性，惡意性！
8． 政治言論絕對自由
During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of laws were passed that attempted to regulate or ban "hate speech," defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias Freedom-loving people are hard-pressed to understand why some governments and religions would withhold this freedom from their people. It is denial of a basic human right, and many people throughout the world suffer under suppression of this freedom. Will attitudes toward freedom of speech, even in countries that enjoy this basic right, continue to swing back and forth like a pendulum? Will the idea of freedom of speech be used to justify immoral or obscene language? Already the courts are struggling with the controversy.
US courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects "indecent" pornography from regulation, but not "obscene" pornography. People convicted of distributing obscene pornography face long prison terms and asset forfeiture.In 1996, Congress passed Communications Decency Act, with the aim of restricting Internet pornography. Court rulings have struck down much of the law, however.A widely publicized case of prosecuting alleged obscenity occurred in 1990, when the Cincinnati Arts Center agreed to hold an art show featuring the work of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. His work included several artistic nude photographs of males and was deemed offensive by some people for this reason. This resulted in the prosecution of the center and its director, who were later acquitted.In the early 1990s, Mike Diana became the first American artist to be convicted for obscenity for drawing cartoons that were judged legally obscene.
美國政治言論幾近絕對自由，那怕煽動暴力推翻政府，也僅在有[明顯與即時的危險]時才追究當事人的刑事責任；但對民事侵權言論諸如誹謗、煽動仇 恨、色情攻擊言論及商業言論方面法律限制相當严厉。中Gong國恰好相反，政治言論幾無自由，但民事言論，諸如誹謗、猥亵挑衅性言论、商業广告及煽動仇恨等言論 的自由度則遠大於政治言論自由，簡直一路綠燈！實質是中Gong專制暴政有意放任，以便用色情和赤裸裸的物欲誘導青年網民不過問政治權利。同时不时以扫黄打非为 借口行封杀政治言论自由之实；由此側面再次證實，中Gong專制獨裁政權是典型的流氓暴政！
9． 反恐怖戰争 與言論自由
The "War on terror" has been seen as a pretext for reducing civil liberties.Within the United States, critics argue that the Bush Administration and lower governments have restricted civil liberties and created a "culture of fear". Bush introduced the USA PATRIOT Act legislation to the United States Congress shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, which significantly expanded U.S. law enforcement's power. It has been criticized as being too broad and having been abused for purposes unrelated to counter-terrorism. President Bush had also proposed Total Information Awareness, a federal program to collect and process massive amounts of data to identify behaviors consistent with terrorist threats. It was heavily criticized as being an "Orwellian" case of mass surveillance.
Many opponents focus on the domestic aspects, complaining that the government is systematically removing civil liberties from the population or engaging in racial profiling. They also allege that this approach increases public hostility to dissenting voices by encouraging the view that such people are being unpatriotic or even treasonous for simply disagreeing with the administration.
自911后，備受指責批評的愛國法因反恐怖之需极大地扩张了司法部门的权力，對美國人的言論自由有所限制，但主要不是政治而是反恐戰之因。
10． 美國刑法 典中的煽動顛覆政府罪條款
美國刑法典第2385節规定 ：Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
美國《刑法典》第2385節將煽動推翻政府罪的具體手段規定得十分明確具體，諸如：[經由印刷、出版、編輯、發表、傳播、銷售、分發或公開演示任 何書面或印刷品 ]旨在[ 提倡、慫恿、指點、或教唆使用暴力推翻或摧毀政府或使用暴力手段暗殺政府官員]使得法官判案時有明確標準。
而中Gong刑法居然以[以造謠、誹謗或者其他方式煽動顛覆國家政權、推翻社會主義制度]任意實施政治迫Hai。既没有 [暴力]要素，也没有 [恶意]因素，却有包罗万象的 [其他方式 ]； 依同類解釋規則，[其他方式 ]必須是與[造謠、誹謗]類似的而非可以任意擴張解釋。
自由民主國家的類似刑法條文與該條惡法的本質區別在於：推翻或毀滅政府罪或煽動推翻或毀滅政府罪的實質構成要件必須是：任何人明知或故意提倡、慫 恿、指點、或教唆使用暴力推翻或摧毀政府或使用暴力手段暗殺政府官員。 質言之，顛覆政府無罪，除非使用暴力；那怕是誹謗、詆毀政府也無罪，因為公民有批評批判監督政府的權力，因為主權在民，因為任何自由民主國的政府皆是由選 民通過選票決定執政者去留，因此根本不存在和平手段顛覆政府罪或和平言論煽動顛覆政府罪。此外，各國刑法中只有暴力推翻政府罪，而決無和平理性言論顛覆[ 國家政權]罪。中國刑法中的[顛覆國家政權]罪反映了中Gong當權獨裁集團[槍桿子里面出政權]、[ 有權就有一切] 的強盜概念實在根深蒂固。再者，法律規範應當明確清晰，人們才能知道什麽是法律允許的?什麽是法律禁止的?
综上所述：美国言论自由宪政权利的发展史表明：言论自由首先表现为对政府权力的严格限制，并通过宪法第一修正案禁止国会通过任何禁止言论自由的法 律，否则因违宪而无效，而美国最高法院确实反复宣告美国政府颁布的众多法规因违宪而无效。言论自由并非绝对的权利，但政治言论几近绝对自由，除非煽动使用 暴力达到政治目的；即便涉嫌煽动暴力推翻政府，还必须同时满足 [明显和即时的危险]标准，才能追究行为人的刑事责任；实际上，自1951年以后美国几乎没有任何煽动暴力推翻政府罪的案例。但是猥亵挑衅性 （Obscenity ）言论完全不受法律保护，商业言论有严格限制，煽动仇恨的言论亦受限制；政府采取限制言论自由时必须充分证明存在克不容缓的政府利益非因此将受损，且必须 将该限制限定在该利益范围内；禁止政府任何事先审查。反观中Gong专Zhi暴政下，数十上百万政治良心异议人士仅因事实求是公开批评指责中Gong政权及其党魁的和平言 论，即被残杀（毛华时期）或被中Gong阉法院强行无罪重判（邓江胡时期）！因此，国人唯有彻底唾弃毫无人性残暴至极的中Gong专Zhi暴政，才能赢得与生俱来的人的尊 严与自由。
2007年11月18日第90个反专Zhi争人Quan和自由维权抗暴绝食日于加拿大
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本文主要参考资料： Robert S.Barker.The Historical Development of Freedom of Speech; Free Speech in America An Overview; and Censorship in the United States; Freedom of Speech in the United States by Thomas L Tedford.
本文系质疑张千帆教授之《宪政国家的言论自由》文中美国言论自由发展史的论点。
页:
[1]