星期二, 9月 19, 2017

批評《真的絕對自由嗎?細數美國言論自由的種種紅線》

共媒發很多文章都是誤導的。但人們只是轉載,永遠不去查證。
如果稍加查證,就會發覺這些 landmark cases 恰恰就是一路走來確立言論自由。

試看這篇
《真的絕對自由嗎?細數美國言論自由的種種紅線》
https://kknews.cc/world/6nkyozm.html

文章開頭這樣說︰
//在標榜「言論自由」的美國,無論是在立法還是司法層面,同樣要為言論自由劃紅線,違反美國的法律的言論,同樣要負法律責任。大量事實表明,美國政府對於美國民眾一些不應該屬於違法或者屬於輕度違法的言論,也通過法律手段進行打壓或者過度處罰,有的量刑相當重。相比之下,中國寬容多了。//

之後列舉一連串事例。

1、美國人沒有褻瀆國旗或焚毀徵兵卡的象徵性言論自由。
//一旦發生類似事件將會面臨處罰,比如2013年一名美國教師因踩國旗被開除,當時,美國南卡羅來納州查普林高中男教師斯科特•康普頓在全班學生面前猛踩美國國旗,並稱「國旗只是一塊布,沒有任何意義」。隨後,康普頓被調查、開除。
在越戰期間,美國各地反戰分子紛紛以焚毀美國國旗或徵兵卡作為對美國政府的抗議,他們在審判中以焚毀徵兵卡是象徵性言論為由,力辯其應受憲法第一條修正案「言論自由權」的保障,但最終都被美國聯邦最高法院否決。//

查證結果︰

2013年南加羅來納確有教師因教通識課時踩國旗被學校辭退,但文章無提到的是,學校為免被教師追訴,協議賠償教師八萬五千美元。
//A South Carolina high school teacher removed from the classroom when he stomped on an American flag while discussing freedom is being paid $85,000 to avoid a legal challenge.//
https://amp.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2013/05/08/291261.htm

關於越戰,且對比維基百科。
//越南戰爭期間,美國聯邦最高法院對於人民批評政府言論的立場有了巨大的變化。但是最高法院在此期間還是支持了一些諸如禁止偽造、自殘或撕毀徵兵卡方式來逃脫兵役的法律,例如在1968年的「美國訴奧布萊登案(英語:United States v. O'Brien)」中,[65] 最高法院就擔心焚燒徵兵卡會對徵兵工作的「順利和有效運作」造成危害。[66][67] 但就在次年,聯邦最高法院通過對「布蘭登堡訴俄亥俄州案(英語:Brandenburg v. Ohio)」[68] 的判決徹底推翻了惠特尼訴加利福尼亞州案」中的裁決。[69] 現在,最高法院就鼓吹公開暴力和革命言論的話語權給予了廣義上的說明:

(我們的)裁決規範了憲法保障言論自由和新聞自由的原則,即不允許政府禁止或取締鼓吹暴力或非法活動的言論,即便這些言論有可能導致這樣行動或這些行動的確會導致這樣的危險。[70]

通過「美國訴奧布萊登案」,最高法院拋棄了由「申克訴美國案」得出的「明顯且即時危險」的標準,並同時進一步削弱了「丹尼斯訴美國案」判例的影響力。[71][72] 在1971年的「科恩訴加利福尼亞州案」中,[73] 聯邦最高法院以「五比四」的結果推翻了原審。在原審中,科恩因在洛杉磯郡法院走廊上穿著有「去你媽的徵兵(Fuck the Draft)」字樣的夾克衫而被定罪。大法官約翰·馬歇爾·哈倫閣下在多數意見中寫道,儘管科恩的外套上的言論使用了髒字,但依然屬於「第一修正案」所保護的政治言論範疇。他寫道「汝之砒霜,彼之蜜糖(one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric)」//
https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%AA%E6%B3%95%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E6%A1%88

2、危及美國公共安全的玩笑不能開
//在機場等地尤其敏感。在洛杉磯國際機場電檢入口處掛有「請勿開玩笑」的牌示,如果有人在此說「Hi Jack!」(傑克你好嗎?)航警一旦聽見,必將其逮捕法辦,因為這句話正是英文劫機(Hijack)一詞的諧音。對此,美國聯邦最高法院解釋說:「最大的言論自由也不保障任何人在戲院中有誑呼失火造成驚慌奔逃的自由。」以劫機作為取笑的言論也不受保障,這說明公共安全重於個人的言論自由。//

我的評論︰
這是極端無謂的講法,例如講 hi, jack 被誤會為劫機,那當然不是正常思想的人會認為是缺乏言論自由。
試過有韓國人在便利店有爭執,說了句 I'll sue you. 但被當成 I'll shoot u, 店員嚇得報警,這些可以理解。
呢啲如果有法律責任,係必要的事。難道我們會說“沒有打劫銀行的行動自由”,所以認為外國一樣不是完全自由,所以中國沒示威自由也無問題?

3、沒有引發危害美國公眾秩序導致暴亂的言論自由
//在對待侮辱美國總統的言語行為上,美國政府的做法更是極其刻薄。1951年,美國一大學生站在街頭髮表演說,辱罵杜魯門總統和一些官員,引起聽眾公憤,咆哮喊打,騷動暴亂一觸即發,該大學生被逮捕,以破壞公共安寧秩序罪被判刑。2002年9月,37歲的詹姆斯·特勞格因向白宮發了幾封電子郵件,聲稱要「殺死布希、炸毀白宮」,即被捕入獄,面臨10年刑期和50萬美元罰款。2002年11月,美國一名17歲的高中生為報復同班女生,假冒她給布希發了1封電子郵件,聲稱要「殺死布希及其全家,並將用炸彈炸掉白宮」,被判刑1年。更荒唐的是,患有精神病且正在治療的美國流浪漢蒂莫西·韋德·平克斯頓,只因2007年說要「槍殺布希」,即被判刑57個月。//

在另一篇《美国非暴力政治言论不犯法吗?》,也提到這事
//4) 以刑事罪名限制言论自由。网络流传的美国十八种言论禁忌中有一个例子讲得是1951年 美国一大学生有一天站在街头发表演说攻击杜鲁门总统和一些官员,引起部分听众咆哮喊打。结果该大学生被逮捕,最后以破坏公共安宁秩序罪判刑。这个案例说明 了西方国家以刑事罪名进行政治迫害的一贯伎俩,暴露了它们司法公正的虚伪。如果攻击杜鲁门总统和其它官员属于自由言论,而且美国真地保护言论自由,那么听 众咆哮喊打是破坏言论自由。如果听众咆哮喊打是对的就证明美国人没有攻击美国总统的言论自由。这时,该学生应该因违反某条言论禁令而获罪,而不是“破坏公共安宁秩序罪”。破坏公共安宁秩序罪的是别人。该学生连煽动破坏公共安宁秩序都说不上。总之,这个案例不能自圆其说。但这样一来,一个地地道道的政治案就成了刑事案。按照这个案例,小布什在伊拉克演说时遭到愤怒的伊拉克记者扔鞋,应判罪的不是记者而是小布什。在今年(2011年)9月的“佔据华尔街” 的抗议活动中,有人在祖科蒂公园用扩音器喊话而被纽约警察逮捕,理由是未经许可使用扩音器。而一女子在祖科蒂公园附近的行人路上用粉笔写口号时因涂鸦罪被捕。//
http://www.backchina.com/blog/280795/article-124288.html

查證結果︰
「1951年,美國一大學生站在街頭發表演說,辱罵杜魯門總統...」
這個被控以妨礙公眾安寧的 Irving Feiner 被判囚30日。
//Irving Feiner, who played a significant role in the Constitutional debate over free speech when the Supreme Court upheld his conviction on charges of disorderly conduct for dangerously provoking a crowd as he spoke from a soapbox in Syracuse in 1949, died on Jan. 23 in Valhalla, N.Y. He was 84.
...(He always denied widespread reports that he called President Harry S. Truman a bum, saying that if he had meant to insult the president, he would have used an earthier phrase.)
The police estimated that 75 to 80 whites and blacks — 25 or 30, according to Mr. Feiner’s side — had gathered and were blocking the sidewalk and becoming restive. People heckled Mr. Feiner, and at least one man threatened him.
Saying he feared a riot, a police officer at least twice asked Mr. Feiner to get down from the box.
Feiner refused and was arrested on the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, found guilty by a judge and sentenced to 30 days in jail.//
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/nyregion/03feiner.html

Feiner 覺得逮捕他是不當的,事後他控告紐約州政府。其實就是 Feiner vs New York case.
 //On the evening of March 8, 1949, Irving Feiner was arrested after making an inflammatory speech to a mixed crowd of 75 or 80 black people and white people at the corner of South McBride and Harrison Streets in Syracuse, New York. Feiner, a college student,[1] had been standing on a large wooden box on the sidewalk, addressing a crowd through a loud-speaker system attached to an automobile. He made derogatory remarks about President Harry S. Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse, and other local political officials. Chief Justice Vinson said that Feiner "gave the impression that he was endeavoring to arouse the Negro people against the whites, urging that they rise up in arms and fight for equal rights."
Focusing on the "rise up in arms and fight for their rights" part of Feiner's speech, the Court found that Feiner's First Amendment rights were not violated because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur; the police attempted to suppress Feiner's message not based on its content but on the reaction of the crowd. The Court reaffirmed that a speaker cannot be arrested for the content of his speech and that the police must not be used as an instrument to silence unpopular views but must be used to silence a speaker who is trying to incite a riot.//
此君爭取黑人平權,進行街頭演說。他言論激烈,曾提及「拿起武器爭取自己權益」,他認為自己言論受第一修正案保障,警察逮捕他是錯的。
最高法院認為警員沒違反第一修正案,逮捕是因為演說引致聽眾激動,可能生亂,而不是因為警員不滿意演說內容。結果以6比3票數裁決,維持逮捕決定是正確的。
雖然如此,三位法官投反對票。50,60年代皆是黑人平權運動發展時期,聽眾很易激動,若因為激動就剥奪發言者權利,會造成「多數人的暴政」。警員應該保護演講者,並控制和警告人群來維持秩序。

以下是他們的異見判決
//Hugo Black wrote a foresighted dissent, saying that the evidence did not show that the crowd was about to riot. He also pointed out that the police, instead of arresting Feiner, should have protected him from hostile members of the crowd. The police "did not even pretend to try to protect" Feiner. Police testimony showed that although the crowd was restless, "there [was] no showing of any attempt to quiet it... one person threatened to assault [Feiner] but the officers did nothing to discourage this when even a word might have sufficed." Furthermore, Justice Black noted that it is common for the crowd to be heated with sensitive, polarizing topics and that the police gave no verbal reason to Feiner about his arrest at that exact moment. By ruling against Feiner, it creates precedent for allowing tyranny from the majority, the police can come and shut down any unpopular speaker simply because the popular crowd does not want the speaker to be there.[3]

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Minton, stated disbelief that the situation constituted a disturbance of the peace and questioned the fairness of the trial Feiner received.//
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York

「2002年9月,37歲的詹姆斯·特勞格因向白宮發了幾封電子郵件,聲稱要「殺死布希、炸毀白宮」,即被捕入獄,面臨10年刑期和50萬美元罰款。」
//If convicted, Trauger faces as many as 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, assistant U.S. Attorney William Snyder said.//
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/811537/posts
要知這是最高刑期,結果是判在家軟禁半年
//Senior U.S. District Judge William Standish rejected Trauger's request for leniency but let him avoid prison, sentencing him to six months of home detention on electronic monitoring. He also ordered him to undergo anger management counseling and stop sending personal e-mails.//
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/north/2004/01/16/Cyber-plotter-contrite-in-court/stories/200401160075

「2002年11月,美國一名17歲的高中生為報復同班女生,假冒她給布希發了1封電子郵件,聲稱要「殺死布希及其全家,並將用炸彈炸掉白宮」,被判刑1年。」
呢個係事實。但佢無講到個靚仔嘅一年刑期係判緩刑。
//Fellows admitted using the girl’s name to log on to a computer at Oswego High School.
Fellows could have faced five years in prison if he pled to federal charges, but his guilty plea to an aggravated harassment charge in Oswego City Court carries a maximum of a year behind bars, along with probation and orders to stay away from the president.//
http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/04/23984/#RJvqDb1gu15hByAI.99

「更荒唐的是,患有精神病且正在治療的美國流浪漢蒂莫西·韋德·平克斯頓,只因2007年說要「槍殺布希」,即被判刑57個月。」
呢個係事實。這君已是慣犯,也曾恐嚇過克林頓總統,以及佐治亞州州長。
//A homeless Florida man has been sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for making threats against President George Bush.
http://www.upi.com/Homeless-man-gets-prison-for-Bush-threats/55811214417945/

Timothy Wade Pinkston has a previous history of threatening President Bill Clinton and the governor of Georgia, the St. Petersburg Times reported Wednesday.//

****************
結論:你要逐一查證是很麻煩的事,舔共文章就半真半假的塞一大堆,博大霧。

你真的細看其證據不堪一擊。

附錄
1) 說明《第一修正案》
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does,
by AJ Willingham, CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html

2) 妨礙公眾安寧, 即是一種行為不檢的刑事罪行
Disturbing the Peace, as a misdemeanor criminal offence
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html