山豆凡 的个人文集   修改文集名字    文苑首页
 
欲望的汤__山豆凡/小凯
   
 
标 签   文集首页 小说界 诗苑 散文天地 文史哲 艺术之声 综合类 侃山闲聊
主人:山豆凡



[加为好友]   [发送消息]

快速链接
搜索
  

好友文集

[原创] 关于美国高院最新裁决的思考
关于美国高院最新裁决的思考

山豆凡/小凯


西方多国部队在Iraq和Afghanistan的军事行动,近十年里有不少美国官兵阵亡。而在他们家乡举行的葬礼上,出现过某宗教团体带有仇恨言论的抗议活动。例如,该宗教团体认为,官兵的伤亡和系列惨剧,是因为社会对同性恋容忍而造成的。这种言论,不仅对阵亡家属心理造成凶恶攻击,同性恋权益团体也对其相当震惊。该宗教团体的说法是否荒谬,是否算另一个通过欺负少数群体来招引注意力的举动,是否进而引发偏狭、恐惧或跟随与归属,不同的人有不同的见解,但众多的观点在浮出水面的同时,也清晰地体现了时代重心。

阵亡家属针对该宗教团体提出上诉,双方反复地庭上交锋,赢了又输输了又赢,官司级级上攀。

高院以8比一的裁决,在承同仇恨言论的确会煽动冲突也伤害人心的情况下,却也依靠宪法中关于保护自由言论奠基国魂的第一修订案,支持了该宗教团体发表仇恨言论的自由。高院的裁决,对社会许多方面能产生深远影响。

纷繁的新闻媒体,不管情感上对该宗教团体的言论如何难以接受,他们非常支持高院的决议,毕竟,言论自由是新闻媒体精髓里的东西。

一件事情很难断定是黑还是白,这个裁决,细致捍卫宪法的同时,有没有受其他因素影响呢? 它公平吗? 或是说,它短期和长远的效果,互相矛盾吗?

这里有个漏掉的空白,就是说,法律中还没有将关于同性恋的仇恨言论定为刑事犯罪。因歧视或仇恨(种族、肤色、信仰、身体状况、性倾向等)而进行的攻击(例如身体袭击或侵犯)属于严重的仇恨类刑事犯罪,但该宗教团体的那种言论,却似乎在法律条文里失去了可以圈管的园地。

过去两天,知名时装设计大师John Galliano因为在法国酒吧发表侮辱歧视犹太人的言论,而被其雇主Dior立马解聘。曾计划为Dior代言的国际著名演员,具有犹太血统的Natalie Portman (黑天鹅、Closer和V for Vendetta等影片主角),也对Galliano大力谴责。这名惹眼潮流的设计师在警方拘捕后,接着的会有审判。

反犹太言论和行为,在许多西方国家,它违反法律也相当严重。

反华言论,反宗教言论,反同性恋言论,或许还没有在刑法中有同样的重量。或许有一天也会详细地写入法律。共容和远离歧视,是把和平的金钥匙。

回顾那些阵亡官兵的葬礼,咀嚼某宗教团体的仇恨言论,也许不难看出,它们的话外音,大概不仅仅在把战争的伤亡和社会容忍同性恋这两件事进行关联。法律文字之外的页白,被他们猛地划上了几笔,而那几笔,是狂恶? 是狡猾? 还是指桑骂槐地指向了法律条文中已有的某些段落?

8 评论

  需要權衡。此處,保護言論自由,是法律的第一要務。至於該言論是否傷害他人,可以另案裁決。

  前幾天看到一則消息,說一個英國人在德國旅遊,擺了個希特勒的pose拍照留影,立即遭到逮捕。反猶太言行,是重罪。至於“反華言論”,譬如——?舉個例來。請事先分辨好“反華言論”和“反共言論”。

xyy  [评] 2011-3-2 16:40

嗯,有道理。

我说的反华言论,就是攻击华人这个宗族的言论。至于共不共,那不是我讨论的范畴,我也讨论不过来。我没有明确宗教信仰,也没有党派所属。

山豆凡  [评] 2011-3-2 17:33



引用:
Originally posted by xyy at 2011-3-2 09:40 PM:
    前幾天看到一則消息,說一個英國人在德國旅遊,擺了個希特勒的pose拍照留影,立即遭到逮捕。反猶太言行,是..

您说的那个,是这则消息吗?


援引于 The Huffington Post和Telegrah

"A 30-year old Canadian tourist was arrested on Saturday for posing for a photograph while giving the infamous Nazi salute...outside the Reichstag in Berlin, according to the Telegraph.

Berlin police arrived on the scene within seconds, handcuffed him and took his camera's memory card. The pose is a chargeable offense of up to six months in prison, yet the man was freed after being held in custody for several hours.

Three years ago, a British businessman was arrested at the Cologne airport after he gave the salute to a rental car official. Back in March, Sandra Bullock's ex-husband, Jesse James, was gripped by scandal after he posed for photos with a Hitler-esque mustache and raising his arm.”

山豆凡  [评] 2011-3-2 18:29

“新闻法”课题是我上学时学的,一直很感兴趣,难得山弟也关注。有时间再来讨论。

thesunlover  [评] 2011-3-5 08:22



引用:
Originally posted by thesunlover at 2011-3-5 01:22 PM:
“新闻法”课题是我上学时学的,一直很感兴趣,难得山弟也关注。有时间再来讨论。

嗯,好。
从前认为法律条文本身的细致和完整很重要,现在觉得法律的维护体系如何,比条文更关键。

山豆凡  [评] 2011-3-5 12:46

一点体会:在美国,不论是任何个人还是团体,想要挑战保护言论自由的“第一宪法修正案”,难上加难。尤其是上诉到最高法院,判决大多是有利这个 first amendment。原因很简单,言论自由是美国立国的重要根基之一。

thesunlover  [评] 2011-3-5 14:55



引用:
Originally posted by thesunlover at 2011-3-5 07:55 PM:
一点体会:在美国,不论是任何个人还是团体,想要挑战保护言论自由的“第一宪法修正案”,难上加难。尤其是上诉到最高法院,判决大多是有利这个 first amendment。原因很简单,言论自由是美国立国的重要根基之一。

是这样的。

但对这个案例,这个First Amendment有点儿像双刃剑,捍卫言论自由的同时,也伤害了阵亡官兵的家属及少数弱势群体。

该宗教团体的行为,和欺负人差别不太大,而他们言语里面,仇恨斑斑可见。而如果该宗教团体言语的攻击对象不是同性恋,而是犹太人,或者说,该宗教团体标幅上的口号“God Hate Fags”,那个宾语假使改成了别的东西,这个案例大概就不会走到高院那么曲折的路上了。

犹太人,华人,不同宗教信仰的人,同性恋人群,都是各自不同的少数群体,而当他们都站在First Amendment前面的时候,是不是待遇很不一样呢? 如果不一样,是人们对宪法的理解产生偏差了,还是宪法里面仍有许多东西需要填改呢? 也就是说,反犹太的言论触犯刑法,那么,反宗教信仰,反华裔,反同性恋的言论,是不是应该受到同样的惩罚呢?

在这个时候,First Amendment和Fourteenth Amendment是不是有对立的地方呢? 它们不是都对奠定美国国魂至关重要的吗?

山豆凡  [评] 2011-3-5 15:07

以下是Guardian(卫报)的一篇相关评论文章,将欧盟国家和美国的言论(自由)法律进行了对比。作者Tom Rogan,教育背景曾为战争研究、中东政治,现在伦敦攻读英美法律。

笔者认为,欧盟诸国的自由言论法对言论自由本身存在限制(限制本身包括法律对人权的广泛维护,也包括政治和意识形态的干扰),并支持美国高院对(阵亡家属:某宗教团体)这一案例的裁决。

笔者参考了欧盟过往案例,他认为,带仇恨性质的言论如果被法律限制,并不代表该言论背后的力量会消失,而那股力量很有可能会转入地下,也因为政府和法律的严禁,地下组织最终会发展酝酿成为反社会的(暴动)力量。

原文发表于3月4日,摘录如下,

The weakness in the European approach is that, in their speech restrictions, these states impose on society a counter-liberalising citizen-state relationship in which individuals are bound by law to the blunt yet subjective moral philosophy of their political leadership. Beyond this, the laws are problematic in their tendency to drive extremists underground, push them towards more radical actions and risk turning them into political martyrs. For example, Geert Wilders' greatest political advert has been his ongoing trial. When groups like the English Defence League and British National party come to believe that the state will not tolerate their speech, their reaction is not to cease the pursuit of that speech, but instead, to draw further away from society.

Just because an individual is able to speak, it does not follow that we must positively respond to the content of his speech. But by providing a democratic avenue for the airing of speech, even extreme speech, we give these individuals a belief that they may, through democratic discourse alone, be able to persuade others to join their cause. By closing the avenue of democracy to these groups, we indirectly encourage them to employ tactics like intimidation and violence. Ultimately, violent extremism is the resort of those who believe violence, not speech, is their best mechanism for social change. Some groups will inevitably believe this (al-Qaida, for example), but others can be pacified by social inclusion.

Snyder v Phelps has made the distinction between the United States and Europe clear. In the US, the first amendment finds its base in an underlying social confidence that extremist speech is best challenged by a society that resides upon free, accessible and open discourse. As Thomas Jefferson explained, "error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." In Europe, however, too many states seem to believe that their societies too weak to reject extremist speech. They are wrong. The excessive limitation of speech is not only wrong per se; in terms of pursuing civil society, it is also its own worse enemy.

山豆凡  [评] 2011-3-10 22:44

发布评论


关闭主题





  可打印版本 | 推荐给朋友 | 收藏主题