【大澳门威尼斯人赌场官网11月22日讯】文章摘要： 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（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权。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，决不可能有人权，也不可能有法治，因为没有人权的法治只能是伪法治。因此，言论自由是最基本的人权，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 [2]，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.”

美国殖民时期当局对言论自由，主要是对亵渎宗教言论的限制。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，依英国煽动性诽谤法（在美国适用）煽动性诽谤政府或其首脑均构成犯罪，王座法院认定国王不应受公众批评，而且陈述客观事实并不能成为抗辩理由。

3．1735年美国言论自由得以确立的首个案例

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.

尽管法官不接受[真实]事实抗辩，但辩护律师却说服陪审团最终认定被告无罪，突显了陪审团在刑事诉讼中的巨大作用。而中共专制暴政下的所谓人民陪审制度，徒有陪审其名而无陪审员决定罪与非罪实权之实。

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.

第一条修正案。国会不得制定有关下列事项的法律 ：确立一种宗教或禁止信教自由：剥夺言论自由或出版自由：或剥夺人民和平集会及向政府要求伸冤的权利。

5．1798年美国言论自由的首个反弹

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.

该煽动反政府法是对宪法第一修正案的悖离，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，因此该法规定真实事实可作为抗辩理由，且控方须证明行为人主观恶意，此点较之前述英国煽动反政府法是个进步。但该法仅实施三年，随后即被杰佛逊总统废弃；同时因该法被拘捕判刑的数十人全部无罪释放。中国刑法中的反革命煽动罪，即今日之刑法第 105条第2款之煽动颠覆国家政权罪，较230年前的美国煽动反政府法，还要落后反动得多。实践中即便批评中共的言论完全属实，几无例外全被中共专制暴政无罪重判，且检察官甚至无需证实被告的主观恶意！

6．1850年代及1860年初美国内战时期的言论自由

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，美国南部各州曾颁布法规禁止煽动黑奴闹事，但因第一修正案仅适用于联邦法而不适用于州法（第14修正案才规定第一修正案同样对州法适用），且由于奴隶制本身很快即消失，故该法未引起宪法权利之争。美国内战期间联邦政府拘捕了数千名有同情南方言论的异议人士，但对于仅有言说而无行动者很快均释放。

7．1917年言论自由宪政时代的到来

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？

言论自由真正成为宪法争议并由最高法院定论始于第一次世界大战。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年史密斯法强调必须有煽动[暴力]才构成此罪

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.

这是美国主要用于对付共产党暴力宣传的法律，1957年被最高法院判定该法违宪而废止。美国对付共产党的法律明定 必须有煽动用暴力推翻政府才构成犯罪，质言之，那怕共产党用和平言论煽动推翻美国政府仍然无罪。美国最高法院的法官是真正的法官，而中共最高法院则绝大多数属货真价实的伪法官，或被阉割了法官，因为正直诚实有真才实学的法律人，是不屑与中共专制暴政同流合污的。中共掌控的人大常委会在修订刑法时明知故意地设立了[和平言论]煽动反革命宣传罪即煽动颠覆国家政权罪！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。亦可见中共专制暴政自知其非法性，脆弱性，恶意性！

8．政治言论绝对自由

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.

美国政治言论几近绝对自由，那怕煽动暴力推翻政府，也仅在有[明显与即时的危险]时才追究当事人的刑事责任；但对民事侵权言论诸如诽谤、煽动仇恨、色情攻击言论及商业言论方面法律限制相当严厉。中共国恰好相反，政治言论几无自由，但民事言论，诸如诽谤、猥亵挑衅性言论、商业广告及煽动仇恨等言论的自由度则远大于政治言论自由，简直一路绿灯！实质是中共专制暴政有意放任，以便用色情和赤裸裸的物欲诱导青年网民不过问政治权利。同时不时以扫黄打非为借口行封杀政治言论自由之实；由此侧面再次证实，中共专制独裁政权是典型的流氓暴政！

9．反恐怖战争 与言论自由

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，备受指责批评的爱国法因反恐怖之需极大地扩张了司法部门的权力，对美国人的言论自由有所限制，但主要不是政治而是反恐战之因。

10．美国刑法 典中的煽动颠覆政府罪条款

美国刑法典第2385节规定 ：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.

美国《刑法典》第2385节将煽动推翻政府罪的具体手段规定得十分明确具体，诸如：[经由印刷、出版、编辑、发表、传播、销售、分发或公开演示任何书面或 印刷品 ]旨在[ 提倡、怂恿、指点、或教唆使用暴力推翻或摧毁政府或使用暴力手段暗杀政府官员]使得法官判案时有明确标准。

而中共刑法居然以[以造谣、诽谤或者其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度]任意实施政治迫害。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 ]； 依同类解释规则，[其他方式 ]必须是与[造谣、诽谤]类似的而非可以任意扩张解释。

自由民主国家的类似刑法条文与该条恶法的本质区别在于：推翻或毁灭政府罪或煽动推翻或毁灭政府罪的实质构成要件必须是：任何人明知或故意提倡、怂恿、指点、或教唆使用暴力推翻或摧毁政府或使用暴力手段暗杀政府官员。 [6] 质言之，颠覆政府无罪，除非使用暴力；那怕是诽谤、诋毁政府也无罪，因为公民有批评批判监督政府的权力，因为主权在民，因为任何自由民主国的政府皆是由选民通过选票决定执政者去留，因此根本不存在和平手段颠覆政府罪或和平言论煽动颠覆政府罪。此外，各国刑法中只有暴力推翻政府罪，而决无和平理性言论颠覆[ 国家政权]罪。中国刑法中的[颠覆国家政权]罪反映了中共当权独裁集团[枪杆子里面出政权]、[ 有权就有一切] 的强盗概念实在根深蒂固。再者，法律规范应当明确清晰，人们才能知道什么是法律允许的？什么是法律禁止的？

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。反观中共专制暴政下，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共政权及其党魁的和平言论，即被残杀（毛华时期）或被中共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共专制暴政，才能赢得与生俱来的人的尊严与自由。

2007年11月18日第90个反专制争人权和自由维权抗暴绝食日于加拿大

——————————————————————————–

[1] 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.

[2] 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。

──转自《自由圣火》(//www.dajiyuan.com)