【大紀元11月22日訊】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。
言論自由（表達自由）是聯合國一系列公約反復加調，也是幾乎世界各國憲法明文規定的基本人權。言論自由是人之為人不可剝奪的最重要的一項基本自由、思想自由、出版自由、宗教信仰自由、結社組黨自由與之密切相關。思想自由若無言論自由支撐也就沒有意義；如果沒有言論自由，出版自由毫無意義；要是沒有言論自由，宗教信仰自由也將不復存在。沒有言論自由，人必將成為奴隸，而非有自由意志的人。沒有言論自由，決不可能有人權，也不可能有法治，因為沒有人權的法治只能是偽法治。因此，言論自由是最基本的人權，也是最重要的政治權利。然而任何權利都是人們在與政府長期反復鬥爭中爭來的，言論自由權亦不例外。今日美國是全球言論最自由的國度之一，美國言論自由發展史頗具典型意義，對吾國言論自由權的實現具有重要借鑒指導價值。此論題值得深入研討，本文僅是抛磚引玉 [2]，以期國人高度重視之。
1．殖民地時期的言論自由狀況
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，主要是對褻瀆宗教言論的限制。例如1646年馬州法律規定否定靈魂不滅的言論構成犯罪；而1612年維州州長竟將否定三位一體說者處死。
2．1700年美國仍適用英國煽動性誹謗政府法規範言論
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，依英國煽動性誹謗法（在美國適用）煽動性誹謗政府或其首腦均構成犯罪，王座法院認定國王不應受公眾批評，而且陳述客觀事實並不能成為抗辯理由。
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終認定被告無罪，突顯了陪審團在刑事訴訟中的巨大作用。而中共專制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年美國憲法第一修正案正式確立言論自由至高無尚
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.
該煽動反政府法是對憲法第一修正案的悖離，此罪沒有使用暴力的前提條件，但須是故意誹謗才構成此罪，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，此點較之前述英國煽動反政府法是個進步。但該法僅實施三年，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條第2款之煽動顛覆國家政權罪，較230年前的美國煽動反政府法，還要落後反動得多。實踐中即便批評中共的言論完全屬實，幾無例外全被中共專制暴政無罪重判，且檢察官甚至無需證實被告的主觀惡意！
6．1850年代及1860年初美國內戰時期的言論自由
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鬧事，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，故該法未引起憲法權利之爭。美國內戰期間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年言論自由憲政時代的到來
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議並由最高法院定論始於第一次世界大戰。因反戰言論引發了大量涉言論訴訟，也促使法院考慮：煽動非法行為是否受憲法保護？虛假的誹謗性言論是否受保護？猥褻或色情言論是否受保護？商業廣告是否受保護？用於表達觀念的非語言性行為是否受第一修正案保護？美國最高法院審理了一系列此種涉及言論自由的案件。限於篇幅將另文專論。
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.
這是美國主要用於對付共產黨暴力宣傳的法律，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，而中共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，是不屑與中共專制暴政同流合污的。中共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]煽動反革命宣傳罪即煽動顛覆國家政權罪！而且無需證明行為人的主觀惡意也無須證明政府利益是否受到了實際損害，純屬典型的惡法。亦可見中共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嚴厲。中共國恰好相反，政治言論幾無自由，但民事言論，諸如誹謗、猥褻挑釁性言論、商業廣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！實質是中共專制暴政有意放任，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。同時不時以掃黃打非為藉口行封殺政治言論自由之實；由此側面再次證實，中共專制獨裁政權是典型的流氓暴政！
9．反恐怖戰爭 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後，備受指責批評的愛國法因反恐怖之需極大地擴張了司法部門的權力，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節規定 ：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。
而中共刑法居然以[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]任意實施政治迫害。既沒有 [暴力]要素，也沒有 [惡意]因素，卻有包羅萬象的 [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。 [6] 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]罪反映了中共當權獨裁集團[槍桿子裏面出政權]、[ 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？
綜上所述：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。言論自由並非絕對的權利，但政治言論幾近絕對自由，除非煽動使用暴力達到政治目的；即便涉嫌煽動暴力推翻政府，還必須同時滿足 [明顯和即時的危險]標準，才能追究行為人的刑事責任；實際上，自1951年以後美國幾乎沒有任何煽動暴力推翻政府罪的案例。但是猥褻挑釁性（Obscenity ）言論完全不受法律保護，商業言論有嚴格限制，煽動仇恨的言論亦受限制；政府採取限制言論自由時必須充分證明存在克不容緩的政府利益非因此將受損，且必須將該限制限定在該利益範圍內；禁止政府任何事先審查。反觀中共專制暴政下，數十上百萬政治良心異議人士僅因事實求是公開批評指責中共政權及其黨魁的和平言論，即被殘殺（毛華時期）或被中共閹法院強行無罪重判（鄧江胡時期）！因此，國人唯有徹底唾棄毫無人性殘暴至極的中共專制暴政，才能贏得與生俱來的人的尊嚴與自由。
2007年11月18日第90個反專制爭人權和自由維權抗暴絕食日於加拿大
——————————————————————————–
[1] 本文主要參考資料： 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] 本文系質疑張千帆教授之《憲政國家的言論自由》文中美國言論自由發展史的論點。
──轉自《自由聖火》(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
