#9
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.
|