紐時賞析/川普告科技巨擘 面臨憲法第一增修條文阻礙
Trump Suits Against Tech Giants Face Steep First Amendment Hurdles
川普告科技巨擘 面臨憲法第一增修條文阻礙
Whatever else might be said about the curious lawsuits filed by former President Donald Trump, in which he accused three Big Tech companies of violating his First Amendment rights by denying him access to their platforms, it is fitting that he sued in Florida.
不論美國前總統川普提起的奇怪訴訟會被如何談論,他指控三家大科技公司不讓他上這些平台,違反憲法第一增修條文賦予他的權利一事,在佛州提告倒是合理。
The state has long been on the cutting edge, and on the losing end, of efforts to force private companies to publish political messages to which they object.
這個州在強迫民間公司刊載其反對的政治訊息方面,長期以來居風氣之先,同時也居於劣勢。
Almost 50 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper articles critical of them. And late last month, a federal judge in Florida blocked a new state law that would have imposed large fines on some tech companies that “willfully deplatform a candidate for office.”
將近50年前,聯邦最高法院撤銷一項佛州法律,該法允許政治人物對於批評他們的報紙文章擁有「回應權」。上個月底,佛州一名聯邦法官擋下一項新州法,此法可對「將公職候選人刻意自平台移除」的一些科技公司處以罰金。
Together, the two decisions, one from the Nixon era and the other issued June 30, demonstrate that the lawsuits Trump filed in Miami against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube face steep odds. The First Amendment applies to government censorship and not private activities, courts have said.
這兩個判決,一個源自尼克森總統時期,另一個公告於6月30日,皆顯示川普在邁阿密控告臉書、推特和YouTube的訴訟,面臨更高難度。法院說過,憲法第一增修條文適用於政府審查,而非民間行為。
The case that gave rise to the 1974 Supreme Court decision was brought by Pat Tornillo, who was displeased by colorful editorials in the Miami Herald opposing his candidacy for the Florida House of Representatives.
導致1974年最高法院判決的案件,是派特.托尼洛所提出,他對於邁阿密先驅報反對他競選佛州州眾議員的生動社論感到不悅。
Tornillo invoked a Florida law that required newspapers to give candidates they criticized free space for a reply “in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type.” The newspaper refused, lost in the state’s highest court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
托尼洛援引一項佛州法律,該法要求報紙「以同樣顯著位置和同樣類型」,給予其批判的候選人免費回應版面。報社拒絕,在佛州最高法院敗訴,上訴至美國聯邦最高法院。
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous court. But the First Amendment, he wrote, does not permit the government to usurp the role of editors in deciding what ought to be published.
首席大法官華倫.柏格為全院一致意見撰寫判決書,他寫道,憲法第一增修條文並不允訴政府強占編輯的角色,去決定什麼可以刊載。
“A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal,” he wrote, “but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated.”
「一個負責任的媒體毫無疑問是個理想的目標」,他寫道,「但媒體責任並非由憲法規定,而且如同其他許多美德一樣,無法以法律規範」。
Justice Byron White, who was often hostile to the news media, wrote in a concurring opinion that an unregulated and unruly press is better than the alternative of government control.
對新聞媒體常抱持敵意的大法官布萊恩.懷特,撰寫一致意見說,一個缺乏規範和不受控的媒體,好過政府控制這個替代選項。
“Of course, the press is not always accurate, or even responsible, and may not present full and fair debate on important public issues,” he wrote. “But the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed.”
「當然,媒體並非總是正確或負責,而且在重要公眾議題上可能沒有呈現完整及公平的討論」,他寫道,「但是關於媒體,由憲法第一增修條文達到的平衡是,社會必須承受這種風險,亦即關於重要事務的討論偶爾不會全面性,也並非所有意見都能被表達。」
文/Adam Liptak 譯/莊蕙嘉
說文解字看新聞
【莊蕙嘉】
美國前總統川普因社群帳號被停用,以憲法第一增修條文為論據,將三大社群網站告上法院。因已正式成為憲法條文,故不稱尚待審議的第一「修正案」,合先敘明。
美國憲法本文僅七條,增修條文共27條。第一增修條文保障freedom of speech(言論自由),最常被引用。
關於媒體與言論自由的關係,聯邦最高法院在「New York Times Co. v. Sullivan」的判決已成經典判例,此案確立公眾人物在指控媒體誹謗時,必須遵循actual malice(實際惡意)原則,保障了新聞自由。
最高法院共九位大法官,以其立場被分為自由或保守派,採多數決。在「邁阿密先驅報訴托尼洛案」中,大法官一致認為報紙社論亦屬言論自由,受憲法第一增修條文保障,且政府不應以法律作為控制媒體的工具,再度確立新聞自由的重要。
此外,decision在英語中同時有「判決、裁定」之意,動詞常用rule。在國內法律實務,判決和裁定的區分在於案件的實體結論或程序。
延伸閱讀
贊助廣告
商品推薦
udn討論區
- 張貼文章或下標籤,不得有違法或侵害他人權益之言論,違者應自負法律責任。
- 對於明知不實或過度情緒謾罵之言論,經網友檢舉或本網站發現,聯合新聞網有權逕予刪除文章、停權或解除會員資格。不同意上述規範者,請勿張貼文章。
- 對於無意義、與本文無關、明知不實、謾罵之標籤,聯合新聞網有權逕予刪除標籤、停權或解除會員資格。不同意上述規範者,請勿下標籤。
- 凡「暱稱」涉及謾罵、髒話穢言、侵害他人權利,聯合新聞網有權逕予刪除發言文章、停權或解除會員資格。不同意上述規範者,請勿張貼文章。
FB留言