紐時賞析／法官禁政府審閱華郵遭扣設備

Judge Blocks U.S. From Viewing Items Seized From Post

法官禁政府審閱華郵遭扣設備

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the government not to review materials seized during the search of a Washington Post reporter’s home last week.

聯邦法官周三下令，政府不得檢視上周搜索華盛頓郵報記者住處時扣押的資料。

The ruling, from Magistrate Judge William B. Porter, was in response to a legal filing by the newspaper Wednesday arguing that the seizures violated the First Amendment and demanding the return of the items.

此裁定出自聯邦地院治安法官波特，對華郵周三遞狀的回應。該報主張扣押行為違反憲法第一增修條文，並要求返還該等物品。

“The seizure chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on protected materials,” the company said in the filing.

華郵在聲請書中表示：「政府掌握受保護資料的每一天，都會對言論自由造成寒蟬效應，癱瘓報導，並造成無法挽回的傷害。」

Porter wrote that the Post and the reporter, Hannah Natanson, had shown “good cause” to maintain the “status quo” while the issues were being sorted out in court.

波特寫道，華郵及其記者漢娜．納坦森聲請在相關爭點釐清前「保持現狀」，具備「正當理由」。

The FBI conducted the search at the home of Natanson, a prolific chronicler of the upheaval in the federal government under the second Trump administration. Natanson wrote a first-person article weeks earlier about how she had used the encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate with government sources. A colleague described her as the “federal government whisperer.”

聯邦調查局搜索納坦森的住家。她撰寫許多第二屆川普政府執政下聯邦政府動盪的相關報導。納坦森數周前發表一篇第一人稱視角文章，講述自己如何使用加密通訊應用程式Signal和政府消息人士交談。一名同僚形容她是「華府內幕通」。

The authorities seized two laptops, one owned by the Post, as well as a company iPhone, a portable hard drive, a Garmin watch and a voice recorder.

當局扣押2台筆記型電腦，1台是報社資產，以及1支華郵的iPhone，還有1顆行動硬碟、1支Garmin手表和1支錄音筆。

Though the government has drawn criticism in the past for trampling on the rights of journalists in seeking evidence to punish leakers, never before had the Justice Department “raided a journalist’s home in connection with a national security leak investigation,” according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

儘管聯邦政府曾因追查洩密侵犯記者權利而屢招批評，但新聞自由記者委員會指出，司法部從未因國安洩密調查而「搜索記者住所」。

The search of Natanson’s home was in connection with the government’s investigation of Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor in Maryland who held a top-secret security clearance. He is accused of taking home intelligence reports that were discovered in his basement and in a lunchbox.

搜索納坦森住所和政府調查持有最高級別安全許可的馬里蘭州系統管理承包商佩雷斯–盧戈內斯有關。他被指控將機密文件帶回家，而這些文件在他的地下室和午餐盒中被尋獲。

The Post argues that the seizure of Natanson’s devices amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on the Post, meaning that the FBI confiscated materials that the newspaper needed to continue its work.

華郵主張扣押納坦森裝置代表聯邦調查局沒收華郵繼續執行業務所需設備，等於實施事前審查，已經違憲。

On a related point, the Post argues that the seizure was far too broad for its stated purposes.

關於這點，華郵主張扣押範圍遠超出其聲稱目的。

“Almost none of the seized data is even potentially responsive to the warrant, which seeks only records received from or relating to a single government contractor,” the Post said in the filing, adding, “The government seized this proverbial haystack in an attempt to locate a needle.”

華郵在聲請書中說，「搜索票僅尋求單一承包商相關紀錄，但扣押資料幾乎全不相干。」華郵還表示，「政府為了找一根針竟收走整堆乾草」。

文／Erik Wemple，譯／羅方妤

說文解字看新聞

【張佑生】

川普政府非但拒絕媒體監督，還搜索記者住所查扣資料，華盛頓郵報向法院遞狀(legal filing)主張違憲，3個動詞鏗鏘有力：The seizure chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day……。

其中，chills speech讓人聯想到chilling effect，「寒蟬效應」，freezes speech和deters expression都是指政府出手，例如「查水表」(intimidation visit)，讓人因恐懼而不敢自由表達或報導。

在言論發表或出版前就加以禁止或沒收的「事前審查」(prior restraint)被視為重大違憲，on expression-prior-restraint issues是有關言論自由事前審查的議題。各國常用國家安全(national security)為由要求媒體配合，1971年的越戰報告書(Pentagon Papers)是範例，紐時及華郵都有參與，聯邦最高院的判決名留青史。

第1段的federal judge泛指聯邦法官，第2段Magistrate Judge是聯邦地院法官(district judge)的幫手，此間譯為「治安法官」，任期8年、可續任，後者為終身職。台灣無此職位，也不同於司法事務官(Judicial Associate Officer) 。