评论
打印
Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today, we're talking about free speech.
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班，今天我们要讨论的是言论自由。
Finally, today we can let loose and establish the kinds of things we can say to criticize our government, like the crazy idea that money and speech are the same thing.
最后，今天我们可以放松，建立我们可以用来批评政府的言论，比如金钱和言论是一回事这种疯狂的想法。
Not so fast, Clone, the Supreme Court has ruled that spending money, at least in the political context, is speech.
没那么快，克隆人，最高法院裁定花钱，至少在政治背景下，是言论。
You do have the right to criticize that decision though.
但是你有权利批评这个决定。
Unless your boss or YouTube says that you can't.
除非你的老板或YouTube说你不能。
All right, we're trying to talk about free speech, shut up.
好吧，我们想谈谈言论自由，闭嘴。
Let's get started and see if we can figure out what the limits of free speech are, assuming that there are some.
让我们开始，看看我们是否能找出言论自由的限制，假设有一些限制。
There aren't.
没有。
That's a lie.
这是一个谎言。
But I'm free to say that.
但我可以这么说。
There are two really important things to remember about the First Amendment protection of free speech.
关于第一修正案对言论自由的保护，有两件非常重要的事情需要记住。
The primary reason we have freedom of speech is to allow for public criticism of the stupid government.
我们有言论自由的主要原因是允许公众批评愚蠢的政府。
Stupid government.
愚蠢的政府。
That's the sort of thing that can land you in jail in countries that don't have strong free speech protections,
这类事情可能会让你在没有强有力言论自由保护的国家坐牢，
or should I say, you would be Putin jail, heh, don't put me in jail.
或者我应该说，你会被关进普京监狱，嘿，别把我关进监狱。
Oh, that's right, I'm in the US, it doesn't matter.
对了，我在美国，没关系。
The stories of oversensitive kings and dictators silencing people who question their rule or even make jokes at their expense are too numerous to recount,
那些过于敏感的国王和独裁者让质疑他们统治的人们噤声，甚至拿他们开玩笑的故事数不胜数，
but for the most part, that kinda thing doesn't happen in the US,
但在大多数情况下，这种事情不会发生在美国，
which is why no one gets arrested for carrying around a giant picture of Obama as Hitler, or former President Bush as a monkey.
这就是为什么没有人因为随身携带一幅巨大的像希特勒的奥巴马照片，或前总统布什像猴子的照片而被捕。
Well, that's stuff's okay, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, but that doesn't mean it's respectful or in good taste.
好吧，就第一修正案而言，这是可以接受的，但这并不意味着这是一种尊重或良好的品味。
The second thing to remember is that the First Amendment protects you from the government doing things that try to deny your speech, but not anyone else.
第二件要记住的事情是，第一修正案保护你不受政府试图否认你的言论，但不是任何人。
What this means is that you don't have an absolute right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want and not suffer any consequences.
这意味着你没有绝对的权利说任何你想要的，任何你想去的地方，任何你想要但不想承担任何后果的人。
Isn't that right, Stan, you dingus?
对吧，斯坦，你这个混蛋?
I'm fired?
我被解雇了?
I was just kidding; it was a joke.
我只是在开玩笑；这是个玩笑。
If you work for a private company, your boss can certainly fire you for saying mean things about them or revealing company secrets,
如果你在一家私营公司工作，你的老板肯定会因为你说了他们坏话或泄露了公司机密而解雇你，
and you don't have any First Amendment claim against them.
你也没有对他们提出任何宪法第一修正案的要求。
Unless, of course, your boss is the government, or a branch of the government,
当然，除非你的老板是政府，或者政府的一个分支，
in which case, you might be able to claim a First Amendment right.
在这种情况下，你可能可以要求第一修正案的权利。
See, like most things, it's complicated.
看到了吗，就像大多数事情一样，这很复杂。
Among the speech that is protected, not all of it has the same level of protection under the First Amendment.
在受保护的言论中，并非所有言论都受到宪法第一修正案的同等保护。
Now, let's exercise our right to free Thought Bubble.
现在让我们行使权力释放思想泡泡。
The speech that gets the strongest protection is political speech.
得到最大保护的言论是政治言论。
Criticism of, but also praise for particular officials, their parties, or their policies is usually protected.
对某些官员、他们的政党或他们的政策的批评或赞扬通常是受到保护的。
It's given what is called preferred position,
他们的言论被赋予了所谓的优先地位，
which means that any law or regulation or executive act that limits political speech is almost always struck down by courts.
这意味着任何限制政治言论的法律、法规或行政行为几乎总是被法院驳回。
The big case that made pretty much the final decision on political speech was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1968.
1968年勃兰登堡诉俄亥俄州案是几乎决定了政治演讲的最终决定的大案子。
In this case, a Ku Klux Klan leader was making a speech that,
在这个案例中，一名3k党领导人发表了一篇演讲，
as you can imagine, was offensive to a lot of people and could have been considered threatening, too.
你可以想象，这篇演讲冒犯了很多人，也可能被认为具有威胁性。
The court ruled that because the speech was political,
法院裁定，由于这篇演讲是政治性的，无论它有多么骇人听闻，
it was protected by the First Amendment, no matter how outrageous it was.
都受到宪法第一修正案的保护。
The court said, “The Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation
法院表示:“宪法对言论自由和新闻自由的保障不允许一个国家禁止或禁止使用武力或违反法律的主张，
except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent action and is likely to produce such action.”
除非这种主张是为了煽动或产生迫在眉睫的行动，而且是很可能产生的行动。”
According to the court, the First Amendment protects speech even if it advocates the use of force or encourages people to violate the law.
根据法院的说法，第一修正案保护言论，即使也提倡使用武力或鼓励人们违反法律。
So you can advocate overthrowing the government or not paying your taxes as much as you want, unless what you say is likely to produce the thing you're advocating.
所以你可以主张推翻政府，或者不像你想的那样多交税，除非你所说的很可能产生你所倡导的东西。
Overthrowing the government, say.
比如，推翻政府。
And it is likely to happen imminently, meaning very soon after you make the statement.
这很可能马上就会发生，也就是在你发表声明后不久。
This case limited an older standard regarding free speech that was put forward in the case US v. Schenck in 1917.
这个案子限制了1917年美国诉申克案中提出的关于言论自由的旧标准。
In that case, Schenck distributed pamphlets urging people to avoid the draft for World War I.
在这种情况下，申克散发小册子，敦促人们避免参加第一次世界大战的征兵。
This was a violation of the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to obstruct the draft or the war effort.
这违反了《反间谍法》，《反间谍法》规定阻碍征兵或努力作战成为一种犯罪。。
The law was more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist.
法律比这更复杂，但这是基本要点。
In his decision on this case, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that,
奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯在对此案的裁决中写道:
“When that speech presents a clear and present danger, the state can then abridge that person's speech.”
“当这种言论呈现出明显而现实的危险时，国家就可以屏蔽这种言论。”
Memorably, he explained that the First Amendment does not protect a person who shouts “fire” in a crowded theater.
令人难忘的是，他解释说第一修正案并不能保护一个在拥挤的剧院里大喊“着火了”的人。
In later cases, Holmes limited this idea,
在后来的一些案例中，福尔摩斯限制了这一想法，
largely because it gives the government a lot of leeway to say what kind of speech creates danger, especially during a war, as was the case with Schenck.
主要是因为它给政府提供了很大的回旋余地，让政府能够说出什么样的言论会制造危险，尤其是在战争期间，就像申克案一样。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢，思想泡泡。
Political speech isn't the only type of speech that the courts have addressed.
政治言论并不是法院处理的唯一类型的言论。
Symbolic speech can also be protected by the First Amendment,
象征意义上的言论也可以受到宪法第一修正案的保护，
and if that symbolic speech has political content, it usually is protected.
如果这种象征意义上的言论含有政治内容，通常也会受到保护。
Symbolic speech includes wearing armbands, carrying signs, or even wearing a jacket with an obscene word directed at the military draft.
象征性的讲话包括佩戴臂章，举着标语，甚至穿着一件夹克，上面写着针对征兵的脏话。
Symbolic speech also includes burning an American flag, which pretty much is always a political message.
象征性的演讲还包括焚烧美国国旗，这在很大程度上一直是一种政治信息。
Not all symbolic speech is protected, though.
然而，并不是所有的象征性语言都受到保护。
For example, if you're a high school student who holds up a banner that reads, “Bong hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sponsored function,
例如，如果你是一名高中生，在学校赞助的活动中举着一面横幅，
don't expect that the First Amendment will prevent the school, a government agent, from suspending you.
上面写着:“奉打耶稣”。不要指望第一修正案会阻止学校这个政府机构让你停学。
And yes, that really happened.
是的，这是真实发生的事。
Also, this is not symbolic speech.
而且，这不是象征性的演讲。
That's violence.
这是暴力。
Even hate speech is protected.
甚至仇恨言论也受到保护。
Even if it's really hateful, like burning a cross on a person's lawn, although this might be prosecuted as vandalism or trespassing.
即使它真的很可恶，比如在一个人的草坪上焚烧十字架，尽管这可能会被起诉为故意破坏或非法侵入。
Public universities that try to punish hate speech have seen their discipline code struck down.
试图惩罚仇恨言论的公立大学的校规已经被废除。
Commercial speech might not be protected,
商业言论可能不受保护，
but if it's a political commercial, it will be,
但如果是政治商业言论，
and as we've pointed out before,
正如我们之前所指出的，
spending money on political campaigns has been determined to be speech that is protected by the First Amendment,
把钱花在政治活动上被认为是受宪法第一修正案保护的言论，
although we shall see donations to political campaigns are still treated differently, at least for now.
尽管我们将看到对政治运动的捐款仍然受到不同的对待，至少目前如此。
Pretty much the only kind of speech that's not protected,
几乎唯一一种不受保护的言论，
other than speech that's likely to incite immediate violence, is what's called fightin' words.
除了可能立即引发暴力的言论，就是所谓的“战斗言论”。
In the actual case that dealt with fighting words, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, the defendant uttered what seemed more like insults than a call to engage in fisticuffs.
在实际的“查普林斯基诉新罕布什尔案”中，被告说了一些看似侮辱的话，而不是号召打架。
What'd you call me?
你叫我什么来着?
Still, the court ruled that some words were so insulting that they were more than likely to result in a fight, so fighting words are not protected speech.
尽管如此，法院仍然裁定，一些词汇是如此具有侮辱性，以至于它们极有可能导致一场打斗，因此打斗词汇不受言论保护。
One thing to note, though, the fighting words free speech exception is almost never used.
不过，需要注意的是，“言论自由例外”这个词几乎从未使用过。
So as you can see, the First Amendment pretty much protects you from the government throwing you in jail or otherwise punishing you for what you say in most instances,
所以你可以看到，第一修正案在很大程度上保护了你不受政府把你扔进监狱或者因为你在大多数情况下说的话而惩罚你，
but it's important to remember than the First Amendment is not unlimited.
但重要的是要记住第一修正案并不是无限制的。
Most important, it only protects you from government action, not the action of private people, especially your employers.
最重要的是，它只保护你不受政府行为的影响，而不是私人行为，尤其是你的雇主。
One final example might make this clear.
最后一个例子可以说明这一点。
In Pickering v. Board of Education, a public school teacher wrote a letter to the editor of his local paper complaining about the way that the school board was spending money on the schools.
在皮克林诉教育委员会案中，一所公立学校的老师给当地报纸的编辑写了一封信，抱怨教育委员会在学校的开支方式。
He didn't write it on school time or using school paper or email, especially since it was 1968 and there was no email.
他没有在上课时间写，也没有使用校报或电子邮件，尤其是1968年以后，那时还没有电子邮件。
The school board, or his principal, fired him.
学校董事会或校长解雇了他。
He brought the case to the Supreme Court, claiming that he was fired for his speech,
他把这个案子提交给了最高法院，声称他是因为自己的演讲而被解雇的，
which was political in nature criticizing local government and not for anything related to his job performance, and he won.
他的演讲本质上是政治性的，批评的是地方政府，而不是与他的工作表现有关的任何事情，他赢了。
But the only reason he was able to get his job back is that his employer was the government, so it was the government that punished him for speaking out.
但他能重新得到工作的唯一原因是他的雇主是政府，所以是政府惩罚了他的直言不讳。
For most of us, complaining about our employer's policies may get us fired,
对我们大多数人来说，抱怨雇主的政策可能会让我们被解雇，
and unless we are government employees, we can't claim that it violated our First Amendment rights.
除非我们是政府雇员，否则我们不能声称它侵犯了我们的第一修正案权利。
The First Amendment, like all of the Amendments, is meant to protect us from an overreaching government.
第一修正案，就像所有的修正案一样，是为了保护我们免受政府的过度干预。
There are other types of laws that help us deal with individuals who do things that we think are wrong, but we'll talk about those in another episode.
还有其他类型的法律帮助我们处理那些我们认为是错误的行为，但是我们将在另一集讨论这些。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
See ya next time.
下次见。
Third eagle punch in the video.
第三次击打老鹰录像。
Is that too much?
次数太多？
It doesn't matter.
没关系。
I'm free to do it.
我有自由做。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
美国政府对速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org.
在Voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course was made with the help of all of these free speakers.
速成班是在所有这些免费演讲者的帮助下完成的。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
