美国宪法对政治言论自由之保护与限制

发布时间：2018-04-09 16:21

本文选题：美国宪法　切入点：政治言论　出处：《华东政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】：美国宪法对于政治言论自由的保障,在资本主义类型宪法中具有代表性。政治言论自由指的是个人(包括自然人和公民)或社会组织,有通过口头、书面或者其它形式表达其政治观点,或者选择不表达其政治观点的自由。200多年来,美国联邦最高法院遵循宪法第一修正案的精神,将其对政治表达之自由的保护置于核心地位。法官们将这一条款付诸实践的历程,也是美国公众的政治言论自由不断拓展的过程。本文以第一修正案判例为中心,探讨联邦最高法院对言论自由的保护和限制。美国立国之初,由联邦党人控制的国会出于党派利益考量,通过了《反煽动法》,企图剥夺其政治对手的政治言论自由,虽然最终并未获得成功,但此时对第一修正案的运用尚未被提上议事日程。直到1919年,霍尔姆斯大法官在审理申克案时创设的“明显和现存的危险”标准,才使得第一修正案真正浮出水面。其后,在众多涉及政治言论自由的案件中,第一修正案成为被法官们反复引用的条款。自霍尔姆斯大法官在艾布拉姆斯案中提出“思想市场理论”这一用以保障政治言论自由的里程碑式的理论以来,美国公众的政治言论自由度逐步增长。霍尔姆斯和布兰戴斯两位大法官在吉特洛案和惠特尼案中提出的反对意见影响深远,逐步发展成为公认的标准,为此后对言论自由的保护奠定了坚实的基础。勃兰登堡案则树立了另一个先例,使得法院在解释和适用第一修正案时,由此前着重审查当事人言论及其造成的后果,转向着重审查政府限制和剥夺表达自由的合宪性。在新闻出版自由方面,尼尔案创设了“禁止事先审查原则”,从此平面媒体的报道不再受到政府的事先干涉。《纽约时报》诉沙利文案则表明,针对政府官员的言论构成诽谤,必须以存在对该政府官员的实际恶意为前提。此外,当新闻媒体的政治言论自由与政府的重大利益(如国家安全)形成冲突时,政府负有重大举证责任。在非言论性质的政治表达自由领域,焚烧美国国旗案的判决表明,美国国旗保护那些反对它的人。另一方面,从申克案开始,在包括德布斯案和丹尼斯案在内的一系列案件中,联邦最高法院的大法官们也并未始终遵循言论自由的传统,这无疑对美国自由构成了伤害,同时说明政治言论自由疆域的拓展,在美国国内也绝非易事。所幸自上世纪60年代以来,“内容中性”的审查标准已成为美国司法界的共识。但出于公共利益的考虑,联邦最高法院在解释和适用第一修正案时,仍然创设了“时间、地点和方式”规则和“公共场所”规则。前者是指政府在对表达自由持中立立场、不干涉表达内容的前提下,为了协调使用公共场所的时间、地点和方式,只需符合某些要求,就可以限制或禁止人们的表达自由。后者是指政府不得禁止公民使用传统上为游行、集会、演说和散发发传单而保留的公共场所(如公园和街道),但与此同时必须针对不同公共场所的性质,作不同对待。此外,报纸和广播电视虽同为出版界,但基于防止垄断表达自由的考虑,最高法院对这两者的政治言论自由尺度给予了区别对待。
[Abstract]:The United States Constitution for the protection of freedom of political speech, representative of the capitalist constitution. Political speech refers to the individual (including natural and social organizations or citizens), through oral, written or other forms of expression of their political views, or choose not to express their political views of the free.200 over the years, the United States federal the Supreme Court following the spirit of the first amendment, will be free of the political expression of protection at the core. The judges will process this clause into practice, is the American public political speech from the process of expanding. In this paper, the first amendment case as the center, to explore the protection of freedom of speech and restrictions the Federal Supreme Court.
At the beginning of the founding of the United States, by the Federalist controlled Congress for partisan interests, through the "anti Sedition Act", an attempt to deprive his political opponents of the political freedom of speech, although ultimately did not succeed, but the use of the first amendment has not yet been put on the schedule. Until 1919, a judge in Holmes the trial case Schenck created a "clear and present danger" standard, the first amendment was actually surfaced. Subsequently, in many cases involving the freedom of political expression, the first amendment provisions were repeatedly cited by the judges. The "justice Holmes in Abrams v. marketplace of ideas" one to protect the freedom of political speech milepost type theory, gradually increase the degree of freedom of political speech of the American public. Holmes and Brandis two judges in the case of Gitlow and Whitney put forward in the case of opposition has far-reaching influence, and gradually become a recognized standard, for the protection of freedom of speech has laid a solid foundation. The Land Brandenburg case is set another precedent, the court in the interpretation and application of the first amendment, the former party speech and examine the consequences of steering the review of government restrictions and deprivation on the expression of constitutional freedom.
In the free press, the Neal case created "no prior review" principle, from the flat media reports from New York Times v. Sullivan. < > in advance of interference of government case indicated that according to official statements constitute libel, must be based on the existence of government officials of actual malice as the premise. In addition, the political freedom of speech with the great benefit of the government when the news media (such as national security) the formation of the conflict, the government has the burden of proof. The freedom of political speech, burning the American flag case show that the flag of the United States to protect those who oppose it.
On the other hand, starting from the Schenck case, in a series of cases including the Debs case and the Denis case, and the justices of the Supreme Court did not always follow the tradition of free speech, this is undoubtedly of American freedom constitutes harm, and expand the freedom of political speech in Xinjiang region, in the United States is not easy. Fortunately, since the last century since 60s, "neutral" standard of review has become the judicial consensus. But for the public interests, the Federal Supreme Court in the interpretation and application of the first amendment, still created "time, place and method of rule" and the "public place" is the former rules. Refers to the government in the neutral position on the expression of freedom, not to interfere the expression of content under the premise, in order to coordinate the use of public places, time, place and manner, only need to meet certain requirements, you can limit or ban people The freedom of expression. The latter refers to the government shall not prohibit citizens traditionally used for the parade, rally, speech and dissemination of public places and distribute leaflets retained (such as parks and streets), but at the same time according to different kinds of public places, for different treatment. In addition, newspapers and radio and television is the same as the publishing industry, but to prevent based on the consideration of the monopoly of freedom of expression, freedom of political speech scale on both the Supreme Court gave the distinction.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;DD911

【共引文献】