法律英语天天学(10):Four major television networks challenge the FCC

楼主:春风秋水 时间:2006-04-26 22:22:00 点击:603 回复:4
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

Four Major Television Networks Challenge the FCC's Regulation of Indecency: Why Modern Technology Has Made This Always-Dicey Area of Law Obsolete
  By JULIE HILDEN
  julhil@aol.com
  
  四大广播电视公司挑战联邦通信委员会的不良信息规章:
  为什么现代科技老为陈旧的法律制造补不确定的区域?
  
  文/ 朱莉·希望尔顿
  
  
  Earlier this month, the four major broadcast television networks - CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox - went to federal court to challenge several FCC rulings deeming "bad words" that had been broadcast to be "indecent."
  这个月初,四大广播电视公司,即哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)、美国广播公司(ABC)、国家广播公司(NBC)、福克斯广播公司(FOX),前往联邦地方法院挑战几条联邦通信委员会的行政裁决,它认定已播放的“猥亵言词”是“不良的”。
  The challenge occurred in the wake of a whopping $3.6 million fine that the FCC levied in March. The fine fell on 111 television stations that, in 2004, had broadcast an episode of CBS' hit show "Without a Trace" that depicted an orgy involving teens.
  这项挑战发生在今年3月联邦通信委员会征收了360万美元的巨额罚金之后。这笔罚款涉及111个电视台——于2004年播发了一段哥伦比亚公司制作的《敲击秀》(hit show)、《寻人密探组》(Without a Trace)的情节,它描述了一群少年的纵酒狂欢。
  The networks' goal is ambitious: They seek not only to get reversals of the indecency rulings, but also to convince federal appeals courts in Washington and New York - and then, ideally, the Supreme Court - to junk, or at least severely limit, the FCC's power to regulate material it deems indecent.
  四大广播电视公司有着野心勃勃的目标:他们不仅希望撤消不良裁决,也希望取信于纽约和华盛顿的联邦地方法院以至最高法院,作为跳板,至少可以严格限制联邦通信委员会管制不良信息的权力。
  In this column, I'll explain why indecency law has always been on extremely tenuous ground, from a constitutional perspective. I'll also explain why - thanks to modern technology -- the Supreme Court might finally take the networks up on their invitation to make indecency law a historical relic, in order to make way for a more robust information age.
  在这个专栏,我将解释为什么从宪法角度来说不良法律立基不稳。我也将解释为什么——感谢现代科技——最高法院将为了给更广阔的信息时代扫清道路,最终接受这些广播电视公司的邀请并使不良法律变成历史遗迹。
  
  Indecency Versus Obscenity: The Different Forms of Regulation and Punishment
  不良VS淫秽:不同的规定和惩罚形式
  
  In a previous column, I explained why obscenity law is vulnerable, from a constitutional law perspective. In a sense, indecency law is now even more vulnerable.
  在前一个专栏中,我解释了为什么淫秽信息法律从宪法角度易受攻击。在某种意义上,不良信息法现在甚至更易受攻击和责难。
  Granted, the penalties for obscenity can be far harsher: Distribution of obscenity can result in jail time. But the penalties for indecency are also very significant, from a First Amendment context: Enormous fines, like the ones the FCC just recently levied with respect to the "Without a Trace" episode, strike at the heart of free speech.
  必须承认,对淫秽信息的惩罚确是比较苛刻的:淫秽的发行物将导致刑狱。但是对不良信息的惩罚也非常的重——根据宪法第一修正案的文本规定,可以征收巨额罚款——象联邦通信委员会最近关于《寻人密探组》情节而征收罚金一案,试图限制言论自由。
  These fines hurt networks' ability to produce (and stations' ability to show) the very kind of material that the First Amendment protects, by effectively cutting their overall budgets. (Granted, the money lost could be made up in an area other than content production, but, at a minimum, the fines do put content at risk.)
  这些罚金通过有效地切断其总经费预算而损害了广播电视公司生产(广播电视台播放)受宪法第一修正案保护的信息的能力。(当然,损失的钱可以通过符合要求的产品弥补回来,但是,在一定程度上,该罚金带有危险性。)
  In addition, such fines also produce the kind of "chilling effect" First Amendment doctrine abhors. To avoid huge fines, networks and stations won't just toe the line that the "Without a Trace" fine suggests; they may steer well clear of it.
  另外,这些罚金也产生了宪法第一修正案所痛恨的“激冷效应”(chilling effect,也称“寒惮效应”)。为避免巨额的罚金,广播电视公司和广播电视台不会吸取《寻人密探组》一案的教训,反而会很好地打擦边球。
  Finally, there is also the concern that fines--especially if they go unchallenged - will only beget more fines, as pro-censorship forces take courage from prior successes, and an FCC all too ready to act on their complaints.
  最后,还是关于罚金的事情——特别是如果他们未受挑战的话——他们将招致更多的罚金,作为正面审查力量将从以往的成功中获得勇气,联邦通信委员会也将准备应付他们的申诉。
  Moreover, when it comes to obscenity laws, there are, at least, some fairly longstanding legal standards, set down by the Supreme Court. Though they are malleable, these standards at least give some minimal (though, in my view, insufficient) guidance. And, more importantly, they provide a strong defense: Under the test set forth in 1973, in Miller v. California, obscene material "must, taken as a whole, lack serious scientific, literary or artistic value."
  此外,当提到淫秽法律时,它至少是由最高法院制定的历史非常悠久的法律标准。尽管他们具有可塑性,但这些标准至少提供了一定程度的保证(尽管在我看来,这是不够的)。而且,非常重要的是,它们为其提供强有力的抗辩权:1973年在“米勒诉加利福尼亚案”中设定了其判断标准,即淫秽信息“必须被认为总体上缺乏严肃的、科学的、文学的或艺术价值。”
  Indecency law, in contrast, neither requires that the material be taken as a whole, nor exempts work with serious value.
  相反,不良信息法律,既不从总体上要求,也不其考虑其是否有严肃的价值。
  
  The Recent FCC Fines and Actions: The "Without a Trace" Episode
  联邦通信委员会最近的罚款和行为:《寻人密探组》案
  
  The injustices that result from indecency law can easily be seen in the case of the recent FCC fines and actions.
  不良信息法律产生的不公正后果,将在联邦通信委员会最近的罚款一案中呈露无遗。
  First, let's look at the "Without a Trace" episode that triggered the staggering fines that may have played a role in the genesis of the networks' suit.
  首先,让我们来看一下涉及惊人罚款的《寻人密探组》情节,也许它在广播电视公司的诉讼中扮演着导火线的角色。
  From the FCC's complaint, one might think "Without a Trace" is a softcore porn show. Instead, it is a show about an FBI unit's search for missing persons. Among its leads are three women who play strong, capable agents. It airs at 10:00 p.m. - hardly the children's hour.
  根据联邦通信委员会的申诉,大家可能会觉得《寻人密探组》是一部“半色情”节目(softcore porn show)。事实上,它是一部关于联邦调查局人口失踪小组的故事片。该小组的领导是三个强悍、有才干的女人。这个节目是在晚上10:00播放,几乎不在孩子时间内。
  The particular episode at issue, "Our Sons and Daughters," made serious - and hardly what might pejoratively be called "liberal" - points. It communicated, for instance, how easily teens can lie to their parents; how teenage sex can mean participants risk getting STDs; and how watching porn can lead teens to experiment in ways that ultimately make them uncomfortable and remorseful.
  该系列剧其中一集叫《我们的儿子和女儿》,其情节非常的严肃,几乎不可能诱使孩子变坏。例如,该剧表现的是,十几岁的孩子如何轻易地对他们的父母撒谎;青少年的性行为将有感染性传染病(STDS)的危险;观看色情影片将致使他们将其付诸实践,最终导致内心的不安和悔恨。
  The show's orgy scenario, moreover, was hardly fanciful: It has similarities, for instance, to a bombshell Frontline documentary, "The Lost Children of Rockdale County," which focused on a wealthy Georgia suburb in which a syphilis outbreak drew attention to a teen group-sex clique, as well as other issues.
  该节目的纵酒狂欢情节,一点也不希奇:它有其它节目的共性,比如,在《一份惊人的第一手文件》中,“洛克戴尔县失踪的孩子”,集中在富裕的乔治亚州郊区,那儿出现的梅毒引起了这群青少年的好奇以及其他一些事情。
  But because we're in the realm of indecency law -- not obscenity law -- merit and value don't matter, nor does the larger context. Thus, this episode is a classic case of material deemed indecent by the FCC that's plainly not obscene.
  但是因为我们是以不良信息法律来看问题——而不是淫秽信息法律——不管其优点和价值,也不管其总体情形。这样,这个非淫秽的经典情节被联邦通信委员会认为是不良的。
  
  The Recent FCC Fines and Actions: The "F-Word" and the "S-Word"
  联邦通信委员会最近的罚款和行为:以F开头的词和以S开头的词
  
  Second, let's look at the FCC actions the networks are directly challenging in their lawsuit - which concern "bad words."
  其次,让我们看一下联邦通信委员会对四大广播电视公司所采取的行动将直接导致他们的诉讼——即关于“脏话”的诉讼。
  So-called "obscenities" (not to be confused with obscene material) such as the so-called "f-word" and "s-word" are generally deemed obscene by the FCC regardless of context. (An interesting exception is the use of the word "fucking" by the rock-star Bono - a use that the FCC conceded was merely a superlative, as I discussed in a prior column.)
  所谓的“淫秽”(不能将其与淫秽信息混为一谈),例如象所谓的“以F开头的词” 和“以S开头的词”,通常被联邦通信委员会不顾上下文联系而认为是淫秽的。(一个有趣的例外是,摇滚歌星博诺使用“fucking”一词。联邦通信委员会认为其已是最高限度,关于此问题,我将在下一个专栏里进行讨论)
  That means that, for example, the FCC is free to punish a network for, say, a discussion about the legality of the use of these words that occurs between adult characters, on a show preceded by a warning that it's meant for adult viewers. Indeed, the FCC is free to punish a show for an episode in which a character discusses how important, yet difficult, it is to set a good example and to teach her children not to use certain swear words - and then, after stubbing her toe, swears, thus illustrating her point.
  这意味着,例如,联邦通信委员会免除四大广播电视公司的惩罚,比如说,讨论剧中成年角色间使用这些脏话的合法性——在节目前加上一个只宜于成人观众的警告。事实上,联邦通信委员会已免除了该剧一个情节中一人物角色对其重要性的评论。然而困难之处在于为她的孩子树立榜样并教导其不要说这些脏话——事后,她一不在,孩子们就说脏话。
  Having to put certain words in a black box, ironically, forbids the stations even from broaching the idea that it's time to take them out of the black box. When certain words cannot be spoken, certain things cannot be said or expressed with the same intention - as the Supreme Court recognized in 1971, in Cohen v. California. There, the Court held that a draft protester has a First Amendment right to wear a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft," in public - and even in a courthouse.
  如何将这些脏话放进一个黑匣子里,更具讽刺地是,如何根除广播电视台这些是播放脏话的时候的念头。当一些脏话被禁止的时候,一些事情将不能表述、传达说话者的意图——就象最高法院于1971年在“科恩诉加利福尼亚案”一样。
  The majority opinion in Cohen recognized that "Fuck" was unique in its connotations, writing that language often "conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force." (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was more pithy when he described a word as "the skin of a living thought.")
  关于科恩一案的大部分观点认为,"Fuck"一词是含蓄的,在书面语中,它经常“用于表达那些可以精确、独立表达的观念,也可以表达那些难以形容的感情”。(大法官奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯用词非常的精炼,它将一个词语描述为“当下思想的外壳”。)
  Precedents like Cohen, with its strong and unequivocal language, allow hope that the Supreme Court will revisit indecency doctrine - especially since, as I will explain in the next section, its rationale has been demolished by technology.
  象科恩一案,因为其语言的模糊性,故有望获得最高法院对其重审——此后,我将在下一部分解释其基本原理已被现代科技粉碎无遗。
  
  How the Advent of Modern Technology Destroys the Basis for Indecency Doctrine
  现代科技的到来如何摧毁不良信息法规的基础
  
  From a First Amendment perspective, there simply can be no government-selected "bad words." Indecency law has provided a haven for censorship, but that haven may be crumbling.
  从宪法第一修正案来看,根本不存在经过政府选择的“脏话”。不良信息法律为审查制度提供了一个避难所,但是这个避难所将会被摧毁。
  Once, indecency law was based on the idea the airwaves were a scarce public resource, rationed out to qualified networks that were licensed by the FCC with the understanding that they were a "public trust": Avoiding "indecency" was the price of the privilege. (The same "scarcity" rationale was cited to support "balance" and "right-of-reply" requirements. Such requirements were upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC in 1969 with respect to radio, but even the FCC ultimately abandoned the policy; and it was rejected by the Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo with respect to newspapers.)
  一旦,不良信息法律基于电视广播是一种稀缺的公共资源这样一种观念,应将其分配给那些得到联邦通信委员会颁发的许可证的有资格的广播电视公司,并视其为一“公益信托”。避免播放不良信息是其优惠条件。(同样的“稀缺” 原理被用来支持“平衡”和“答辩权”请求。这些请求被最高法院在1969年关于无线电的“红狮广播公司诉联邦通信委员会”一案中得到支持。但是联邦通信委员会最终取消了该政策。同样这些请求也被最高法院在关于新闻的“《迈阿密先驱报》出版公司诉托尼洛案”中被否决。)
  But "scarcity" would be the last word one would use regarding media today - and increasingly, different media are competing across what once were clear boundaries. When we can buy television episodes to watch on our video iPods and rent them on DVDs, and when the suing networks must compete with viable (and uncensored) alternatives, it's very hard to argue that network television ought to be a special preserve with its own special rules - especially when those rules have always been deeply antithetical to First Amendment doctrine.
  但是“稀缺”原理并不是一个人使用有关媒体的最新成就——一旦彼此之间界限清楚,这些与日俱增的、不同的媒体将会展开激烈的竞争。当我们用iPods播放器观看我们所购买电视节目或用DVD播放机观看租来的影碟时,当提起诉讼的广播电视公司以可行的(和未经审查的)产品竞争时,很难说广播电视公司必须是一个受其特殊法规保护的特殊群体——特别是这些法规经常与宪法第一修正案严重相悖时。
  

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
楼主春风秋水 时间:2006-04-26 22:33:12
  
  Will the Supreme Court Shut Down the FCC's Targeting of "Indecency"?
  最高法院将限制联邦通信委员会不良信息的管制目标
  
  Is the Supreme Court up-to-date enough to acknowledge the reality of new media? There's some reason to hope: As early as 1997, the Court was surprisingly down with the Internet - in an opinion written by its oldest member, Justice John Paul Stevens, still vital, brilliant, independent-minded and sometimes maverick.
  最高法院答复新媒体的的知识足够新了吗?有一些理由可以期望:早在1997年,该法院令人惊讶地打倒了因特网——一份由其最年老的成员,即大法官约翰·保罗·史蒂文斯(Justice John Paul Stevens),所写的判决至今非常的重要,散发着灿烂的光辉,洋溢着独立自主的精神。
  That year, in Reno v. ACLU, a seven-Justice majority invalidated (in large part) a federal statute, the Communications Decency Act - holding that in cyberspace, none of the rationales for traditional indecency law apply. (Doubtless, the presence of smart young law clerks helped close any generation gap that might otherwise have existed.)
  那一年,在“里诺诉美国公民自由协会案”(Reno v. ACLU)中,以7:2的投票使州法规,即《通讯风化法案》,无效。如将此标准适用于网络空间,则无法援引传统的不良信息基本法律原理。(毫无疑问,年轻的法律人员的出席帮助消除了以另外方式存在的代沟。)
  Significantly, in Reno, the Court reiterated the First Amendment principle that censorship based on content is especially disfavored - and the FCC's censorship of the networks for indecency is plainly content-based.
  很明显,在里诺一案中,该法院重申了宪法第一修正案关于对令人反感的内容进行审查的基本原则,联邦通信委员会对四大广播电视公司所进行的不良信息审查也完全是基于内容而进行的。
  The Court also emphasized in Reno that -- despite the reality that both adults and minors may have access to certain forums for speech (such as chatrooms) -- the government cannot constitutionally require that speech meant for an adult audience be watered down to that which is fit for children.
  该法院也在里诺一案中强调,尽管成年人和未成年人有权进入论坛发表言论这是不争的事实(如聊天室),政府本质上也不能要求把那些适合成人的言论掺水以后以适合未成年人。
  There's no question that shows like "Without a Trace" target an adult audience; while I believe all shows are entitled to First Amendment protection, shows slotted for 10 p.m. and geared toward an adult demographic ought to be the easy cases where First Amendment values are respected - not the flashpoints the FCC uses to terrorize stations and delight constituents by showing just how high its fines can go.
  非可非议,象《寻人密探组》这样的节目,其受众是成年人。但我相信,所有的节目都有受宪法第一修正案保护的权利,跟踪和统计10:00以后的成人节目应该是一个非常容易而且是一件尊重宪法第一修正案的事情,而不是象联邦通信委员会那样通过显示其罚金有多高来恐吓广播电视台和取悦于纳税人。
  The only (and partial) dissenters in Reno were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor - now, of course, replaced by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Even if Roberts is a Rehnquist clone on such issues, that may not matter much. Moreover, as I discussed in an earlier column, Justice Alito may turn out to be a strong First Amendment proponent - stronger than was Justice O'Connor. (Indeed, O'Connor seemed open, in her Reno dissent, to the suggestion that Congress could engage in "zoning" adult content on the Internet, much as localities engage in the "zoning" of adult businesses in the real world.)
  里诺案中唯一的(和部分的)反对者是首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特和大法官奥康纳,现在当然是首席大法官约翰·罗伯特茨和大法官阿里托。即使罗伯特茨是伦奎斯特在这些案件上的克隆,那也不会有太大问题,而且,关于这个我已在此前的一个专栏里论及过。大法官阿里托也许会被证明是宪法第一修正案的忠实拥护者——一个比奥康纳大法官还要强悍的人。(事实上,奥康纳大法官在里诺一案中看起来很开明,她建议国会就因特网上的内容实行“分区制”,就象现实生活中成人业务按地域分区一样。)
  In short, the new Roberts Court may be more pro-free-speech than its predecessor. And that bodes well for the chances the Court might reconsider the current system -- under which the FCC uses timeworn excuses to cater to those who seek to use any pretext to justify censoring speech they dislike.
  简而言之,罗伯特茨领导的新法院也许会在言论自由上比其前任做得更好。耐心的等待机会,也许该法院会重新考虑当前的体制——联邦通信委员会用陈旧的申辩去迎合那些喜欢用借口来司法审查那些其不喜欢的言词。
  
  
  译者注:
   (1)FCC:Federal Communications Commission,联邦通信委员会
  联邦通信委员会是一家独立于政府机关并直接对国会负责的机构。它根据1934年的《通信法案》(the Communications Act)而设立。它管理着诸如无线电、电视、电报、卫星、电缆等方面的州际、国际通信工作,其管理权限覆盖美国50多个州、哥伦比亚特区以及美国所属地区。
  联邦通信委员会由总统任命并经参议院确认的5名委员管理。此5人的任期都是5年,其中一人被总统指定为委员会 。
  该委员会设有6个职能局——公民和政府事务局(Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau)、执法监察局(Enforcement Bureau)、国际局(International Bureau)、媒体局(Media Bureau)、无线通信局(Wireless Telecommunications)、电信竞争局(Wireline Competition Bureau)和10个事务办公室——行政法审判办公室(Office of Administrative Law Judges)、通信商业机会办公室(Office of Communications Business Opportunities)、通信工艺工程办公室(Office of Engineering And Technology)、总顾问办公室(Office of The General Counsel)、检察长办公室(Office of Inspector General)、立法办公室(Office of Legislative Affairs)、常务董事办公室(Office of The Managing Director)、媒体关系办公室(Office of Media Relations)、战略计划及政策分析办公室(Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis)、人力事务办公室(Office of Work Place Diversity)。
  (2)Regulation of Indecency:不良规章
  What are the statutes and rules regarding the broadcast of obscene, indecent, and profane programming? Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of “any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.”
  关于播发淫秽、不良、猥亵节目的相关规章条例是什么?代码为美国18 -1464的文件规定,禁止“以无线电方式播发任何淫秽、不良、猥亵节目。”
  后来,通信委员会禁止在上午6:00到晚上10:00间播发不良信息(indecent material )、猥亵信息(profane material)。但是通信委员会必须留意宪法第一修正案和通信法第326节,因为这两条禁止通信委员会审查节目内容,干扰、妨碍广播公司的言论自由权(free speech rights)。
  什么是淫秽的信息?(What makes material “obscene?”)淫秽信息不受宪法第一修正案保护。法律规章禁止广播公司在任何时候播发淫秽节目(obscene programming)。根据最高法院的解释,它具体包括三项衡量标准(to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.)
  什么是不良信息?(What makes material “indecent?”)不良信息是那些没有达到淫秽层面的有关性和排泄行为的信息(Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.)。通信委员会衡量其是否为不良信息有三个重要因素(The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.)。
  什么是猥亵信息?(What makes material “profane?”)猥亵信息是指那些在上下文关系中非常富有攻击性的言词(“Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.”)。
  什么是安全港?(What is the “safe harbor”?)安全港指晚上10:00到早上6:00这一段时间,广播公司可以播发有关不良信息和猥亵信息(The “safe harbor” refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material.)。但是播发淫秽信息在任何时候都是禁止的(Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and may not be broadcast at any time.)。
  (3)chilling effect:激冷效应,寒惮效应
  A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group. For example, the threat of a costly and lengthy lawsuit might prompt self-censorship and have a chilling effect on free speech. In United States law, chilling effects refer to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First Amendment.
  “寒惮效应”(chilling effect),其意思就是,当对你的言论自由保护有十分时,人们怕自己的言论达到十分的言论而受罚,所以其实际的行使程度只能达到8分、9分左右。所以只有当法律对言论自由的保护上升到11分时,人们的言论自由才可能达到10分,这样可以给媒体有更多的言论自由。
  (4)Miller v. California:米勒诉加利福尼亚案
  Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.(米勒诉加利福尼亚案,是美国联邦法院宣判的关于什么构成不受宪法第一修正案保护的淫秽信息的案件。该案重申了淫秽信息不受宪法第一修正案保护,并建立了确定其是否为淫秽信息的“米勒标准”。)
  这个标准现在仍然有效。Miller检验标准分三部分:一,普通人采用当代社区标准,认为作品作为一个整体刺激淫欲;二,作品以明显令人反感的(patently offensive)方式刻画或者描写性行为(具体哪些性行为由适用的州法具体规定);三,该作品整体上缺乏文学、艺术、政治和科学价值。
  该判决书写道:“在一部面对全国的宪法下,基本的第一修正案对各州权力的限制在不同社区之间并无不同,但这并不意味着,对什么是激发‘淫欲’,什么是‘明显令人反感’,有或者应该有固定、统一的全国标准。这些本质上是事实问题,我们国家太大,各地差异也太大,对于本院来说,不可能合理地期望这个标准能用一个公式表达出来,并适用于联邦50个州,尽管可以假定预先存在一些共识。如果把第一修正案理解为,它要求缅因和密西西比州人民接受拉斯维加斯和纽约市可以容忍的对某些行为的公开描述,那是不现实的,在宪法上也是站不住脚的。各州人民的品味和态度各不相同,这种多元化不应被强加一致的绝对主义所窒息。”
  (具体内容参见:Marvin Miller v. State of California ,Supreme Court of the United States,Argued January 18-19, 1972;Reargued November 7, 1972 ;Decided June 21, 1973)
  当然,此案是在以前案件的基础上发展而来的。1942年,在Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,315 U.S. 568 (1942)案中,美国最高法院确定,淫秽(lewd and obssene)、亵渎(profane)、诽谤(libelous)侮辱(insulting)或挑衅(“fighting”)言论不受美国宪法第一修正案“言论自由”的保护,因为这些言论“社会价值很低,不能作为获得真理的一个步骤,从中获得的的利益,抵不上秩序和道德中获得的社会利益。” 1957年,在Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957)案中,美国最高法院建立了确定淫秽的“一般人当代社区检验标准”——是否淫秽要看“对于一般人(average person),采用当代社区标准,该材料作为一个整体,其主题是否刺激淫欲(appeal to prurient interest)。”此前,在1868年Regina v. Hicklin一案中,判断淫秽与否诉诸易受影响的人,而不是一般人——“该材料是否使那些头脑容易不道德影响的人堕落败坏”。另外,Hicklin检验标准也不考虑材料的整体,可以只抽取一个片段加以判断。Hicklin检验标准容易使一些总体上有价值、但包含了一些涉及性内容的作品(比如《查泰莱夫人的情人》)失去宪法言论自由条款的保护。
  (5)Without a Trace:《寻人密探组》,别名《失踪现场》、《离去无痕》。
  《寻人密探组》是一非常引人入胜的情节系列剧,该剧讲述的是关于美国联邦调查局失踪人口小组的故事。这个特别小组的唯一任务就是通过应用心理分析技术来抽丝剥茧受害者的生活,并试图发现他们在哪被绑架、被谋杀、自杀或逃跑,来找出他们目前的行踪。该小组重建了“失踪日”时间线,这个时间线非常详细的描述了失踪者失踪前24小时每一分钟的情况。他们始终遵循一个原则:一定要找到受害者!(Without a Trace is an American television show set in New York City. The show is about an FBI missing person unit; each episode typicially follows the investigation into one person's disappearance.)
  (6)softcore porn show:半色情节目。
  半色情作品一般是指那些与赤裸裸地描写性行为的作品相较而言比较含蓄的色情作品。通常,其性接触行为是假动作,尽管有些作品是改编自纯粹的色情作品。(Softcore is a form of pornography that is less explicit than hardcore material in depicting or describing sexual behaviour. Usually, any sexual contact in softcore is simulated; although in some instances softcore versions of originally hardcore films have been made by blurring, zooming, or otherwise altering hardcore scenes to eliminate hardcore content.)
  (7)F-word:以F开头的词(此处的F指Fuck)。
  S-word:以S开头的词(此处的S指Sex)。
  (8)Bono:博诺,著名摇滚歌星。
  Bono,1960年5月10日出生于爱尔兰的都柏林。他是20世纪最成功的乐队之一的U2乐队的主唱和挂名负责人。博诺两次获得诺贝尔和平奖提名。
  (9)Cohen v. California:科恩诉加利福尼亚案
  科恩诉加利福尼亚案(Cohen v. California)是美国最高法院于1971年处理的一起涉及言论自由的案件。19岁的保罗·罗伯特·科恩(Paul Robert Cohen)洛杉矶法院里面说了一句“Fuck the Draft”而被捕。他被判违反了加利福尼亚州刑法典第415接(section 415 of the California Penal Code)的规定:禁止“故意、蓄意以冒犯的行为干扰邻居和他人的和平、宁静。”("maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct.")。此案上诉到地区上诉法院后,被该地区法院驳回并维持原判。(具体内容参见:Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of,403 U.S. 15 (1971) ,Supreme Court of the United States,Argued February 22, 1971;Decided June 7, 1971)
  (10)Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC:红狮广播公司诉联邦通信委员会案
  在1969年具有里程碑意义的“红狮广播公司诉联邦通信委员会”(Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC)一案判决中,最高法院支持了联邦通讯委员会的公平学说,法院的判决意见强调了这么三个原则:
    ①广播的独特性。“当希望开设广播电台的个人明显超过能够配置的频率数量时,再去主张个人因宪法第一修正案而享有不可逾越的从事广播的权利,并将其同每个人都享有的言说、写作或出版的权利相提并论,是没有意义的。”
    ②信托原则。“第一修正案中,没有什么内容可以阻止政府要求被许可人同他人分享自己的频率,而且被许可人要作为受托者来行事。”
    ③公共利益原则。“是受众的权利,而非广播公司的权利,居于至上的地位。”
  法院的判决还附加了这样一个限定,认为如果1969年判决后广播技术的发展证明了公平学说总体的效果将带来节目数量和质量的减少而非增加时,则应对其重新加以考量。
  (具体内容参见:Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC,395 U.S. 367 (1969) )
  (11)Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo:《迈阿密先驱报》出版公司诉托尼洛案
  在《迈阿密先驱报》出版公司诉托尼洛,1974(Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, [1974])一案中,最高法院审议了佛罗里达州一项州法令是否可以授权政治候选人以对等的空间回击报纸对其履历的批评和攻击。该法院否定了这一法律,认为第一条修正案禁止强迫报纸发表它不愿意发表的材料。最高法院认为,这条法令会使报业传媒用于发表想要刊登的材料所需的资源分流,并非法干扰编辑的工作。
  (具体内容参见:Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974))
  (12)Reno v. ACLU:里诺诉美国公民自由协会案
  最高法院在“里诺诉美国公民自由协会案”(Reno v. ACLU)中,讨论了互联网环境下Miller检验标准的适用。此案涉及国会《1996年通讯风化法案》(Communication Decency Act of 1996,简称CDA)的两个条款是否违反了美国宪法第一修正案言论自由条款。这两个条款是,一、禁止有伤风化的传播(47 U.S.C.§223(a)):在州际间或与外国的通讯中,在明知的情况下,禁止向任何18岁以下的接受者传播淫秽的或有伤风化(indecent)的信息,违反者将被处以罚金或两年以下监禁;二、禁止明显令人反感的展示(47 U.S.C.§223(d)):在州际间或与外国的通讯中,在明知的情况下,禁止以一种18岁以下人士能够看见的方式,使用互动的计算机设备发送或展示按照当代社区标准明显令人反感的内容,包括对性行为、性器官、排泄行为、排泄器官的刻画和描写,违反者将被处以罚金或两年以下监禁。
  总的说来,美国最高法院认为《通讯风化法案》禁止的内容过于宽泛,构成了“一种对于言论的基于内容的总括的一揽子限制(content-based balnket restriction on speech)”,而不是一种基于时间、地点和方式的言论管制。
  最高法院在 ACLU v. Reno (I) 一案中指出:“若欲将宪法第一修正案之检查标准应用至本案之新兴媒体网络时,基本上是不合理的。”若有人认为,若将广电媒体之检查标准即可适用于网络,即可根据最高法院之见解驳斥之。
  (具体内容参见:Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, (521 U.S. 844))
  (13)Rehnquist:伦奎斯特
  威廉·伦奎斯特(William Rehnquist),1924年10月1日诞生于威斯康星州的密尔沃基(Milwaukee, Wisconsin),2005年9月3日因甲状腺癌(thyroid cancer)病逝。他是美国联邦最高法院第十六任首席大法官。1969年他在亚利桑那州执业时被理查德·尼克松总统调到司法部工作。1972年,他被任命为最高法院法官(an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court)。1986年,第十五任首席大法官沃伦·伯格(Warren Burger)退休后,他被罗纳德·里根总统任命为首席大法官。在1986-2005年任职期间,他主持了1999年克林顿弹劾案(impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton)的审理,在2000年布什与戈尔竞选总统争议中判决布什获胜。他的著作包括:《众法维一:战时之公民自由》(All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime,1998) 和《大审讯:大法官塞缪尔·蔡斯与安德鲁·约翰逊弹劾案》 Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson (1992).
  (14)Justice O'Connor:大法官奥康纳
  桑德拉·黛·奥康纳(Sandra Day O’Conner)是美国历史上首位女性大法官,也是著名的“中间派”。1930年3月26日,奥康纳生于美国南部的得克萨斯州。16岁时,奥康纳连跳两级,考入斯坦福大学,主修经济学。1952年,她以优异成绩获得斯坦福大学法律博士(J.D.)学位,也是102个学生中仅有的5位女生之一。毕业后她到一个著名的律师事务所(The Law Firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher)去找工作,人家没有要她,但是给了她一个秘书的工作。后来她开办了自己的律师事务所。2003年,蓝登书屋出版了奥康纳著的《法律的尊严:一位最高法院大法官的回顾》,该书是一本篇幅适中、通俗易懂、简洁出色的普法读物,涉及最高法院运作概况、大法官提名任命程序、对宪政法治的理解、著名案例和法官评价、妇女与法律、美国法治前瞻等内容。
  名震天下的“奥康纳”大法官的姓氏,系因她结婚后循规改用丈夫约翰·奥康纳(John O'Connor III)的姓氏而来。个别中国学者和媒体不明真相,把“奥康纳”(O'Connor)误译为女性化的“奥康娜”。
  她坚决维护州权,捍卫自由市场的规则和私有财产的权利,显示了她保守主义的信仰。但是,在社会和文化问题上,她又以温和著称。最重要的是,她的裁决不以自己的意识形态为准绳,而是根据具体案例、分析其中的复杂性、作出合乎情理的裁决。奥康纳强调:“作为法官,当审理一个案子时,我们必须竭力做到冷静无情,中立客观,超越党派,深刻分析,勇于担当,司法独立,这种断案方式,通常肯定不会引人注目。”所以,与其他法官不同的是,在她作出正式裁决之前,谁也不能预测她的立场。从1987到2005年最高法院的9次重大裁决中,其他大法官以4比4对立,就凭她最后一票打破平局、产生最终的结果。比如,她决定性的一票,打破僵局,在2000年把布什送进白宫。所以,在重大的、有争议的裁决中,最高法院的意见,其实就是被她的意见所决定。难怪许多人说她是最高法院中最有权力的法官,也是世界最有权力的女性。
  
作者:怡红院院士 时间:2006-05-02 21:33:37
  路过。*——*
作者:kaala 时间:2006-05-02 22:36:39
  Will the Supreme Court Shut Down the FCC's Targeting of "Indecency"?
  ========================================
  这个标题和愿意差的太远
作者:kaala 时间:2006-05-02 22:40:39
  第一篇没看, 第2篇, 全文错的一塌糊涂.
发表回复

请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规