Chapter 3 third letter

Brother Lu: Hello! Thanks for your letter.You said that you were waiting for my "next chapter analysis", only to realize that it has been a long time since I stopped writing, I am really sorry. Yesterday was Sunday and we went to the "Human Rights Festival" in the city center and it was a lot of fun.Here, every city has a variety of festivals, which are generally arranged in the season with the most comfortable climate.On the one hand, at the first meeting of the preparatory meeting of the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, it provides people with a relaxed and happy holiday and leisure place; on the other hand, the organizers of these festivals can also have a certain income.The city where we live also has such festivals.Such festivals have various themes and names, for example, Apple Festival (celebration of apple harvest), Sakura Festival (viewing cherry blossoms under the large blooming cherry trees), and so on.The main forms are similar, the most are always food stalls, and then, they sell all kinds of small commodities and handicrafts.There is always a temporary stage built in the middle, with drum music, singing and dancing, which is very lively.Sometimes there are makeup parades.The entire arrangement, such as delineating a no-car zone in the city center, nearby traffic control, police maintenance of law and order, etc., were all assisted by the local government.

The name of "Human Rights Day" sounds a little serious, but the overall form is similar to other festivals, some of which are delicious, fun and beautiful.Guess who should be the most unhappy on this day?It's a restaurant.I thought that everyone was full at the food stall and couldn't take care of the business of the restaurant anymore. The whole atmosphere is indeed like a festival, the only difference is that on the "Human Rights Festival", only non-profit organizations can set up stalls in the best center.In any place, the people and groups who call for the highest human rights are always in the minority, disadvantaged and passive.It is the same in the United States.On this day, these organizations are particularly happy. They put up banners, put up posters, sell their own newspapers, distribute promotional materials, and so on.Their views, purposes, and goals are all-encompassing, and there are all kinds of them.From protecting the environment, protecting pets, to the Communist Party, the Trotsky faction, the militia... everything.There are many viewpoints between them that conflict with each other, and they are even at odds with each other.However, here, under the warm sunshine in spring, they set up stalls next to each other and get along with each other in a friendly way.They all actively expounded, or rather sold, their views to passers-by in order to gain an audience. The "speech stalls" here are like food stalls trying to win people's patronage.

Seriously, these guys are pretty tough.You think about the inconsistency between trying to stand out in a place where everything can be said and everything is said.Isn't it strange that special attention is drawn to the linguistic analysis and clarification of philosophical and ethical concepts? After we walked around for a long time, we came to the central square.The small square is arranged very tightly, and the rock music on the stage is in full swing.An organization that probably has something to do with children has sent two ladies to paint various beautiful patterns on children's faces.I don't know which organization provided several cans of crayons.Let everyone smear and paint their imaginations and ideals on the concrete floor of the square as they like.We bought a copy of his autobiography at the booth of the Trotsky faction, saw a long-lost portrait of Mao Zedong wearing a military cap at the booth of the Communist Party, and saw a pamphlet published by the "Cultural Revolution".I flipped through it, and the "Red Guard Literary and Art Squad" was posing in a very revolutionary pose, and the "barefoot doctor" was smiling at me with a medicine box on his back.

We happen to know a guy at this booth, his name is Shanijia.He had a "punk" shaved head, dyed a little green, a thick chain around his neck for decoration, and ripped jeans.His brother was a member of the American Communist Party, and he also participated in the activities of the Communist Party. Their leader was a German from Marx's hometown.It is said that they held a meeting once a week to study the great cause of revolution, and it was always so busy that he couldn't go to work the next day.For this reason, he even lost his job several times, but he still did not hesitate to pursue his ideal.Saniga is actually a very shy, kind lad, only 19 years old.His understanding of the "Cultural Revolution" in China was limited to the scope of propaganda materials that China issued overseas at that time.In fact, after many Chinese students came here, he has heard many different versions of the "Cultural Revolution story", but he would rather believe those propaganda materials 30 years ago than let the disappointing stories of the foreign students disturb him. A 19-year-old dream of Utopia.Seeing him reminded us of the "American Red Guards" that a friend mentioned when we went to San Francisco the year before last.

This friend also met an American in San Francisco's "Chinatown" who was actively promoting the "cultural revolution" to her.She thought, you bastard is full of food and drink in the United States, and you are so dizzy that you talk about the "Cultural Revolution" to people from China.At the beginning, none of us took the opportunity to drink it to China's "Cultural Revolution propagandists", but this time we don't want to miss the opportunity Zhang Heng, an astronomer, writer, and thinker in the Eastern Han Dynasty.Once wrote the novel "Sixuan", he yelled "shut up" in English.A group of us laughed and felt quite happy when we heard this.Although this friend and we all know that no one can make him really "shut up" because he has freedom of speech, which is the right granted to him by the Constitution.That is the "Bill of Rights" I referred to in my last letter.Its first article reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the liberty of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to seek redress from their government." It is generally believed that, In the entire constitutional amendment, this is the most important one.Of course, with this one, you can say whatever you want. The mouth is very pleasant, but the ears are not necessarily comfortable.Because you may hear remarks that you don't like, hate, or even extremely hate, but also because of this article, no one can really shut up others.

The first sentence of the First Amendment to the Constitution, that is, "Congress shall make no law concerning the following matters", referred to as the "shall not legislate" clause, is the soul of the US Constitution and its amendments, and it is no exaggeration to call it a thousand dollars.I will slowly explain the profound meaning of this article to you later.You must remember that although we are just ordinary people, when we are together, we have pondered the meaning of democracy and freedom, and even pondered why there must be freedom of speech.We have mentioned that in popular language, democracy and freedom are always connected together like four-character idioms, but in fact, they are just coincidentally pursued by people because they are the same goals that many people are confused and mistaken for. thing.Many authoritarian regimes, including Hitler's, lost no time in taking advantage of people's confusion.In fact, the Chinese should be able to understand and distinguish the differences, and even understand their incompatible contradictions and conflicts.Just thinking about it like this will make it clear immediately: Once a "big democracy" like the "Cultural Revolution" comes, will those few people who have grasped the truth, not to mention freedom, still have a way to survive?

We have thought, maybe, just considering that under certain historical conditions, people's general level of cognition is limited, we must avoid anyone using the excuse of "democracy" to stifle thought and truth, or simply murder that excuse. The unlucky bastard who speaks the truth.Therefore, there must be freedom of speech.We also mentioned at that time that the thoughts expressed by speech are the most abundant and most incomprehensible, and their development is coexisting with human beings.In other words, as long as human beings continue to exist, there will be no ultimate truth or absolute truth.No one can rely on the strength of the crowd to prevent others from speaking.If this problem is expressed in popular and simple language, it is a sentence that everyone in China is familiar with: the truth is often in the hands of a few people.

Until I set foot on American soil, I thought that Americans regard freedom of speech as the most basic and important right because they have a common understanding with us: it is to protect the possible existence in any time and space. "Potential truth", so translated.A term used by the German philosopher Kant.It is believed that there is an independent existence away from human consciousness, so that no one can claim the absolute truth and force others to obey. Or, as we are familiar with before, the truth becomes clearer and clearer. But you must not have thought that this is actually a big misunderstanding.The freedom of speech in the hearts of Americans has nothing to do with truth or truth.The key to the First Amendment to the US Bill of Rights is this: freedom of speech has nothing to do with truth.

In fact, the constitutions of many countries have freedom of speech, which is not a rare thing.So, what is so special about the American Bill of Rights?Its characteristic is that it stipulates that the government shall not deprive this freedom by legislation.In other words, the government cannot use the excuse of a state of emergency, a state of war, or any other extraordinary state to deprive or restrict people's freedom of religion, speech, and the press.why?Simply because the American understanding of these rights is very different from our original understanding. These freedoms, they argue, are fundamental human rights, that is, the birthright of a person.Such as freedom of speech, as long as there is one person, Mocritus and Epicurus are representatives of this viewpoint. , has the right to express one's own thoughts, which has nothing to do with whether the person who makes the speech is a good person or a villain, and it has nothing to do with whether the thing expressed is truth or falsehood.Even if his thinking is downright false, even if there is a way to identify his thinking as absolutely false, was, is, and will be, he as a human being still has a right to say what he thinks.Say it, it's legal.

But saying so is a very abstract concept.Without answering your curiosity, the big question you raised is still here: what kind of free law is it? Of course, before we came to America, we knew there was such a thing as freedom of speech.However, when I really saw all kinds of remarks here, I still found that my previous imagination was not rich enough.The greatest freedom that many Chinese can imagine is probably what Mao Zedong described and defined before the Anti-Rightist Movement, when he advocated "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend": "Whoever has the right to vote, the Constitution stipulates that he has freedom of speech, and we You have to let people speak. I can criticize him, and he can criticize me. This is freedom of speech.” We are far from elites, and our imagination for freedom of speech is enough.

So, what is free speech in America?To put it bluntly, it means that no matter what you say or what you write about, the universe has been called the universe since ancient times. ", as long as you don't do it, no one will interfere. If you do it, you must be bound by the law, legal, illegal. Therefore, based on the complex immigration background in the United States, not only can you always hear different voices here, but also , you can hear an infinite number of different voices than you can imagine, including the cacophony of free speech abusers. This must give some examples. The example you are more familiar with in the United States using freedom of speech is Martin Luther King, the leader of the black movement.He is a pastor of a black Christian church. He made full use of the "freedom of speech" clause in the Constitution and insisted on non-violence. He launched the March for Peace in Washington calling for human rights, which attracted 250,000 people, including many whites. People, successfully made the black movement for human rights in the 1960s achieve its purpose.Because Mao Zedong once sent a message of condolence after he was assassinated by a white racist, most Chinese people are familiar with this name, although not many people in China have a deep understanding of him.He and this history are often broadcast on public television in the United States, his birthday is designated as a national holiday, and you can see his famous speech "I have a dream..." countless times on TV.This is a typical positive example of using freedom of speech. It is conceivable that the US government at that time was also troubled by the increasingly large-scale popular unrest, but they could only let the leaders of the entire movement do nothing.Because Martin Luther King is legal.James Earl Ray, who shot him dead, was a white extremist who started with legislation and education.But the quality of legislation and education depends on the legislators and teachers. This action is only his personal behavior and has nothing to do with the US government.This man would be legal in the US if he just expressed his opinion with speech like all other white racists, but he went to the extreme and killed someone and was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.Recently, he had made a request for parole, which was denied.So, he is still in jail. Martin Luther King is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.He believes that "means represent ideals in formation and goals in progress. People cannot achieve good goals through evil means, because means are seeds and ends are trees." Therefore, his speeches have always been very rational. Macomb X, another important black movement leader at the same time as Martin Luther King, was one of the leaders of black Muslims at that time. Like Martin Luther King, he also made full use of the American The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution is to awaken blacks' awareness of human rights, but his claim is that "all necessary means can be used to win freedom."His experience and his views have far greater ups and downs and changes than Martin Luther King. He once believed that "white people are the devil", and he also gave speeches with very extreme remarks.He once preached "violence against violence".However, even at the most extreme of his statements, his own actions were always within the bounds of free speech and never used any violence.Therefore, "The Spring and Autumn Annals of Shishi", which is also Confucianism and Mohism, combined with the law of names, and compiled theories of a hundred schools of thought, its basic tendency, he is also legal. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the entire United States was in an atmosphere of shock and mourning, but he was the only one who made the comment that "every evil is rewarded with evil", which caused an uproar in public opinion.We must know that in the 1960s, when the racial issue in the United States was facing a complete legislative solution, Kennedy's attitude of supporting the black civil rights movement was still clear.During the period before and after the desegregation legislation was enacted, racial tensions intensified in some conservative southern towns.For example, some white racists in Little Rock, Arkansas, tried to prevent the first batch of black students from entering the original white school. It was President Kennedy who ordered the federal militia to protect black students from going to school.Such measures do help the United States navigate this historical turning point as smoothly as possible.Although Macomb. X expressed his unusual views on Kennedy's death, there was no other restriction on his speech except that the leader of his Islamic organization banned him for 90 days. Because he is legit.He has the right to speak out about his personal feelings.The leader later became an indefinite gag order, which also became one of the reasons why he left the church organization. Macomb.X ends up being a tragic protagonist.When he went on a pilgrimage to Mecca and began to believe that it was possible for blacks and whites in America to respect each other and coexist, when he began to turn to moderation and calmly think about the ideals of Martin Luther King, the radicals hated him up. "They wouldn't let me turn, I walked into a dead end", less than a month after saying this, and only nine months after returning from Mecca, he was shot dead on the podium where he gave a speech. The Bill of Rights was directed against the US federal government, and it effectively prevented successive US governments from interfering with people's freedom of speech.However, at different times, there are all kinds of extremists from all nationalities.There are always people who try to use bullets to block speeches that differ from their own views.The three shooters who shot Macomb.X were all black Muslims from the Newark, New Jersey mosque who did not share his views.They were sentenced to life imprisonment and were released on parole in 1985. Malcolm X is a very interesting historical figure. I hope to have time to tell you about his story in the future, because he is inseparable from the most important period of American history.I mention him here to illustrate that radical speech is also within the scope of constitutional protection. So, at what point will the law start to pursue it?It's when you start to act illegally, even if it's just a half step.As an example, I will continue the story just now.The murder of Macomb X was only captured by the gunman. Despite all kinds of speculation, the mastermind behind the case has never been identified.The original leader made some gloating remarks, but categorically denied any involvement in the conspiracy.One of the suspected behind-the-scenes brothers was a brother in the church who had a very good relationship with Macomb. X, named Louis Falcon. When Macomb. Opposed to Macomb. X, we can still see him on TV from time to time, he is still one of the leaders of the largest black Muslim organization in the United States, and he is very eloquent.It is said that on the eve of Macomb's murder, he was not only in the Newark mosque, but also said "Macomb can't escape, only one death".However, since there is no definite evidence, everything can only stay on the level of speculation. However, the eldest daughter, who was only fourteen years old when she saw Malcom lying in a pool of blood, firmly believed that this person was the murderer behind the scenes.According to news reports, relative symmetry under the idea of ​​revenge.The words are from Zhang Zai's "Zhengmeng": "There is temperament after the shape, and there is a good friend. Then, she called many times last year and had already partially paid her boyfriend to hire him to assassinate Louis. Farrakon, but was accused After the prosecution, it became a sequel to the Malcom case thirty years later, which caused a sensation in the country. But before the trial this year, an out-of-court agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendant in some kind of deal, and the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit. There are different opinions about the case , Some say that she was hired to lure her into the bait to ask for credit, and some say it was a government conspiracy. This can only be left to historians to study. What I want to say is that the US Constitution only protects radical speeches Everything she says, even a small step outside the scope of the Bill of Rights, is very dangerous. Strictly speaking, her actions are not murder in themselves, but in the language of the law, her words cause imminent danger. , Therefore, beyond the scope of constitutional protection. If the case is not withdrawn and convicted, the maximum sentence can reach 90 years and the fine can reach 2.25 million US dollars. The Bill of Rights itself is used to limit the federal government. However, from the government, the judiciary, to the public, how to define the legal and illegal issues arising from the practice of freedom of speech is also recognized with the development of history. Gradually deepen and gradually achieve a basic consensus.Throughout the course of development, Americans have also faced constant challenges from abusers of their liberty, and have often had to balance personal safety, national security, and freedom of speech.The Supreme Court, in particular, has always been pushed to the forefront of difficult judgments.Because to protect freedom of speech, it is far from enough to rely on a constitutional amendment of an abstract principle.The specific definition usually needs to be decided by the court, and difficult cases are generally appealed to the Supreme Court, and their precedents can be cited in subsequent cases until new judgments overturn the old precedents. With regard to the First Amendment, the most important of the constitutional amendments, almost from the beginning, the Supreme Court struggled with a dilemma: to maintain the promise of free speech, but also to fear the illegal behavior and incitement of violence caused by speech, and even the fear of endangering the country Safety.Hence the most famous test of "clear and present danger" valid for all constitutional provisions.Under this principle, if the government cannot prove that a certain speech creates a clear and present danger, it cannot punish the person who made the speech.This principle was born at the beginning of this century. However, new judgment difficulties follow.What degree of danger is considered dangerous?How far is the possibility of danger "clear"?How far away from danger is "reality"?After arriving in the United States, we found that Americans are very serious about this kind of issues, and they have reached the point where they have to pay attention to their words.Probably for them, "white stone two". There is also the saying "white horse is not a horse". They think that "horse" refers to its shape, and "white" means that human life is at stake. , not sloppy. Due to the ambiguity of this kind of issue itself, and because of the important position of "free speech" in American life, its development in the United States bears a very distinctive historical mark, and almost every major case is determined. social change.In the early days, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled cases based on the Espionage Act of 1917, its understanding of free speech was still very narrow.For example, in 1918, Eugene Debs, a labor leader who ran for president four times as a socialist, was imprisoned for standing in the street against World War I and promoting socialism. is incitement to disobedience, disloyalty and mutiny, incitement to conscientious objection and obstruction of U.S. military conscription. In the 1950s, there were also cases involving the American Communist Party.We are all familiar with it. In the ideological system of the Communist Party, armed revolution and violent overthrow of the government are very logical things to seize power.In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court tried its best to separate the direct organization of riots from the promotion of riots, because according to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to intervene in the former, while the latter is within the scope of belief. Even if the government is dissatisfied, it can only stare blankly. In 1951, the U.S. Supreme Court also found the leaders of the U.S. Communist Party guilty of conspiring to subvert the government, but by 1957, the Supreme Court had a completely different view when ruling the case, because they found that the "violent revolution" and "violent revolution" that these Communist leaders called Armed overthrow of the government" is more like propagating a belief, that is to say, the "danger" it may cause is not very "clear" and "realistic". In 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court judged the Brandenburg case, the principle of "clear and realistic risk determination" was re-regulated.It stipulates the tactics to be employed in the struggle only when the violence propagated by a statement has the potential to directly incite "imminent" illegal action.The article emphasizes that Marx's theory is "extreme, only the government has the right to intervene." At this time, the entire American society has become very tolerant. After 50 years after the sentence of Eugene Debs I just mentioned, people are still Looking back on this case, I find it completely unbelievable. In the 1960s, inciting anti-Vietnam War and propagating whatever doctrines were recognized as "freedom of speech". This was also the basis for blacks to win the civil rights movement in the 1960s. This great historical progress is inseparable from the "clear and present danger determination" made by the Supreme Court when interpreting the constitution's provisions on freedom of speech, and the "imminent" standard for this "danger" of.Without this article, as long as you are dissatisfied with the U.S. government, or call on everyone to stand up against a certain policy of the federal government, it will be difficult to escape the charge of "subverting the government", let alone the blatant advocacy of "armed struggle" like the Communist Party of the United States. "The political party has also won a seat of legitimacy.With the above principles and standards in place, the United States has almost eliminated crimes based on speech. For a society, the gain it has gained is not only freedom, but also an unexpected gain, that is, there are almost no underground secret parties in the United States, because there is no longer such a need. "Political parties" find that they can stand on the street majesticly, promoting their own ideas even if they call for a "violent revolution".In this way, all the thrilling stories about an "underground political party" and the US federal government's "underground struggle" will disappear.All the gore associated with such stories is also gone.Of course, the U.S. federal government has saved a lot of energy because of this, and it is happy to put on an appearance of "ruling by doing nothing".Political parties, large and small, will all rely on their own "capabilities".The public is free to "call" you, it depends on whether you can "call" or not. Times have changed, and when we set foot on this land, the situation of apartheid before the 1960s seems like a world away.Of course, in a country as multiracial as the United States, the question of race remains the origin and cause of all things, supernatural gods do not exist, God is matter, it's just much more complicated.The conflict between whites and blacks is far less than it was in the past, but the problems between different ethnic minorities that no one thought of at the time have become increasingly prominent.I have already mentioned some of this before. In the United States today, there are still many people with various racist views, but there are fewer extreme racists like the Ku Klux Klan.Even within the KKK, most of them are far more moderate than they were a few decades ago.Don't say that violence should be punished by law, even in terms of propaganda, the tone is much softer.In addition to the fact that their own understanding is also different with the times, they also hope to rely on this change to gradually attract some audiences who have gone away.It's been a turn of events for thirty years. The black leaders back then were at a disadvantage in the United States. They must make full use of the "freedom of speech" rights granted to them by the Constitution to fight for the human rights that black people should have.Today, when the Ku Klux Klan has become very unpopular and has become a very small minority, it is their turn to use the "freedom of speech" to survive.You may ask, is a historically notorious group like the Ku Klux Klan allowed to speak publicly?As I said before, freedom of speech in the United States has nothing to do with the content of speech, whether it is correct or not, and has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. The Ku Klux Klan is certainly notorious enough here that when they tried free speech on Kansas City television in August 1987, it sparked a national debate. Channel 20 in Kansas City is a set of programs developed by a local closed-circuit television company in the course of commercial operations, and it is called the "public participation" channel.It claims that all comers are welcome, first come, first broadcast.No matter who it is, they can make a set of video programs Zhu Ziyu, also known as "Zhu Zi Yulu", in advance.The classified collection of Zhu Xi's lectures and quotations in the Southern Song Dynasty will be broadcast publicly after paying a fee.Under today's technical conditions, it is not difficult to shoot a set of video programs.The TV station also claimed that it will not check or delete any videotapes brought by anyone. The only rule is to line up and "first come, first broadcast."Then one day, a hydraulic mechanic named Dennis Mahon, who was also a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, brought a set of tapes called "Race and Reason" and asked to play one episode a week.This time, the TV company didn't accept his program happily, but became in a dilemma. They knew that the producer of "Race and Reason" was Tom Metzger, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and the leader of the "White Aryan" organization.In free-speech America, it's not surprising that someone would make a show like this, which had aired for five years in 50 cities across the country at the time, but in Kansas City, the TV company and local authorities, it was difficult to simply accept it as "freedom of speech". From the perspective of this TV company, 95% of its surroundings are black residents, and they have every reason to worry about losing the company's closed-circuit TV subscribers because of this program.There are even fears of protests and violent clashes.As for the local authorities, there are already some black ministers in it, and there are many black politicians in the local area.For them, this is too much.They never dreamed that the "freedom of speech" that led them to the victory of the civil rights movement would one day become an effective weapon in the possession of their opponents. The television station's refusal triggered a rally in front of the TV company of the Ku Klux Klan. They wore the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan familiar to even Chinese people and marched to demand the rights enshrined in the constitution.Of course, the excitement caused by this visual effect in front of black people can be imagined.Thus began a debate of national concern.One side is the Ku Klux Klan headed by Dennis Mahon, and the other side is the local residents represented by the black pastor Clive, the Kansas City government and the TV company.Pastor Clive grew up with an idealist theory that was popular in the South where apartheid was severe.The founder is the German physiologist Johann. When he was fifteen years old, he led the anti-apartheid demonstrations. After he obtained a master's degree in theology, he became a pastor. , was the vice chairman of the Southern Christian Federation led by Martin Luther King, and became a city councilor in 1979. The shield in the hands of TV companies is indeed very weak.They first proposed that the company's policy is to broadcast locally produced programs, and the "race and reason" program is not produced locally, so they have the right to refuse.The Ku Klux Klan immediately stated that they would re-produce a local "talk show" to replace "race and reason".The TV company had no choice but to propose that six people must participate in the training of TV production. The Ku Klux Klan readily agreed and expressed their willingness to accept the training.The TV company is a bit "out of its wits".According to Mahon, they intend to produce a "talk show" that will focus on race issues, but also intends to expose bureaucracy and government. He said, "Our show is based on white laborers. people, most of them are white.” They also plan to talk to black supremacists and segregationists on “talk shows,” Maang said: “None of us believe in integration, we’re just skin color They are different, but the point of view is the same.” Pastor Clive was furious, he said, “I never think this is a case of freedom of speech, I just think it is terrorists using the airwaves. They are terrorizing possible Creates an atmosphere where it grows, breeds the seeds of racial prejudice in a problematic place... If someone enjoys free speech without affecting the survival of others, I have no objection. But they are terrorists, they are murderers, and from the historical record, They've murdered thousands, thousands!" It was a very natural, emotional reflection of a black pastor who lived through apartheid.However, even he clearly knows that from a constitutional point of view, the former Ku Klux Klan has a record of murdering black people, which cannot be a reason to deprive today's Ku Klux Klan members of their freedom of speech.He wants to lead people to win or to find a legal basis. The TV companies' attempts to block the Ku Klux Klan from a corporate-mandated standpoint have failed.Pastor Clive is a city councilor, so he wants to start with the possibility of government intervention, that is, the principle of "clear and realistic risk determination" I mentioned just now.However, according to the Supreme Court's decision against Brandenburg, he must provide evidence, and at the same time prove that this upcoming "talk show" not only has the "possibility" of causing violence, but also the "imminence" of violence, otherwise, this article will fall into place. not on.Because the local residents once declared that they would fight to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from marching to the TV station, Ma Ang also said to the news that "we will not hesitate to fight a bloody road to get this opportunity, and we will not hesitate to sacrifice for freedom of speech".Clive believed he could provide evidence of the "possibility" of violence.But the show has yet to be produced, and he and his colleagues on the city council themselves are not sure whether there will be evidence of "imminent" violence.They can only give up this direction and find other ways. The United States is a country with private ownership, and the right to drive others out of its own private territory is the minimum principle of this country.Of course the head of the family has the right not to allow other people to talk nonsense in his own room.For Pastor Clive and the TV company, this one is really another village.They immediately pointed out that the cable TV channel that broadcasts the "Public Participation" program is the private property of the TV company and has become an official study in the feudal society and constitutes the backbone of Chinese traditional culture.It has been performed in the past dynasties, not a "public forum". What is a "public forum"?In the scope of protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution, in addition to "speech" such as speeches, it also includes news, writing, demonstrations, marches, leaflets and certain forms of symbolic expression, such as wearing a symbol of peace in schools. Patterned black armband, protesting the war.但是有一条，根据美国最高法院的原则：美国的地方政府可以制定一些合理的规定，规定这种表达的时间，地点和方式。但是，一是必须合理，比如不妨碍交通是一条合理的规定；二是“内容中性”。什么是“内容中性”呢？就是我前面说过的，言论自由与表达的是真理还是谬误无关，与表达的内容无关。 所以，有一点是很明确的：美国的地方政府对于言论的方式，地点等等的规定，其目的不能是为了限制某一言论的内容。因此，对所有的言论必须一视同仁。比如说，地方政府在某一广场举行过庆祝国庆的集会，那么，它就无法再拒绝其它任何内容的集会在同一地点举行。否则，就有违背“内容中性”的嫌疑，打起官司来的话，法院就可以判定该地方政府为违宪。同时，在美国，在一些特定地点的言论表达是特别受到保护的，比如说，街道，公园，广场和公共场所。这些地方历来被认为是属于人民的，这就是所谓的“公众论坛”。 这里还有一个很有意思的情况，在辩论开始以后，双方当然都请了律师，以便占据法律上的制高点。这一次，同意为三K党提供法律服务的终合五德，示以凶短折、疾、忧、贫、恶、弱六极。反映了，是美国公民自由协会。在我们刚来的时候，就有美国朋友对我们说过：“作为一个少数族裔新移民，又是穷人，你可不能不知道这个协会。”因为，它经常为没钱请律师的少数族裔穷人提供免费高质量的法律服务，并且竭尽全力捍卫公民自由。所以，这个协会在这里有很好的声誉，尤其在包括黑人在内的少数族裔中口碑甚佳。这也是我前面提到过的，克莱弗牧师担任这个协会的地方委员的原因。但是这一次，他们却站在三K党一边，原因很简单，他们是美国公民自由协会，他们的宗旨是保护公民自由，并不在乎提出申请要求帮助的是哪一部分公民，是持有哪一种观点的公民。 这个案子又有了时代变革和发展的特点。它把言论自由带到了电子时代。它提出了这样一个新时代的问题：电视节目到底是电视公司的私有财产，还是公民可以在宪法第一修正案保护下享受言论自由的“公共论坛”？对于这一点，承接三K党委托的美国公民自由协会律师，斯蒂芬.潘弗，他的观点与克莱弗牧师完全不同。他认为，“今天的公众参与频道相当于200年前支撑着演说者的肥皂箱。它是穷人的论坛。在今天的高技术时代，一个人若想支付不多的钱而得到较多的听众，这是屈指可数的方法之一。”你知道，他所指的肥皂箱，就是我们都熟悉的英国海德公园的公共论坛，美国并没有一个海德公园，但是它有渊源于英国的同样的传统。200年前，人们只要在公共场所，在地上放上一个空的木头肥皂箱子，往上一站，就可以发表演说了。这是人们曾经非常熟悉的街头景观。今天，你在美国已经很少看到这一景象了。人们已经找到了更合适的地方去发表他们的意见。除了刚才提到的，自己制作节目，然后到电视台付费播放的“公众参与”节目之外，更普遍的是广播电台和电视台的“谈论节目”和“空中交谈”。 “谈论”节目实际上属于娱乐业，范围广泛。凡是以“说”为主要内容的节目，大多都可以归入其中。刚来美国时，有一次看电视的时候我问一旁的朋友：美国有相声吗？He said no.犹豫了一会儿，又说，也可以说有。后来我熟悉了美国的“谈论"”节目，才理解那位朋友为什么没有一个准确的回答。“谈论”节目的一部分可以说很象中国的相声，尤其是单口相声。因为这里的“谈论”节目以一个人“自言自语”的居多。绝大多数以不停地博得大家的笑声为目的。但是它不象中国的相声有越来越精确的文稿，在这里，随心所欲的成分更多一些。两人谈的也有，场内笑声不断，一般都没有文稿。有些有名的“谈论”节目主持人，以访谈的形式为多。他们能够经常约到电影明星之类的娱乐界名人，双双妙语连珠，总是一开口就笑倒一片。但是，这实在不能说是“相声”。同时，还有一些十分严肃的“谈论”节目。尤其是“空中交谈”。 世界上第一个现场“空中交谈”主持人莱利.金主持的节目，到今年已经是十周年了。在美国，他的节目最受瞩目的一次，是当初克林顿，布什和裴洛竞选总统时年1月。首次发表在1844年的《德法年鉴》。编入《马克思，把他的“莱利.金现场”当做大辩论的战场。他已经访谈的对象，从美国的总统，第一夫人，到戈尔巴乔夫等国际政坛名人，著名罪犯以及种种娱乐界巨星等等，什么样的名人都有。之所以称为“空中交谈”，是因为这些名人在节目中，不断回答世界各地的普通人从电话提出的问题。这个节目仅美国的固定观众据说就达一千万人，根据美国最大的一家电话公司的统计，在他的节目中打进的电话达两百万通。 从十年前莱利.金的“空中交谈”开始，此类节目由于讨论的议题常常有关民众切身利益，民众亦可参与发表意见，因此发展非常迅速。现在，美国已有一千三百多个电台播放“空中交谈”。和我们在国内所听到的一些类似广播节目所不同的是，这里的主持人不总是那么脉脉温情地与听众亲切交谈，相反往往是充满了火药味，“空中交谈”演成一场“空中舌战”是家常便饭的事情。 之所以可以把它比作支撑自由言论者的现代肥皂箱，其主要原因不仅在于它是面向大众的，同时还在于它的议题是无禁区的。因此，你在电台里，可以听到各种言论。有白人至上主义者，有宣扬黑权因而攻击白人和已经当政的黑人(骂他们全是白人的御用政客)的，有赞成和反对同性恋的，也有攻击和同意堕胎的，有的则痛骂政府和总统。但是，也有从正面宣传美国理想的。比如收听率排位第三的保守派电台主持人坎.汉波林。他是一位黑人，却又是一个极端保守派，这很不寻常。他节目的口号就是“一个依然相信美国梦的人”。每天他的节目开始，都要先宣布前一天为打击罪犯而牺牲的警察名单，放一段为阵亡军人送葬的凄凉的军号。然后，会有一个人出来唱一遍国歌，通常是两三岁的幼童，或是年迈的老人，虽然可能五音不全，但是很能打动听众。他的“谈论”十分严肃正面，感召力也很强，我的朋友比尔是个白人大学生，就是坎.汉波林的忠实听众。“空中交谈”节目的主持人都是反应很快的聪明人，尤其是对每天在那里发生的重大时事，非常敏感。有一个“谈论”节目的主持人就告诉大家，他每天一大清早就必须起床，然后读二十多种报纸。所以，美国政府的各项决策，新闻等等，你都可以在“空中交谈”的唇枪舌箭里，立即感受到美国人的各种反应。因此，对我们来说，听这样的节目实在是了解美国人的一条捷径。 同时，应该说，这样的节目也真是非常的“美国化”，很能够帮助你理解所谓的“美国方式”。Why do you say this way?因为我们来了以后不久就发现，美国人总是有办法把所有的事情都做成某种“经营”。就象堪萨斯市的“公众参与”节目基本内容，摒弃世务，专谈玄理。以西晋王导辈时为盛。东，也是电视公司的挣钱方式之一。当你在收听各种政治宣传和辩论的时候，你会发现，他们时而慷慨激昂，搏来一片掌声；时而又插科打浑，下面笑作一团。但是，不管主持人论及的是如何重大的议题，不管有时听上去是多么严肃认真，正义凛然，义愤填膺，可是，正如我一开始所介绍的，台上台下都认同一点：这是一个娱乐业。听众一般总是挑他们相近观点的节目去听。通过这样的节目，听众除了对他们所关心的议题，感受到参与，情绪宣泄，心声为之一吐为快等等痛快之外，他们还享受了主持人的思辩和智慧，欣赏了幽默，犀利等语言技巧，实在很值。众所周知，成功的“谈论”节目的经营者或是主持人，绝不是当上了总统或反对派政治领袖，绝不是呼风唤雨，唤起了民众领导了革命，而是，挣了大钱。谁都知道这是一个获利甚丰的行当。但是，和其它电台电视节目一样，他们获利的基础是他们的收听率(收视率)。听众多，广告则多，广告多，广告费就多，道理十分简单。所以，他们本能地很注意抓住广大听众所关心的焦点。政界和百姓所关注的重大议题和娱乐性的“谈论"”节目的内容就这样自然地重合了。他们以自己的观点，对民意的掌握(不同观点的节目掌握不同的观众群)，以及智慧和技巧获取观众。他们并不接受政府或党派的捐赠而成为他们的喉舌。因此，被民众公认钱挣得无可厚非。美国人都不会否认，“谈论”节目是美国娱乐生活的一个重要组成部分，同时，他们也承认，这样的节目是美国言论自由的一个象征，同样也是普通美国人政治生活的一个重要组成部分。把二者如此有机地结合在一起，“寓政于乐”，确实很代表一种“美国风格”。 我前面已经说过，很多“谈论”节目同时也是严肃的，它的娱乐性丝毫不减弱它对于民众的政治影响力。没有一个政治家会对这个节目掉以轻心。因为每一个政治家或是政客，他们的一举一动都在“谈论”范围之内。这种“谈论”往往是措词激烈的批评甚至是言语刻毒的攻击。但是，一般来说，政界人士总是姑且忍之，很少有出来“反攻的”。因为，看似平平常常的一个娱乐节目，它有着一个谁也奈何不得的最强劲的后台，这就是宪法第一修正案。在这个国家，不要说政界人士，就是政府机构要出来干预言论自由，也肯定被看做鸡蛋碰石头之类不自量力的举动。曾有一次，由于一个“谈论"”节目严词批评加利弗尼亚州议会的议事质量，州议会一怒之下立法禁止该州的广播系统收听“谈论”节目。结果听众在该节目的号召下纷纷打电话去抗议，当天就推翻了该项法案。 我再回到我们的故事中来。克莱弗牧师和其他市议员在市司法部进行了法律咨询，然后，在市议会提出取消整个“公众参与”频道。尽管大多数人都认为，他们这样做只是为了把三K党拒之于电视台的门外，但是，克莱弗牧师认为，他们既然不是只取消一个节目，而是取消了所有的该频道的节目，这样，在限制言论方式的“内容中性”这一条上，大概就可以说得过去了。于是，1988年6月16日，堪萨斯市的市议会以9比2通过决议，授权电视公司干脆关闭这一频道。 两张反对票之中的一张，是来自一名54岁的女议员。投出这一票，她经过一番特别认真的考虑，因为她是一个黑人。她说，“我憎恨他们(三K党)的某些作为和某些言论认识中内容与对象具有统一性，承认事物具有可知性。又以，但是我不憎恨这些人……我认为应该从教育中学习，不应该抑止任何声音。从最反面的人那里我也学到过东西。我可以不赞成某一观点，但是这并不意味着这一观点就不应该发表，或者说，我就不应该去听。我相信正确的观点最后终会被大家所接受。” 在本世纪，美国的荷尔姆斯法官曾经就类似观点提出过很形象化的比喻，他把它称为言论的“战场化”和“市场化”。他认为，与其让不同的观点象在战场上一样殊死决斗，一方一定要扼杀另一方，那还不如把这些言论抛入“市场”，让他们去竞争，看看到底哪一种观点能被大家所接受。同意这一理论的人相信，宪法第一修正案的力量所在，正是让大家分享言论自由的理想和它的原则。根据这一理论，如果三K党播放他们的节目，克莱弗牧师们所应该做的事情，不是去阻止他们的节目，而是应该也播出自己的观点。在这种“市场竞争”中能最终站得住脚的理论，才是更可靠和更持久的。但是，克莱弗牧师显然并不同意这样的观点。 接受了三K党法律委托的斯蒂芬.潘弗所说的一段话，颇能代表今天一般美国人的看法：“自由言论就是自由言论，对于流行观点和非流行观点都是一样的。我们不可能一边宣称这是一个自由的国家，一边又把言论划为可接受的和不可接受的两部分。如果有一种检查制度可以把三K党从电视里剔出去，那么，同样的制度也许早就把马丁.路德.金的讲话从阿拉巴马州剔出去了。”必须听那些听不下去的话，“这正是我们必须为自由支付的代价”。 你也许会问：有一些人，他们一旦掌权了就会扼杀别人的言论自由，对于这种人，也要给他们言论自由吗？比如那个三K党的马昂，他就宣称要成立一个纯白人的国家性的、消极的，而把精神看作积极的、能动的，并强调情感，并且公然表示：在他理想中的这个白人国家里，只有和政府一致的言论才是被允许的。对于这个问题，我觉得斯蒂芬.潘弗回答得很聪明，他说，如果你因为害怕一个不自由的时代，因此就不给他们言论自由的话，那么，这个不自由的时代已经开始了。是你自己给它开了头。 市议会刚刚表决，潘弗已经告到了联邦地区法院。三K党告堪萨斯市政府的案子就这样立案了。诉状包括以下内容：市政府以言论内容为依据歧视三K党，市政府无权限制“公共参与”节目这样的公共论坛，市政府撤销这个频道不仅侵犯了三K党的言论自由权利，还侵犯了其他制作者以及观众的权利。市政府曾试图阻止立案，提出若是三K党不播放这个节目，也并不意味着他们在该市没有言论自由，他们还是可以在其它“谈论节目”里，当别人邀请的时候，发表自己的观点，他们还可以发传单，在中央大街游行，等等。但是这些理由都被法院驳回，因此，还是立案了。 根据对美国的权利法案的了解，市政府对能够赢这个官司确实没有信心，于是向三K党寻求庭外和解，提出设立一个公共麦克风，任何人都可以每次上去讲15分钟，以此替代“公共参与”节目，作为和解的条件。这一提议被拒绝了。最后，作为撤销起诉以及庭外和解的条件，由潘弗律师代表三K党提出两条：“公众参与”频道必须恢复；这个城市必须制定新的规定，以确保其他参与这个频道的节目制作者的言论自由也受到保护。 市议会恢复"公共参与"频道的投票在1989年7月13日，场面十分情绪化。大量反对三K党节目的民众来到议会厅。他们发表了演说，唱着马丁.路德.金民权运动时代最著名的歌曲和“上帝保佑美国”，市长几次想清场都做不到。最后人们齐声祷告……投票是在人们的祈祷声中进行的。 结果最后由市长宣布。 What was the result? 你猜猜吧，我下封信告诉你。我可要去睡了。 wish it is good! Linda