Chapter 6 sixth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! Letter received.I am glad that your telling of my story gave you many new ideas.You are very concerned about the outcome of the "Progress" magazine case, and you said that you guessed it for a long time but failed to figure it out.I'd better continue the story first. No wonder you can't guess, the development of things is full of "drama" --- dramatizing an originally very heavy matter.From my story below, you can also feel a little "American style".No matter how serious the matter is, it will become a little "Disney" here. Only a few weeks after the Progress appealed, the government's front began to crumble.The sentencing of the District Court was at the end of March 1979.Do you remember the American Civil Liberties Association I mentioned?As a well-known organization in the United States related to the defense of civil liberties, they certainly would not ignore such an important case.In early May of the same year, an investigator of the association, who was himself an amateur designer of atomic weapons, went to the public library of the Los Alamos Laboratory of Science and checked the catalog for information on the case. In the "weapon" column, he pulled a document out of the bookshelf, and found that this document already contained most of the so-called "secret" "limited information" in Mo Lan's article.A year ago, when the library was sorting out the materials, somehow, by some strange coincidence, this supposedly confidential material was put on the public bookshelf, and it happened that this investigator happened to find it.

You must remember that the "Atomic Energy Regulations" stipulate that "restricted information" cannot include declassified information.Therefore, because of this investigator's discovery, many people in the Ministry of Justice felt that the prosecution should be withdrawn.However, the intelligence service sent a note to the attorney general saying that despite the incident at the library, the materials had not yet been obtained by "sensitive" foreign governments.Therefore, it is still necessary to prevent the publication of Mo Lan's article.Therefore, the Attorney General warned his subordinates: "National interests and atomic energy regulations require us to do our best. . . . A partial leak does not mean that we can tell the whole story."

At the same time, you have to know that although this article has not met with readers because the lawsuit is still in progress, the lawsuit itself cannot be kept secret.For such a big case, you can imagine how excited the press circle is, especially when it involves their own rights, how much enthusiasm the intellectual circle will follow this epoch-making debate, and how many people will feel that this is really a Exciting enough.The eyes of the whole United States are watching the relevant reports. This is the moment when the reporters are most gearing up and eager to try.Some reporters intentionally repeated the "Mo Lan's journey".They tried to replicate the same work, using the public libraries and the like available to them, and some got results very similar to Moran's.There are also some journalists whose original intention is to understand the whole process of the "Progress" case, but in the process of their investigation, they actually frequently intruded into the "secret" territory of the hydrogen bomb. , I have mastered some hydrogen bomb "secrets" in a daze.

Things were already lively enough, at this moment, a man named Chuck Hansen popped up.You can say that he is an "atom enthusiast", or you can say that he is a "hydrogen bomb fan".I'm going to sigh again: In the United States, what kind of weirdos don't exist!He launched a campaign against the government suing Progress magazine.Not only did he flood protest letters to congressmen and the U.S. Department of Energy like snowflakes, but he also launched a "hydrogen bomb design competition". winner.In the fall, he sent a letter to a senator outlining his own version of the H-bomb secret, and he came up with something close to Moran's.He also sent the letter to newspapers across the United States.

On September 16, a small newspaper in Wisconsin published his letter.The next day, the government dropped its case against Progress magazine.The Attorney General admits that the prosecution is pointless, Hansen's letter has been published, and the relevant reports are all over the world, so what's the point of stopping another publishing house? The November issue of "Progress" magazine published Moran's article in full under the headline "Hydrogen Bomb Secrets: How We Got It—Why We Tell You," although the author had discovered some technical errors during the course of the case , but the entire article has not changed even a single punctuation mark, only a page of author's corrections is attached at the back.

That's what this case turned out to be.It can be said that it illustrates some problems, but also leaves many problems.This is also the reason why I stopped my last letter. As I said, I have to think about it.As an outsider, the first thing that impresses me is that, leaving aside the issue of whether this article should be published or not, just talking about the operation, in the United States, the operation to prevent its publication is more difficult than anywhere else.As you can see in this case, as the Attorney General said afterwards, "I don't think the pre-restriction has any effect."Even if the library of that laboratory did not make any mistakes, countless people would come forward to challenge this case. If there is no Hansen, there will definitely be a Tom, or John or something.What's more, because there is no inspection system, in most cases, there is no time to ban it. By the time the US government sees it, everyone has already seen it.At the same time, as an outsider, I feel how sensitive this country is to freedom of the press.A small magazine, an article that can be said to be understood by few people, if it is not published, the impact may be very small, if it is published, the consequences may be great.Why did it cause such a huge disturbance?I felt that behind the superficial drama lay deep American fears.Whether it is the people or the courts, what they care about is not only the rights of the author of an article, nor the rights of a magazine, although they value such rights very much.Many of them do not agree that the nuclear issue must be discussed in this way. It can be said that most of them are deeply worried and unwilling to see the possible serious consequences that the government has warned.However, they still firmly stood on the side of the "Progressive" magazine.I feel that what they really can't calm down in their hearts is the fear that the US government is about to breach one of the country's most important lines of defense.

Your letter stated that your inability to guess the outcome of this case has something to do with your own thinking and judgment being in a dilemma.Yes, the case was dismissed, however, the problem was not resolved.The government still believes that the publication of these materials is harmful to the United States.No one can make an accurate and authoritative judgment on whether it is really harmful and the degree of possible harm.People still have to ask: whether these materials should be published or not.In the future, similar problems may occur, perhaps involving more serious national security, then what should we do?The question you've been asking a lot is: what is freedom in America.What I most want to tell you is always: what is the price of American freedom.On the issue of press freedom, if some minor issues and disputes are ignored, the greatest threat to press freedom is the national interest.Because you can see from the above cases that what can really pose a threat to the freedom of the press, and what is really likely to force the freedom of the press to make concessions, is the national interest.It can be said that, in a sense, press freedom and national interests are at the expense of each other.Americans have always stood between a dilemma, safety and freedom.At a really urgent and serious juncture, for example, in the "Progress" magazine case, I think the U.S. government also believes that the national interest may be harmed, and only makes such a move when it is in a hurry, because government officials are the most inconvenient place to go challenged by the press.Several ministers also know that this is very likely to bet on their own political future.They can't help it either.As a result of this case, the American people may indeed have paid the price for the national interest while defending the freedom of the press.As citizens of this country, they should of course know that the national interest paid is not the government's, but the entire country, that is, the American people as a whole.So why did they make such a choice?

I think, first of all, if you give in as soon as you encounter the deterrent force of "national interest", there will be no freedom of the press in the United States long ago.Because, you've seen, the real trouble they have is always the US government, and only the government can ask for censorship and bans and things like that.If the U.S. government intends to restrict the freedom of the press through means such as pre-screening and pre-banning, or if a certain government does not want to publish materials that are not conducive to it, it is the best excuse they can find without effort , is the national interest.For example, Nixon's Watergate scandal.I believe no Nixon would have wanted such material to be released.It should be easy to use national interests as an excuse.At least the publication of these materials may cause political turmoil and social instability. It is completely justified to say that this is a kind of national interest.In such cases, the disparity in the balance of forces is evident in each case.Not only is a newspaper or magazine unable to match the manpower, financial resources and means of the entire US government, but also the weight of publishing an article and the weight of national interests cannot compete at all.Therefore, once the blockbuster "national interest" is able to blow up a gap in the First Amendment to the Constitution one day, the freedom of the press in the entire United States is likely to collapse across the board.

It's not just the fear of the American press, it's the fear of Americans.You have seen that this fear overwhelmed even their fear of the threat of thermonuclear weapons.Why do you say that?Generally speaking, Americans now live a good life and are free.They have a fairly large number of people who are concerned about various issues that can only be cared about if they have no worries about food and clothing and free thinking.Just think about it, even the "nuclear major" will have such a large group of "amateur experts" and "fans", are they all full of food?They believe that the basic normal operation of this society is the guarantee for them to continue to live freely like this, and news supervision is the most powerful restraint force in the operation of the entire game rules.If there is no such constraint, an American government that has accumulated huge wealth will quickly become corrupt, and an American government with great power will easily create some excuses and easily take away the little freedom of the people.This is what they have felt they should really be afraid of for more than two hundred years.

So, you must ask, how does the US government keep state secrets?Don't let the press get it, except for them to watch it themselves, is the only way I've seen so far. You mentioned in your letter that there are so many defamation cases involving the press in China. You want to know how such problems are resolved in the United States.This is indeed a very meaningful question.Because this is not a light-hearted topic of entertainment star reputation, it is a major issue in the freedom of the press.Because, if the press criticizes U.S. government officials and faces huge compensation for a single detail, it will be much more difficult for the press, and its binding force on the U.S. government will also be greatly weakened.

In the United States, there are countless newspapers and magazines of all kinds, and there is no censorship system. I used to think that there must be a lot of libel lawsuits here.After arriving here, I found out strangely that there are very few such cases.First of all, generally speaking, no matter where such cases involve ordinary people, it is always relatively rare, because the press has no interest in them; Personnel” and, somewhat famously, “Public Figures”.However, in the United States, both types of people know that it is almost impossible to win a so-called defamation lawsuit against the press.Because of their resignation, of course there will be fewer such lawsuits.A few years ago, the American press reported on a public figure from China from various angles, making him unable to adapt to it all at once, so he complained to the reporter. Aren’t you the most privacy-conscious in the United States?How can you do this?In fact, this is knowing one thing about the United States but not knowing the other.As an average American, this is where you have the most privacy.However, if you want to run for the presidency, become an official (whether big or small), become a star, be the head of a non-governmental organization, or become a "figure" in public affairs, then, it can be said that from the beginning to the end, you All under the supervision of the news.Maybe you see your name in the newspaper every day, maybe you rarely see the newspaper, but this already depends on how interested the press is in you, not on yourself.Therefore, generally speaking, there are only two ways for them to maintain a good image. One is to correct their behavior, and the other is to hide their bad deeds as much as possible and avoid the eyes of the press.Of course, it's hard.This is the American version of "being famous is hard". Under such circumstances, public figures who are offended by the press will immediately and naturally think of their counterattack weapons-defamation and reputation loss compensation.The newspapers and magazines here are all privately owned. Once the huge compensation is established, it will be a disaster for most news organizations.As I mentioned earlier, the United States has no censorship or pre-banning of news, so the biggest threat to the press is the lawsuit after the publication of the publication, and the huge compensation it leads to.How to solve this problem?Americans are also looking for answers step by step. It was the sensational Sullivan case that made this goal clear in jurisprudence and formulated clear principles. This case happened in 1960.You also know that this is the most turbulent era for the black human rights movement.On the eve of such a historical turning point, racial issues are the most sensitive, and it is also the time when racial conflicts are most likely to erupt.On March 29 of that year, the New York Times ran a full-page ad.It was an ad signed by 64 people, including some black ministers in the South.The content of the propaganda was the non-violent demonstrations carried out by blacks in the American South at that time.They appeal: "Under the promise of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have the right to live in human dignity." The "terror wave" attack also cited some examples of police mistreatment of black people.However, it was later discovered that there were many inaccuracies in these examples. After seeing the ad, a government official named Sullivan, who was in charge of the police department in Montgomery, sued the New York Times and four black pastors for defamation.Although the accusation in that ad did not mention him by name, he argued that the New York Times ad had discredited him since his position made him responsible for the actions of the city's police.Initially, the court jury awarded him $500,000 in damages.Moreover, the Superior Court of Alabama upheld the decision. The New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. At this time, it was already 1964. Lawyers for The New York Times argued that the ad was signed by 64 high-profile individuals who would not have done so had they known it was false.That said, they are not intentional defamatory acts.As for the New York Times, they are not obliged to accurately verify everything they publish. They have the freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and they have the right to decide whether to publish it. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court's decision.Moreover, a very important principle was announced for the first time against defamation cases filed by public officials, that is, when a public official encounters false criticism and suffers injury, he cannot claim compensation for defamation unless he can Present evidence that this was done out of "genuine malice".You must have noticed that it is very difficult for the parties involved to produce such evidence to prove that the news media had attempted to slander in advance.Thus, it is almost impossible for public officials to win such lawsuits.The court also pointed out: In free debate, mistakes are inevitable, and the press must be protected to have "breathing space" so that they may survive. In two other cases three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded this principle from "public officials" to "public figures."In 1986, the principle was once again extended to ordinary people "involved in public affairs". Let me tell you another very special example, maybe you will be surprised again. The case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, involved what could be described as a disgusting attack on a public figure.The time of occurrence is not too long from now, when this case reached the Supreme Court was 1988.It happened in 1983, a relatively large pornographic magazine in the United States published a liquor advertisement in the form of a funny caricature. ", saying that his first sexual experience was with his mother in an outdoor cabin after being drunk!Falwell quit, he couldn't take it as a joke, and he took it to court. His complaint is in two parts.The first one is defamation.I don't think Furwell would have gone to court if he hadn't found the cartoon so bad that he had every reason to say it contained "real malice."Seeing this, you must also think that Furwell should still have hope of winning, and this cartoon looks too "malicious".However, he failed again.why? The libel charge was dismissed by the jury.Their reason is that this kind of thing is nonsense at first glance, and no one will take it seriously, so there is no such thing as slander.Here, there are some newspapers that specialize in creating fake news to please some readers. Some people clearly know that it is a joke, but they still buy it and read it, just for fun.Once, I saw a tabloid like this with a big headline: Castro is dead!Below is a big photo: Castro is lying in a coffin.I was taken aback, and immediately pointed to the newspaper to "report the news" to my friend. She only glanced at it from a distance, and said that the newspaper was a joke.Sure enough, not long after, I saw the same newspaper "reporting" that someone had just had a cherub next to a picture of a baby with wings!In the United States, of course, this kind of report cannot be said to be true or not, or whether it is defamatory or not.That's what the jury was referring to, because no one believed it, and you didn't suffer any damage to your reputation.But there's one more item in Fauwell's complaint.He suggested that this malicious caricature caused him great mental trauma.On this, the jury agreed.He was awarded $200,000 in damages.The verdict of the jury immediately caused serious concern among political cartoonists, artists and serial artists.From time to time, they may draw something that hurts a public figure. Their question is simple: if a cartoon can award huge damages for mental damage, where is the line?However, in 1986, the Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision. When the Supreme Court reviewed the case two years later, it unanimously ruled that a public figure cannot claim damages when he is subjected to satire, no matter how hurtful or even pornographic.As a result, the $200,000 in trauma damages Falwell won was also overturned.It should be said that this case has further expanded the protection of the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.I have never forgotten a passage from the chief judge of this case.Public figures are often ridiculed, caricatured or even vilified."Given the general principles of the First Amendment, I did not intend at all to provide an exception that draws a line between right and wrong in such matters," he said.In other words, for the Supreme Court of the United States, there is a clear goal in solving the problem of defamation, which is the goal sought by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ensuring the function of news supervision to maintain the healthy and normal operation of society.Therefore, when the Supreme Court decides a case, it can avoid the entanglement of details, avoid drawing the line between right and wrong at a lower level, and make a principled judgment at a higher level. Will this lead to a large number of false reports, so that "the system is messed up"?The US news and book publications we see are very "orderly".With the free flow of information and ideas, the general trend of society is to become healthier and more creative.The basic health of the society is conducive to the further development of news and book publishing. It should be said that this is a virtuous circle.The press also has its own set of natural constraints.Although the court generally does not take libel judgment lightly, it can still decide whether the report is true in order to restore the party's reputation loss.If a newspaper or a publishing house makes false reports frequently, readers will sneer at it, and it will not be able to maintain its original readership, and it will destroy its own living conditions.Under the adjustment of the market, there are of course some inferior reading materials suitable for its specific readers, but we can see that such reading materials are not mainstream here. I also want to talk about what I know about pornography and pornography and so on in the United States.I don't think it would be complete without an introduction to you.The first time I saw a porn magazine, it was in the first little bookstore I entered after I came to the United States.After I went in, I wandered around casually. I walked to a semi-covered corner in the innermost corner, and suddenly found that there were two full display shelves full of pornographic magazines with "very pornographic" covers.As a person from China, this is the first time in my life that I have the opportunity to see such a magazine.I was curious, so I opened two copies and flipped through them, wondering what kind of porn magazines in the United States were like.The inside is pretty much the same as the cover.The next day, I told my American friends whom I had known not long ago, and they made fun of me with a smile. Of course, they were all good-natured jokes.Then, I asked them, is this legal?The answer is yes. Slowly, I learned that not all bookstores have such reading materials, and this is also related to the fact that bookstores confirm their readers.There is probably no bookstore in the United States as big as the "Xinhua Bookstore" in Chinese cities. They are generally small stores, each with its own operating characteristics.Deciding whether to sell such reading materials depends on the bookstore's own business policy.There is also a grade issue here, which is the same as the positioning issue of the publishing house.There are also some regulations when displaying such books in bookstores. It cannot be placed in a very open and eye-catching place. That is to say, it cannot infringe on those who do not want to read it. .All Americans know what kind of bookstores are likely to sell such books. If they don't want to read them, they just need not go to that corner. Pornography is also protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, as well as within the scope of freedom of speech.I have already introduced that the key to freedom of speech is the "content neutrality" of speech. For all kinds of propaganda, it is simply left to the public to judge for themselves.However, there are stricter laws and regulations for juveniles, because strictly speaking, juveniles have not yet grown up as "human beings" and they do not yet have the judgment of adults.Therefore, for example, in schools, they are often bound by various school rules and have much less freedom than adults.Not only can pornography not be sold to teens, but movies are strictly rated, and many movies teens are not allowed to watch.You may be surprised that some restrictions are even stricter than the Chinese concept of morality.This is also the aspect that I lacked understanding of the United States when I was in China. For example, once a friend from mainland China told me that he sometimes used his own name to buy adult movie tickets for his children and their children's classmates.I knew that he was very strict with his children, so I was of course surprised when I heard that.It was later realized that he was referring to some martial arts movies.The Chinese concept is "Shaolin boy", "Heroes from ancient times come out of youth", what does it matter if children watch martial arts movies, even parents who are very strict with their children will not care.However, children in the United States cannot buy such movie tickets. Such restrictions on movie ratings arising from the protection of young people are also an issue that may cause controversy and may not draw a clear line.Because these regulations investigate the "content of speech" exceptionally, they are actually forced to enter the next level of difficulty in judging right and wrong.Even with regard to the film and television rating system that has been implemented, fierce disputes have actually been taking place all the time.We have seen such a debate on TV, one side is a representative of film and television producers, and the other is a representative of the 12-member committee that rates films and televisions in the United States.You can see that once you leave "content-neutrality" the problem becomes tangled and complicated.Film and television producers are often quite annoyed, because once a film is classified as "rated" because of one or some shots, the entire underage audience is also removed, and they are often the main force of the audience.I've read in newspapers that Hong Kong producers repeatedly complained that the martial arts films they released well in Hong Kong became "three-level films" when they were exported to the United States, and the box office revenue was greatly reduced.The question is, what is the standard of planning, which is actually an unsolvable problem.Because except for some that are relatively easy to judge, a large number is difficult to confirm.For example, violent scenes and descriptions of sex are counted only if there is a fight or any sex scene, or to a certain extent.The former is no longer possible in the United States today, and no one sees the need to do so, while the latter has become a never-ending source of disputes.The United States is also unable to resolve such disputes, so the decision-making power is handed over to the twelve unfortunate review committee members. They are always in a position of being attacked, and they are really doing a difficult job. The debate I mentioned above was really lively.The producer first questioned the qualifications of the members of the review committee: these twelve people, what educational background, personal qualifications, or other conditions, can make decisions for young people in the United States and decide that they can watch What and what not to watch movies?The representative of the review committee replied that he could not come up with such a qualification standard. All members have different experiences and educational backgrounds, etc., but there is one thing they have in common, that is, they are all parents.Whenever they judge a film, they think of their own children, and they will ask themselves: Do I want my own children to watch such a scene? This is their judgment standard.In all fairness, he spoke very emotionally, and his heart to protect the next generation of the United States is palpable. But the producer was already yelling: Wait a minute, wait a minute, he said, I'm a father too, my two kids are healthy and decent kids, but they're in high school, what have they been? I know, in fact, all parents also understand that their children already know everything, but they just pretend that their children don't understand anything. I don't set any restrictions on what my children can watch.The review committee said that you can set no restrictions on your children, but you can ask other parents if they would like their children to watch everything. The producer immediately replied that he was not making decisions for other parents, but you, the censor, were making decisions for him and all other parents.It's not fair. The crux of the problem is still a large number of plausible films. The so-called "push and then push, pull and pull back" films may be a matter of misconception for the review committee, but it is too much for the producers.Once a film is listed as "a certain level", a large number of young audiences will be stopped outside the cinema, and the box office value will drop immediately.Although the debate did not have a clear result, through such a debate, we can see that things are not as simple as imagined. In the United States, do adults have widespread access to pornography?This is what I see happening.In public places, such as public libraries or in the reception rooms of general companies, there are no such reading materials.I have stayed in hotels of various grades here, and have never seen one.There's no porn on TV, either.You're traveling in the US and the visual environment is pretty "clean".In the United States, this is not a ubiquitous thing, and it is impossible to come across it unless you deliberately look for it in a specific place.If there is such a need, he can buy it in the corner of some bookstores, he can go to some movie theaters, and he can rent such video tapes by himself.As an adult, it's your own choice.So, are many adults addicted to pornography?I'm sure most American adults have seen, or at least seen, something like this, but I don't think many are obsessed with it.Relatively speaking, the tone of American society is relatively healthy, with rich material and cultural life, and you can have many choices.There are many things that can amuse and fascinate you, and they are easy to get.So the interests of the whole society are also scattered.Everyone is also choosing their own grade positioning.People know, and are used to, all kinds of reading, and most people don't indulge in such things. I'm going to talk about the abuse of freedom and the new problems brought about by the development of science and technology.In the United States, new scientific and technological achievements are introduced to the market very quickly, and many technologies are driven forward by the market.The popularization of new computer technology is extremely fast, and in a short period of time, there are so many tricks, it is dizzying.During this period of time, we can often see the news media discussing various problems brought about by the "information superhighway", which refers to the increasingly common computer network services.Through such services, people can easily use various databases and exchange information with others through the computer network.The problem in the United States is that this is not the privilege of a few experts and scholars. It is connected through telephone lines, and you can get it for a monthly fee.How many hours can be used first, and then billed according to the time you use.Because of its convenience and low cost, it quickly became a new source of information that was rapidly popularized. Before it could be considered, some incidental problems had already arisen. Such a sudden mass flow of information and such a large readership immediately make some people who abuse freedom, and even some criminals, take advantage of it.Because this field has been developed, but the U.S. government has not thought of how to formulate regulations in this field to prevent pornography from infringing on teenagers and adults.Because this problem was not generated synchronously with the computer network, it became the only loophole invisibly.That's the rule here, as long as there is no statute saying it's illegal, then it's legal.Therefore, people who make profits by producing pornographic information immediately entered this so-called "information superhighway" and spread rapidly. Those who were shocked by the sudden discovery of the problem were of course the parents of a group of teenagers.Some teenagers spend a lot of time next to the computer because there are many online programs that help children with homework and "Kids Talk" and so on. Of course, there are a lot of interesting programs that are very beneficial to develop their minds.Therefore, when the children sit in front of the computer, the parents are very happy for a time, at least they don't think that the children will be harmed by it.However, when one day, they found that the child was sitting there quietly, looking at the pornographic photos provided by the computer, how could they not be shocked.There was even a thirteen-year-old country girl who was tricked to Los Angeles by a "electric friend" in a daze.Computers can talk, which is far more complicated than television. As a result, the discussion of "computer age" appeared again in the freedom of speech in the United States.On March 23 this year, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee passed a "Decent Communications Act", which stipulates that anyone who produces "obscene, obscene, provocative, obscene and indecent" pornographic materials and transmits them on computer networks Companies are all open to penalties, which can be up to $100,000 and two years in prison.对于兜售这种素材的人，也可以进行惩罚。提出这项法案的是一个民主党的参议员，他说，他的目的是为了保护未成年人免于色情素材。我前面提到过，美国联邦政府一向有严禁广播电台和电视台播出猥亵素材的法规，这一次，却把政府的权威扩大到了电脑的联网通信业。 你听了，也许觉得一切就可以顺理成章地解决了。但是，这项决议不仅激怒了联网通讯业，还引起了美国的民权组织的批评，连克林顿政府都立即向参议院提出“缓办”的请求。白宫发言人说，“总统认为这个问题值得更仔细的讨论……政府厌恶任何形式的猥亵素材传送，但需要注意到重要的宪法第一修正案保障的权利。” 为什么连美国总统都会认为还需要“更仔细的讨论”呢？原因是电脑的情况与广播电视并不完全相同，除了一些类似的功能之外，它在美国还成了出版业的扩展领域。许多杂志出了“电脑版”，订户可以在电脑上阅读，同时就可以在电脑里储存杂志上的资料，需要时也可以打印出来。出版业也省了好多印刷版的人力物力，优越性当然很多。但是，新的法案就可能造成这样的情况，同一张报纸或杂志，会由于某一张照片或某一句话，使得印刷版可以照出，而电脑版却给禁掉了。作为同一个出版业，就可能面临两种政策。出版业的言论自由就有了一定的疑问。同时，法案对于这样的用词：“猥亵，淫荡，挑逗，污秽和下流”并没有提出什么明确的定义，也可能成为今后打官司的麻烦主题。因此，非盈利组织“民主与技术中心”的主席认为，“那是违宪的，是对信息高速公路上的新闻自由的直接威胁。”批评者还担心，这是美国政府对电子通讯扩大检查的先声。 电脑有一个很大的特点，它的信息传布是双向的，而不是象电视那样是单向的。它的公众参与性更大。电子邮件，电子布告栏，电子购物，电子竞选……等等，不一而足。它涉及的面相当广，因此，还要“更仔细讨论”的观点，代表了美国在处理牵涉宪法第一修正案的问题时，通常所持的谨慎态度。那么你要问了，怎么办呢？管制法案尚未最后实行，但是已有许多人冲出来试图解决这个问题。市场规律又在悄悄地起作用。 最起劲要解决这个问题的是几个大的联网公司，他们的动因当然是不希望产生严格的法规，因为法规在保护未成年人的时候，也就同时扫掉了他们的一大笔成人生意。他们在商业网上设立了一些阻拦功能。另外，各大软件公司也在设计各种管制软件。最近设计出来的一种软件，50美元一个，是家用的。家长们可以用来装在自己的电脑里，据说基本上可以阻挡所有的色情信息。这样的东西出得很快，因为准保能挣钱。 之所以写这些，也是希望你体会到美国社会发展的一种流动感，以及在这种越来越快的发展和流动之中，他们如何在竭尽全力维护一个古老的基本信仰。我相信老的问题尚未基本解决，新的问题又在不断诞生。对于美国人，这一直是一条很艰难的路。 最后，有关言论自由的“内容中性”原则，我还想到，你可以这样设想一下：如果没有这样一条原则，那么，象美国这样一个多种族，多宗教，多元性的社会，它将依靠什么标准去作判断？它又靠什么人去作判断？以图书为例，美国的图书协会，每年都要收到近千封“人民来信”，要求对于书籍和其他资料进行检查和禁止，比如，保守派的人会要求禁止与性，自杀，魔鬼主义有关的书，有脏话的书，和表现青少年自我意识及表现人生狂暴面的书，等等。自由派也会要求禁止一些具有文化冒犯性的书，比如，有种族敏感问题的书，有对女性不恭的描写的书，等等。还有持各种不同观点的禁书要求，从“第三帝国的兴亡”到“活的圣经”，甚至“哈利克.芬历险记”都有人提出要禁，你说，听谁的好呢？就象你我都经历过的，是小裤脚管和尖头皮鞋该禁，，还是喇叭裤和披肩发该禁呢？ 这封信就先写到这儿吧。 wish it is good! Linda