竞选中说谎受言论自由保护吗？
我前不久写了一个关于言论自由和谣言的帖子，在回复中涉及到政客在大选中说谎是否受第一宪法修正案保护的问题。今天最高法院刚判的一个案子Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus 就与此有关。俄亥俄州有一项法律，允许任何人对大选中的不实之词向选举委员会投诉。民主党众议员Steve Driehaus自称是pro-life（也就是反对堕胎）， 在Obama医疗改革法案中投了赞成票，2010年大选时，一个反对堕胎的组织Susan B. Anthony List（SBA）将他作为攻击对象，发表声明，称他投票支持taxpayer-funded abortion，还准备购买广告牌（billboard），在这一点上着重攻击他。Driehaus向选举委员会投诉，称这是不实之词。这其中具体的政策细节我也不太懂，似乎是Affordable Care Act明文禁止对堕胎进行补贴，但是实际上Obamacare里对医疗保险提供补贴，这样如果一个医疗保险政策包括堕胎的话，也可以说堕胎是收到了纳税人的补贴。不管怎么说，俄亥俄的竞选委员会认为有probable cause证明SBA的声明是不实的，广告牌的主人害怕连带被起诉，拒绝让SBA刊登广告。SBA将Driehaus和选举委员会搞上法院。
今天最高法院9比0的判决，在技术上同大选中的不实之词是否受言论自由保护这个问题无关，而是SBA是否有standing上诉。不过我刚才读到的几个评论都认为，这一俄亥俄州的这一法律违反第一宪法修正案。连俄亥俄州的attorney general也向最高法院发了两个legal brief，一个是代表俄亥俄州支持这一法律，一个是代表他自己认为这一法律违宪。未来几年，最高法院很可能会正式判决俄亥俄以及其它州类似的法律违反宪法对言论自由的保护。
下面是Atlantic Monthly对这一判决的报道，结尾处有一些法律分析。
Is There a Right to Lie in Politics?
The Supreme Court didn't answer that question directly on Monday, but it laid the groundwork for eliminating unwise laws against untruths.
GARRETT EPPSJUN 16 2014, 2:14 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/is-there-a-right-to-lie-about-politics-ask-again-later/372861/
“There is,” the late Tallulah Bankhead once remarked of a literary work, “less in this than meets the eye.”
If ever that could be said of a Supreme Court opinion, it would be Monday’s unanimous decision in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The case seemed, at first glance, to concern the right to lie about politics. As properly decided by the Court, however, it only had to do with the abstruse doctrine of “standing to sue,” which requires a plaintiff challenging a law to show an “actual injury,” not just a political objection to the law.
The plaintiffs want to challenge an Ohio state law that bans “a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official” within a specified period before a primary or general election “knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” (Their petition counted at least 15 other states that have “false statement” laws.) Because there is no action pending against them now, a lower court held they had no standing.
The issue presented to the Court thus was narrow. That may be why the opinion was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas has idiosyncratic views on free speech, and rarely gets to write a majority opinion on a First Amendment question. His opinion said only that a political group that might be penalized down the road for making “false” statements in future campaigns had standing to go forward now with a lawsuit.
The Ohio statute permits “any person” to bring an action for “falsity” to the Ohio Elections Commission, which must then determine whether there is “probable cause” (meaning “reasonable suspicion”) that the statement was knowingly or recklessly false. If so, a full hearing will be held within 10 days, and if the panel at the hearing agrees, the case is referred for criminal prosecution.
Then-Representative Steve Driehaus, a Democrat, voted for the Affordable Care Act. A pro-life group, Susan B. Anthony List, or SBA, issued a press release stating that Driehaus “voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” It also bought radio time and contracted for a billboard to spread the word.
Driehaus complained to the commission, and got the outdoor-sign company to cancel the contract by threatening a complaint against it. Before the election, a commission panel found probable cause that SBA had deliberately or recklessly lied. Driehaus agreed to postpone the full hearing until after the election. He lost his seat, dropped his complaint, and joined the Peace Corps.
SBA had asked a federal court to block enforcement of the law. After the vote, however, the district court dismissed the request on the grounds that SBA was no longer in jeopardy of enforcement, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed it. The federal doctrine of “standing to sue” requires that a plaintiff challenging a law actually be hurt by it, rather than just not liking it. SBA said it planned to run “taxpayer-funded abortion” ads against other Democrats, and might face complaints to the commission again. The lower courts called that speculation. Anyway, SBA claimed its speech was true, the panel reasoned: SBA “does not say that it plans to lie or recklessly disregard the veracity of its speech.” Only if it admitted it planned to lie would it have standing to bring the suit.
Here is the First Amendment nub of the case, summed up by Lord Bacon in 1597: “‘What is Truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.” Does the ACA provide for “taxpayer-funded abortions”? The law says not—its insurance subsidies must be “segregated” from any private-insurance funds that cover policyholders for abortion services. But SBA (and its co-plaintiff, the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST) insist that it does, since the insurance companies will have the money in the “segregated funds” and can then set aside other money from premiums to cover abortion.
Who’s right? You decide.
And that—who decides—is the First Amendment issue behind this case. There is no clear “right to lie,” but a lot of precedent—and simple common sense—suggest it’s a bad idea to allow government officials to determine truth and threaten designated “liars” with jail. In fact, the existence of the law affects politics, even if no one is ever prosecuted; candidates can complain, get a “probable cause” ruling, and then proclaim that an opponent or critic has “lied.”
In a different context, Justice Thurgood Marshall once compared an unclear and subjective legal rule to the sword in an anecdote by Cicero that hung over the tyrant’s throne by a single horse’s hair: “The value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.” The injury, SBA claimed, was not the punishment but the threat. Monday, the Court unanimously found that the threat gave them the right to sue.
It’s pretty clear the law itself and others like it violate the First Amendment. Even the Ohio attorney general abandoned it before the Court, filing one brief arguing for the commission (supporting the law) and another (for himself) denouncing it. The Court ordered the case back to the lower courts, however, for full argument of the constitutional question.
Look for it, and laws like it, to go down in the next few years. Not only is it a bad law; it is also squarely in the sights of well-funded conservative groups that want to clear away any state or federal regulation of campaign speech. So brace yourself for a flood of political lies. That will mark a huge change from the status quo, won’t it?
以下这段话没怎么看懂：
“不管怎么说，俄亥俄的竞选委员会认为有probable cause证明SBA的声明是不实的，广告牌的主人害怕连带被起诉，拒绝让SBA刊登广告。SBA将Driehaus和选举委员会搞上法院。
今天最高法院9比0的判决，在技术上同大选中的不实之词是否受言论自由保护这个问题无关，而是SBA是否有standing上诉。不过我刚才读到的几个评论都认为，这一俄亥俄州的这一法律违反第一宪法修正案。”
前面的内容是这样：虽然Driehaus在大选中声称自己反堕胎，但是他支持的法案含有对堕胎的补贴。反堕胎的组织SBA说Driehaus在竞选中骗人。SBA想登广告向大家阐明这一点，所谓识破骗子的假话。没想到广告牌怕麻烦，拒绝了SBA登广告的要求。于是SBA告到了竞选委员会，但是竞选委员会认为SBA是SB啊，没理他。接着SBA一门头把Driehaus和竞选委员一块儿上法院。
我没看懂的是：今天这个9：0一边倒的判决是什么啊？SBA是赢了还是输了，D先生算不算违规，竞选委员会算不算袒护，还是说你告错地方了，我们不受理。还有个问题就是，本来俄亥俄法律允许人们向竞选委员会投诉竞选中的不实之词。但是你读的几个评论的作者认为，这个法律违反了第一修正案。也就是这些评论的作者认为，如果遵照第一修正案，在竞选中可以有不实之词。那么我可不可以认为，竞选中胡说八道反而是第一修正案要保护的了。这个也算是言论自由吗？这个逻辑我没看懂。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-6-17 13:56 编辑
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-17 12:05 static/image/common/back.gif
以下这段话没怎么看懂：
“不管怎么说，俄亥俄的竞选委员会认为有probable cause证明SBA的声明是不实的， ...
我当时偷懒，没怎么解释最高法院到底判的是什么这个技术问题。我转贴的Atlantic Monthly的文章，解释的比我好的多。美国的法律，你要告法律违宪，必须有standing，也就是说，这一法律得给你的利益造成了伤害。这个案子，俄亥俄的竞选委员会发现Driehaus 的投诉有probable cause，但是没有作最终判决，还没有对SBA作处罚。Driehaus 大选输了以后，撤销了对SBA的投诉，因此底层法院认为既然投诉已经没了，SBA也没有受到处罚，SBA的利益没有受到损害，他们没有standing告这一法律违宪，底层法院用这个办法绕过了这一法律是否违宪的问题。最高法院的判决认为，仅仅只是可能遭到这一法律处罚的威胁，已经对他们未来大选中的言论造成限制。（用我贴的那篇文章的话，“The value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.”），因此他们有standing，案子发回底层法院重审，底层法院必须作出法律是否违宪的判断，很有可能几年后这个案子会再次回到最高法院。
就这个案子本身的情况来说，从表面上看，Obamacare到底是不是补贴堕胎，似乎是个事实问题，有唯一正确的答案，可以判断一个人是否说谎，但是象Atlantic Monthly里文章解释的，如果你真正进入细节里面，其实并不是那么清楚，怎么讲都有道理，Who’s right? You decide.。如果世界上真正能有一个中立的机构，做出言论是不是说谎的判断，对这个法律的反对意见就会小很多。但是美国人对人性的看法比较悲观，认为政府官员如果有权力判断一个言论是不是事实，进而进行处罚，肯定会滥用，来威胁对他（或这个例子上对民主党）不利的言论。平衡起来，一般都认为允许大选中说谎（对手可以反驳）造成的危害小于给与政府权力当truth police的危害。因此这一类的法律违宪。我也同意这一看法。
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-17 12:05 static/image/common/back.gif
以下这段话没怎么看懂：
“不管怎么说，俄亥俄的竞选委员会认为有probable cause证明SBA的声明是不实的， ...
Another take on the ruling.
Does Supreme Court Want Truthier Elections?
JUN 17, 2014 10:15 AM EDT
By Noah Feldman
Was a vote for the Affordable Care Act a vote for "taxpayer-funded abortion"?
Sounds like a question of opinion, doesn't it? But when a pro-life advocacy group called the Susan B. Anthony List said as much about then-Congressman Steve Driehaus’s vote during the 2010 election cycle, Driehaus filed an action charging them with making a false statement about his voting record, a crime under Ohio law. Driehaus lost the election, and the case was never decided. But the SBA folks still wanted the federal court to strike down the Ohio law as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the Supreme Court allowed their challenge case to go forward -- and that tells us something important about the future of election law.
Because the Ohio court never got a chance to find SBA guilty or not guilty of making a false statement about Driehaus’s voting record, no court has yet addressed the question of whether Ohio can outlaw such false statements altogether. The Supreme Court restricted its unanimous decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, to the threshold question of whether SBA could go to court seeking to have the law overruled when there were no present charges against it. The court held that the answer was yes.
Under Article III of the Constitution, there must be a case or a controversy before the courts have the authority to rule. According to Thomas's opinion, the future threat of potential prosecution for saying that a pro-ACA congressman had voted for taxpayer abortion was enough to get the SBA into court.
On its own, there would be nothing shocking or especially troublesome about this holding allowing the SBA’s case to proceed. What is notable is the unanimity. Even conservative justices who generally interpret the case-or-controversy requirement narrowly, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, were prepared to reverse the lower courts to get the SBA into court. Something more is afoot than simply an expansive interpretation of case or controversy.
That something is the gradual erosion of laws regulating speech during elections. There has always been an inherent tension between free-speech law, which is ever expanding to become more protective of speakers, and limitations on what you can say or do during an election. The most prominent result of this tension has been the breakdown of campaign-finance laws, which have given way to the court’s doctrine that contributing money is a form of electoral speech, famously articulated in the Citizens United decision.
Laws such as Ohio’s that prohibit false statements about candidates are another instance of that tension. After all, if it were not during an election, Ohio almost certainly could not ban false statements about a candidate’s voting record. Candidates are public figures. Under the Supreme Court's precedent going back to the landmark 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, speech concerning public figures can only be sanctioned if it is actually malicious -- made with knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsehood.
What's more, in the 2012 case of United States v. Alvarez, the court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about your war medals. If a ban on valor-related lies is unconstitutional, surely a ban on falsehoods about politicians’ positions would be even more constitutionally problematic. Any justification for Ohio's law would therefore have to depend on the unique circumstances of elections.
To be sure, there is a definite logic to regulating the electoral process to make it fairer and cleaner. In the course of ordinary life, falsehoods can be corrected by more and more accurate speech. But this process takes time -- and in elections, there may not be time for the natural self-correction mechanism to work. The infusion of money behind false political statements during elections compounds the dangers of such lies. Just ask John Kerry. Left untouched by the law, the technique of swift-boating can distort electoral results.
Yet given the Supreme Court's vote on standing, it's hard to imagine that the court is going to be very sympathetic to the Ohio law or others like it if and when the time comes to review future decisions by lower courts. The court increasingly suggests that there’s nothing special about election season as it relates to the exercise of free speech. Indeed, elections seem like a particularly important time for maximizing free speech, since they are the public's only substantive opportunity to enforce its policy preferences on elected officials.
Seen from this perspective, laws regulating speech at election time are like laws regulating money at election time: obsolete relics of the Progressive-era aspiration to rid politics of distortion and dirty tricks. Count on the Supreme Court to strike down bans on election-season falsehoods when the time comes. And count on our elections to keep getting dirtier.
Dracula 发表于 2014-6-17 13:48 static/image/common/back.gif
我当时偷懒，没怎么解释最高法院到底判的是什么这个技术问题。我转贴的Atlantic Monthly的文章，解释的比 ...
我理解为，一个人对公众说的话，是胡说八道还是实事求是，如果是胡说八道，有多少程度的真实，有多少程度的虚假，美国人倾向于认为，让他的对手来揭发他，攻击他，而不是由法院或政府出面做裁决。这个相当于在美国的内部各个集团之间产生一个张力，靠不同集团的互相攻击来保持每个人说话的正确性，因为一旦不实，对手就会抓住大做文章。
这个思路确实有可取之处。因为真、假都是互相参杂的，很多东西似是而非。有人只是选取一个对他有利的侧面加以放大，而忽视对他不利的侧面。这种情况下，很难做出一个清晰的判断。
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-18 13:50 static/image/common/back.gif
我理解为，一个人对公众说的话，是胡说八道还是实事求是，如果是胡说八道，有多少程度的真实，有多少程度 ...
感觉高院对说谎可以证实的危害才会比较在意。选举时的胡说八道，一般美国人基本上是司空见惯了，很难认定有什么可以证实的危害。比如说辩论之后的FACT-CHECK，一般都能对双方都挑出一堆BUG来，而且还都是有关FACTS的BUGS。如果是OPINIONS，更没法说了。
于是呢，光从疑罪从无的角度，这些的LAWSUITS就可以扔掉了。而且，还有不浪费法律资源，和言论自由的考量。
另外一个印象比较深的是，LARRY FLINT的案子。这家伙热衷于在杂志造些斐疑所思的攻击性“谣言”，按说对被攻击者造成了侮辱性的伤害。可是呢，他辩解说，因为那些“谣言”都是斐疑所思的（比如和母猪发生关系等等），所以没人会真正相信，所以属于POLITICAL SATIRE的范畴，特别如果对象是公众或政治人物的话。因为没人会认为是真的，大家都知道是LARRY的EXPRESSION和对公众人物的观点，不是FACTS，虽然低俗但是别人也管不着。完全是应该被言论自由所保护的。
如果LARRY的谣言不是那么斐疑所思的话呢（比如和岳母发生关系。。。），好像伯爵也讲过，如果对象是政治人物，门槛也很高的。
总之，违法言论必须要有可以证实的伤害，否则不宜多加限制。 cadgn 发表于 2014-6-18 15:14 static/image/common/back.gif
感觉高院对说谎可以证实的危害才会比较在意。选举时的胡说八道，一般美国人基本上是司空见惯了，很难认定 ...
顺便说下斐疑所思和。。。方舟子打韩寒。
真假咱不说，大家觉得方舟子的铁证，应不应该被言论自由保护呢？方的铁证，有一定的可信度，肯定不是斐疑所思。所以韩寒要是CLAIM可证实伤害，应该能成立。有人信，那么粉丝数就少了，经济损失至少的，就不用说名誉了。
另一方面，韩寒又是公众人物，门槛又应该很高。
记得韩寒一开始要告的，我倒蛮期待看看怎么判的。后来不告了又，蛮失望的。 南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-18 13:50
我理解为，一个人对公众说的话，是胡说八道还是实事求是，如果是胡说八道，有多少程度的真实，有多少程度 ...
刚看到的消息，美国联邦上诉法院判决Ohio禁止竞选时说谎的法律违宪。
这是对这一判决的评论
http://bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-26/good-news-for-campaigns-go-ahead-and-lie
Dracula 发表于 2016-2-26 14:20
...It can’t be re-enacted, no matter what.
看起来大家仍然认为该判决出于技术原因 -- 如何区分真相与谎言本身就很困难。很多时候Devil in the Details，而法院既没有这个能力也没有这个意愿去详辨曲直。。。
Every Man Is For Himself -- 谎言与否，自己看咯...
{:217:}
MacArthur 发表于 2016-2-27 03:52
看起来大家仍然认为该判决出于技术原因 -- 如何区分真相与谎言本身就很困难。很多时候Devil in the Detail ...
是的，即便是谎言，重复多遍也许就真正相信了，我们很多人从小就是这样被洗脑长大的。。。 cadgn 发表于 2014-6-18 15:14
感觉高院对说谎可以证实的危害才会比较在意。选举时的胡说八道，一般美国人基本上是司空见惯了，很难认定 ...
那么说肯德基的鸡都是六个翅膀八个腿没有头选不算匪夷所思呢？
这个说法国内相当多的人相信，算不算对肯德基公司造成伤害呢？
技术层面和执行层面的矛盾总是存在的，美国法院也不傻，经常绕过某一项矛盾而实现其意图。但是 很多事情在理论上 仍然是有问题的。所以说真理不一定是越辩越明的。
偏技术解释和偏实践解释，这是个问题。 南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-18 13:50
我理解为，一个人对公众说的话，是胡说八道还是实事求是，如果是胡说八道，有多少程度的真实，有多少程度 ...
但是具体到法律 条文的应用上，还是需要法院来解决。如何 限定法律条文的应用条件和范围才应该是法院的任务。美国最高法院的职责总体来说是这个。 猫元帅 发表于 2016-2-27 09:13
那么说肯德基的鸡都是六个翅膀八个腿没有头选不算匪夷所思呢？
这个说法国内相当多的人相信，算不算对肯 ...
这个判决只适用于大选时的不实言论，不能往别的方向引申。
广告属于commercial speech。最高法院在1942年的时候判决commercial speech是特例，不受宪法保护，联邦政府可以管制惩罚不实的广告。
如果是竞争对手发布关于肯德基的明显不实的言论造成其损失的属于libel，也不受宪法保护。
言论自由本身就是伪命题。
页:
[1]