Finally, today we can let loose and establish the kinds of things we can say

終於啊!我們今天終於可以放輕鬆

to criticize our government, like the crazy idea that money and speech are the same thing.

然後好好的批評政府，譬如某些人瘋狂的認為凡提到演講就必須得花錢

Not so fast, Clone, the Supreme Court has ruled that spending money,

Clone，不要這麼猴急，最高法院已經規定

at least in the political context, is speech. You do have the right to criticize that decision

至少在政治的範疇內，演講確實要花錢，不過你的確有權利去批評這個規定啦!

though. Unless your boss or YouTube says that you can't.

除非YouTube的老闆要求你不行這麼做囉

All right, we're trying to talk about free speech, shut up. Let's get started and

好啦好啦，都閉嘴，我們今天是要討論言論自由

see if we can figure out what the limits of free speech are, assuming that there are some.

我們就切入正題，看看我們能不能定義言論自由的底線在哪裡，呃，如果有的話啦!

There aren't.

並沒有好嗎

That's a lie. But I'm free to say that.

那只是幌子，不過我有發言的權利哦

[Theme Music]

(主題曲)

There are two really important things to remember about the First Amendment protection of free speech.

有兩個在言論自由第一修正案裡面的重大改變是我們需要回顧的

The primary reason we have freedom of speech is to allow for public criticism

言論自由最基本的形式就是接受大眾批評政府的無能之處

of the stupid government. Stupid government. That's the sort of thing that can land you

無能的政府

in jail in countries that don't have strong free speech protections, or should I say,

呃，在沒有言論自由的國家，批評政府你可能就要去吃牢飯了，或者我應該說...

you would be Putin jail, heh, don't put me in jail. Oh, that's right, I'm in the US, it doesn't matter.

你會被抓進監獄(Putin為俄國總理普亭，這邊是 put in，為諧音雙關)，不要把我抓去關，哦對哦，我在美國，沒關係啦

The stories of oversensitive kings and dictators silencing people who question their rule or

許多關於多疑國王和獨裁者堵住人民口舌、

even make jokes at their expense are too numerous to recount, but for the most part, that kinda

無法容忍輿論認為他們的天價的花費會使國庫入不敷出，不過大致來說

thing doesn't happen in the US, which is why no one gets arrested for carrying around a

那種事情不可能在美國發生，這就是為什麼有人隨身攜帶諷刺歐巴馬是希特勒的照片，

giant picture of Obama as Hitler, or former President Bush as a monkey. Well, that's stuff's

或諷刺前任總統布希是隻猴子，仍不會被逮捕的原因

okay, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, but that doesn't mean it's respectful or in

只要第一修正案仍然存在，那種言行是沒關係的，不過那並不代表這種行為會被尊重、被認同

good taste. The second thing to remember is that the First Amendment protects you from

第二件值得我們關注的是，第一修正案確保你不會被政府否定觀點或言論，

the government doing things that try to deny your speech, but not anyone else. What this

但並不會防止其他人對你言亂的否決

means is that you don't have an absolute right to say whatever you want, wherever you want,

意思就是，你並沒有絕對的權力在任何地點，對任何你想要說話的人，

to whomever you want and not suffer any consequences. Isn't that right, Stan, you dingus?

說任何你想說的事而不用遭受懲罰。對吧，Stan?

I'm fired? I was just kidding; it was a joke.

我被開除了? 我只是在開玩笑啦，別當真

If you work for a private company, your boss can certainly fire you for saying mean things

如果你在一家民營企業上班，你的老闆可以因為你誹謗公司或洩漏公司機密而開除你，

about them or revealing company secrets, and you don't have any First Amendment claim against them.

而且你並不受到第一修正案的保護

Unless, of course, your boss is the government, or a branch of the government, in which case,

除非啦，你是為政府工作，或政府單位就另當別論，也就是說你仍然在第一修正案保護範圍內

you might be able to claim a First Amendment right. See, like most things, it's complicated.

你看吧，跟很多事情一樣，言論自由是很複雜的

Among the speech that is protected, not all of it has the same level of protection under

並非所有包含在第一修正案裡的言論自由，都享有相同程度的保護

the First Amendment. Now, let's exercise our right to free Thought Bubble. The speech that

那接下來就讓腦力激盪小泡泡替我們補足關於這部分的知識吧!

gets the strongest protection is political speech. Criticism of, but also praise for

受最完備保護的是政治方面的言論

particular officials, their parties, or their policies is usually protected. It's given

對特定官員、政黨、或政策的批評和讚美通常都受完善的保護

what is called preferred position, which means that any law or regulation or executive act

這些言論都被賦予特權，也就是說如果有任何法律、規定，或者行政行為

that limits political speech is almost always struck down by courts. The big case that made

對此做出限制，絕大多數都會被法庭撤銷

pretty much the final decision on political speech was Brandenburg v.s Ohio in 1968. In

.曾經有一個大力支持政治言論自由的裁決，在1968年布蘭登伯格素俄亥俄州一案

this case, a Ku Klux Klan leader was making a speech that, as you can imagine, was offensive

這個案件起因是，3K 黨的領導人發表了一則，就如你所想，

to a lot of people and could have been considered threatening, too. The court ruled that because

冒犯很多人而且被認為具威脅性的言論，法院是依照其言論屬政治性去裁決，

the speech was political, it was protected by the First Amendment, no matter how outrageous

也就是說那包含在第一修正案的保護範圍，不論這個結果是否引起眾怒仍然如此

it was. The court said, "The Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do

法院聲稱，「憲法保障言論自由，

not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation

且不禁止人們口頭上說要違法或是使用強迫手段去做任何事，

except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent action and

除非那些擁護者已經做出行動

is likely to produce such action." According to the court, the First Amendment protects

「依據法院的解釋，第一修正案保護任何政治性言論，

speech even if it advocates the use of force or encourages people to violate the law. So

就算是鼓勵、強迫大眾去違法，因此

you can advocate overthrowing the government or not paying your taxes as much as you want,

你可以提倡推翻政府，或是聲稱拒絕繳稅，

unless what you say is likely to produce the thing you're advocating. Overthrowing the

除非你做出實質的行動，否則這都在保護範圍之內

government, say. And it is likely to happen imminently, meaning very soon after you make

在以前，相同的言論可能會在你發表完類似言論就使你惹禍上身

the statement. This case limited an older standard regarding free speech that was put

言論自由的條件在過去受到很大的限制，

forward in the case US v. Schenck in 1917. In that case, Schenck distributed pamphlets

不過在1917年美國政府和Shenck之間的衝突促使言論自由跨出歷史性一大步

urging people to avoid the draft for World War I. This was a violation of the Espionage

Schecnk分送小手冊，要求人們避免替第一次世界大戰打草稿

Act, which made it a crime to obstruct the draft or the war effort. The law was more

這個行為違反了Espionage Act，只要對戰爭有非議都是有罪的

complicated than that, but that's the basic gist. In his decision on this case, Oliver

Espionage Act裡面的規定比表面更複雜，這不過是最基本的要求

Wendell Holmes wrote that, "When that speech presents a clear and present danger, the state

Oliver Wendell Holmes評論Schecnk的決定「那番言論清楚象徵危險的步步進逼

can then abridge that person's speech." Memorably, he explained that the First Amendment does

能剝奪一個人的言論自由。」值得一提的是，

not protect a person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. In later cases, Holmes

他提到第一修正案當時並沒有保護「引起眾怒」的言論，接下幾次和政府的衝突

limited this idea, largely because it gives the government a lot of leeway to say what

Holmes稍微收斂了，因為他的想法讓政府能挑出把柄，

kind of speech creates danger, especially during a war, as was the case with Schenck.

告訴群眾什麼樣的言論會引起爭端，因為Schenck事件，在戰爭時期更為如此，

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

謝啦，腦力激盪小泡泡

Political speech isn't the only type of speech that the courts have addressed. Symbolic speech

當然，受保護的不僅僅只有政治性言論

can also be protected by the First Amendment, and if that symbolic speech has political

象徵性言論也在第一修正案的保護範圍內，再加上和政治相關的條件，

content, it usually is protected. Symbolic speech includes wearing armbands, carrying

通常都特別受保障，象徵性言論的內容包括別臂章，製作標語，

signs, or even wearing a jacket with an obscene word directed at the military draft. Symbolic

或者穿字樣對軍隊有非議的夾克等等

speech also includes burning an American flag, which pretty much is always a political message.

象徵性言論也包括焚燒美國國旗，因為國旗永遠都具有政治意義

Not all symbolic speech is protected, though. For example, if you're a high school student

不過也有不受保障的象徵性言論哦，舉例來說，假設你是一個中學生，

who holds up a banner that reads, "Bong hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sponsored function, don't

，在學術機構內握著侮辱耶穌標舞的布條，那你就別指望第一修正案會替你撐腰，

expect that the First Amendment will prevent the school, a government agent, from suspending

命令隸屬於政府的機構，也就是學校，阻止你的所作所為

you. And yes, that really happened. Also, this is not symbolic speech. That's violence.

對啦，是沒錯，這種事的確發生過，但是，那絕對不是象徵性言論，而是言語暴力

Even hate speech is protected. Even if it's really hateful, like burning a cross on a

就連仇惡性言論也是受保護的，無論那是多令人倒胃口的行為，例如在別人家草坪上燒十字架，

person's lawn, although this might be prosecuted as vandalism or trespassing. Public universities

不過你有可能因為破壞他人財物或私闖民宅遭起訴啦

that try to punish hate speech have seen their discipline code struck down. Commercial speech

試圖處罰有仇惡性言論學生的公立大學已經知道這項訴求是不可行的

might not be protected, but if it's a political commercial, it will be, and as we've pointed

商業性言論可能不會受保護，但如果涉及政治，仍然在保障範圍內

out before, spending money on political campaigns has been determined to be speech that is protected

而且根據以上所言，在政治活動上花錢是受到第一修正案保護的，

by the First Amendment, although we shall see donations to political campaigns are still

雖然我們對政治獻金的看法還是有異議的，

treated differently, at least for now.

至少現在仍有此疑慮

Pretty much the only kind of speech that's not protected, other than speech that's likely

而有一個絕對不被保護的言論，與其說是言論，不如說是含有暴力行為的言行

to incite immediate violence, is what's called fightin' words. In the actual case that dealt

那就是攻擊性言辭，而查普林斯基訴新罕布什爾州的案例，就是關於攻擊性言辭

with fighting words, Chaplinsky v.s New Hampshire, the defendant uttered what seemed more like

在這一案，被告脫口

insults than a call to engage in fisticuffs. What'd you call me? Still, the court ruled

說出侮辱性言詞，當場上演全武行。「你剛剛罵我什麼？」

that some words were so insulting that they were more than likely to result in a fight,

最高法院的裁決是，因為有些字眼太過於偏激因此有煽動暴力的傾向

so fighting words are not protected speech. One thing to note, though, the fighting words

因此指出含「挑釁字眼」的言論不受保護。值得注意的是

free speech exception is almost never used.

攻擊性言論案例至今都還沒有過任何被許可的例外

So as you can see, the First Amendment pretty much protects you from the government throwing

所以現在你就知道，第一修正案特別保障你不會因為侵犯政府而被送去吃牢飯，

you in jail or otherwise punishing you for what you say in most instances, but it's important

或是會因為你的衝動小小懲罰你

to remember than the First Amendment is not unlimited. Most important, it only protects

不過我們一定要知道第一修正案並不是全能的

you from government action, not the action of private people, especially your employers.

更重要的是，它只能避免你受公家機關侵害而不包括社會上個體，尤其是你的雇主

One final example might make this clear. In Pickering v.s Board of Education, a public

最後一個案例能讓你更清楚，就是布朗訴託皮卡教育局案

school teacher wrote a letter to the editor of his local paper complaining about the way

有一位任教於公立學校的老師，寫了一封抱怨關於校內財務狀況的信件去給當地小報社

that the school board was spending money on the schools. He didn't write it on school

他沒有利用上班時間，也沒有使用學校的資源去寄信

time or using school paper or email, especially since it was 1968 and there was no email.

更不用說利用校園電子信箱了因為在1968年這項功能尚未問世

The school board, or his principal, fired him. He brought the case to the Supreme Court,

學校的頭頭，他的上司將他開除了，因此他向最高法庭上訴，

claiming that he was fired for his speech, which was political in nature criticizing

聲稱他因為自己的言論遭開除，而且還是因為批評校內事務，

local government and not for anything related to his job performance, and he won. But the

而非他的工作表現，最後他勝訴了

only reason he was able to get his job back is that his employer was the government, so

不過他能重獲他的工作是因為學校是隸屬為政府的機構，也就是說，

it was the government that punished him for speaking out. For most of us, complaining

這個案件是「政府」因為他的言論而將他免職

about our employer's policies may get us fired, and unless we are government employees, we

對大多數人來說，抱怨自己公司的政策可能會丟掉工作，除非我們任職於政府機關，

can't claim that it violated our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment, like all of the

否則我們不能以處分違反第一修正案的原因去上訴

Amendments, is meant to protect us from an overreaching government. There are other types

.第一修正案的問世是為了保障我們不受政府的過度侵犯及介入

of laws that help us deal with individuals who do things that we think are wrong, but

有其他保障我們的觀念不被他人認可情況下的法律，

we'll talk about those in another episode.

我們會在另一部影片跟大家討論這個問題

Thanks for watching. See ya next time. Mmmph! Third eagle punch in the video. Is that too

謝謝大家的收看，下次再見啦~ 今天使用的三個大絕招，會不會太多啊?

much? It doesn't matter. I'm free to do it. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced

反正沒關係，我有權利這麼做

in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from

政府與政治速班是和PBS Digital Studio共同製作，並由Voqal贊助

Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity.

Voqal 贊助所有利用科技與媒體促進社會正義的非營利組織

Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course was made with the

欲了解更多有關Voqal的相關宗旨及目標請上 Voqal.org

help of all of these free speakers. Thanks for watching.

本節目是受所有具言論自由的人協助製作，謝謝觀賞