美国言论自由的“底线”是什么？

laruence

美国言论自由的“底线”是什么？
谨将此贴献给那些喜欢打“言论自由”牌的网友们！


美国言论自由的“底线”是什么？   
[咸阳游侠] 于 2005-12-03 04:25:08上贴  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我这两天在思考的问题是美国的言论自由有没有底线，就是说又没有什么政治言论是美国政府所禁止的？如果没有，为什么美国不怕言论自由，如果有，中国应该如何学习美国的控制言论技术？  

昨天纽约时报的消息，披露美国五角大楼雇佣一帮人，给他们每月几百块钱，让他们搞一些文章，先是英文的，然后翻译成阿拉伯文，给伊拉克报刊投稿，以此左右伊拉克言论。  

这个故事很有意思，一方面它说明美国有言论自由，比如纽约时报就敢于把这个事情给抖出来。事实上纽约时报一直都这么干，经常连篇累牍的骂政府。  

但另一方面也说明美国政府并不是走自己的路让媒体去说吧，而是也有意识的去主动左右媒体，对伊拉克报纸就是这么干的。民主党的人会说，那些共和党右派在美国国内也是这么干的，比如Al Franken写的《Lies and lying liars who tell them》，这本书的意思就是说美国右派媒体有一个agenda。  

但是有意思的一点在于，美国政府只能使用这些手段，比如说雇人写文章投稿，或者资助右派媒体等等，去“左右”媒体，而不能，比如说，索性把纽约时报给封了，或者让其总编辑走人。  

我要研究的问题是，纽约时报和CN*这样的所谓“主流”媒体（mainstream, 与华盛顿时报和fox这样的右派媒体区分），他在骂政府的时候有没有底线？如果他超过了那个底线他会不会被政府封？  

报纸可以说政府舞弊，Nicolas Cage新片 lord of war可以告诉观众美国总统才是最大的军火贩子，华氏911可以宣称美国政客为石油利益集团服务。。。难道美国媒体可以随便骂政府，没有任何底线么？  

事实可能并非如此。纽约时报不会称赞共产主义，好莱坞电影不会表现解放军英勇善战，没见过任何美国媒体说古巴的情况实际上比其他拉美国家好一些。  

美国媒体的底线就是资本主义。我以前不相信有什么阶级分析和意识形态，但是深入分析之后我只能得出这个结论。  

几年前有个叫作《John Q》的电影。说有个普通工人，因为没有医疗保险，自己儿子病了不能做手术，一怒之下劫持整个医院，最后因为社会各界同情，给儿子做了手术。影片结尾告诉大家，美国正在努力让所有人都有医疗保险。  

而现实情况是至今很多人没有保险，你劫持医院试试？这个电影是一个童话而不是现实。显然美国普通工人没有力量去拍一个真正反映他们疾苦的电影的。  

我以为，美国言论自由的底线就是，你可以任意表现资产阶级内部矛盾，但是你绝对不能表现无产阶级对资产阶级的矛盾。你可以任意丑化美国政府，但是你绝对不能说中国政府比美国政府好。  

中国政府应该好好像美国政府学习。绝大多数美国人在这样的言论氛围之下鉴定相信自己的国家有真正的言论自由和独立媒体，因此他们认为他们的祖国是最伟大的国家，他们确实愿意为祖国献出生命。甚至，很多中国知识分子也这么想美国

文章结束
1728  
精华
0  
积分
867  
威望
10 个  
金钱
11932 元  
RP
2 点
查看详细资料
以上言论代表网友个人观点,不代表环球网
送鲜花[ 4 ]扔鸡蛋[ 3 ]
看看最真实的美国力量 战舰也能玩“漂移” 中国造机枪物归原主 美国巡洋舰的近战利器
回到顶部
SlimShady
Just for fun


禁止访问
个人空间 发短消息 加为好友 当前离线 沙发 大 中 小 发表于 2009-5-3 07:26  只看该作者
文章开始


Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.



United States

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect.
Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies. However, the Motion Picture Association of Americahas a rating system, and movies not rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres, making the system almost compulsory. Since the organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World countries. However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape or disc form based on their content, nor does it affect movie distribution in public (i.e., government-funded) libraries. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to release "unrated" DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in.
Within the U.S., the freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next. Of all states, the state of California permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech). More specifically, through the Pruneyard case ruling, California residents may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public.
Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World, a working class union, found it necessary to engage in free speech fights intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.

virginia_0103

你不****就行！
文章结束

virginia_0103

透过现象看本质。一叶障目，以管窥豹要不得。