Manifesto
Manifesto
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/03064220701333172
复制
发表时间：
2007-05
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
J. Heawood
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Heawood
在联合王国，对表达自由的定义仍然是消极的。在大多数立法条款中，不被冒犯、滥用、剽窃或亵渎的自由，超过了从事任何这些可能令人愉快和充实的活动的自由。什么是被禁止的主导了辩论，而言论自由的权利正在退却。当《人权法》（HRA）将言论自由的具体承诺引入英国法律时，这并不是我们所期望的。该法案纳入了《欧洲公约》第10条，应该向任何试图限制言论自由的人发出一个非常明确的信息--言论自由是英国公共生活中一项宝贵的权利。然而，相反的情况发生了，言论自由几乎随着每一项新的立法而受到侵蚀。信息自由受其本身的法律保护，而表达自由则在敌对立法的边缘挣扎。虽然信息自由是一种事后自由，是检查政府和其他公共机构的一种方式，但信息自由是一项基本权利，没有它就没有办法公开执行或监督任何其他权利。然而，它却在权利表的降级端萎靡不振。随着每一次关于“言论自由的限制”的新的公开辩论，我们的权利都在消退。相反，为什么不就审查制度的局限性展开一场公开辩论呢？事实上，为什么不游说制定一项具有与美国宪法第一修正案同样巨大力量的表达自由法案呢？这一法律应包括对侵犯他人言论自由权行为的惩罚细节。这将为警方在处理暴力抗议者时提供所需的指导。它还可能在言论自由权和（发展中的）隐私权、版权保护和公共秩序之间建立平衡，使未来的政府不再把重点放在限制而不是基本自由上。这样的法案绝不会只是重复《人权法案》的条款，尽管《人权法案》的初衷是好的，但它已经给了政府一张“出狱卡”。言论自由条款的例外情况如此之多，但定义如此模糊，以至于政府在试图简化管理日益复杂的社会所面临的挑战时，总是可以诉诸公共秩序、公共道德或国家安全。一个新的，坚韧的FOE法案将精确地规定如何以及何时应用这些限制，并将对这种普遍自由的监督权交给一个独立的审查机构--公众。Q
JONATHAN HEAWOOD Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom is still defined negatively. The freedom not to be offended, abused, plagiarised or blasphemed against outweighs in most legislative terms the freedom to engage in any of these potentially enjoyable and fulfilling activities. What is forbidden dominates the debate, whilst the right to free speech is on the retreat. This was not what we expected when the Human Rights Act (HRA) introduced a specific commitment to free expression into British law. The Act’s incorporation of Article 10 of the European Convention should have sent out a very clear message to anyone seeking to constrain free speech–a dearly held right in British public life. Yet the opposite has happened, and free speech is eroded with almost every new piece of legislation. Freedom of Information is protected in its own Act, whilst Freedom of Expression struggles in the margins of hostile legislation. While FOI is a post-facto freedom, a way of checking up on government and other public bodies, FOE is a fundamental right, without which there would be no way to publicly enforce or police any other rights. Yet it languishes in the relegation end of the rights table. With every new public debate on ‘the limits of free speech’our rights recede. Why not, instead, launch a public debate on the limits of censorship? Why not, indeed, lobby for a Freedom of Expression Act with the same monumental force as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Such an Act should include details of penalties for eroding others’ rights to free expression. This would give the police the guidance they need when dealing with violent protesters. It might also set out the balance between the right to free expression and the (developing) right to privacy, copyright protection and public order, in a way that would disable future governments from placing more emphasis on the constraints than the fundamental freedom.Such an Act would in no way merely repeat the terms of the HRA, which for all its good intentions has gifted the government a Get Out of Jail card. The exemptions to the free expression clause are so numerous, yet so ill-defined, that a government can always appeal to public order, public morality or national security when they seek to simplify the challenges they face in managing an increasingly complex society. A new, tough FOE Act would set out precisely how and when such constraints might be applied, and would place oversight of this universal freedom in the hands of an independent scrutinising body–the public. q