How Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Free Speech如何反恐法，威胁言论自由

By由 JOANNE MARINER乔安妮水手

Restrictions of all sorts have multiplied in the heightened security environment of the last six-and-a-half years, so it should be no surprise that, around the world, legal restrictions on speech have tightened.限制的种种成倍增加，在高度安全的环境，在过去六年和一个半月来，所以应该不会令人感到惊讶，在世界各地的，法律的限制，对语音有收紧。 Since 2001, there has been a clear trend toward prohibiting speech perceived as supporting terrorism, and toward barring the dissemination of materials–including books, videos, and other forms of written and graphic communication–that are believed to be of use for terrorist activity.自2001年以来，出现了一种明显的趋势，对禁止讲话，被视为支持恐怖主义，对禁止传播的材料，包括书籍，影片，以及其他形式的书面和图形通信-被认为不能用于恐怖活动。

International protections on free expression in no way restrict governments from criminally prosecuting direct incitement to terrorism–speech that directly encourages the commission of a crime, is intended to result in criminal action, and is likely to result in criminal action–whether or not criminal action does, in fact, result. 国际保护，对自由的表达，在没有办法限制各国政府从刑事检控直接煽动恐怖主义的讲话中指出，直接鼓励犯下罪行，是导致犯罪的行动，并有可能导致刑事行动与否犯罪行动确实，事实上，在结果。 (In the United States, where the Constitution imposes stricter protections for expression than found elsewhere, the courts have required that the prohibited incitement present a risk of “imminent” criminal action.) Yet the legal trend globally is not only to criminalize direct incitement to terrorist activity, but to criminalize indirect incitement–to prohibit speech perceived as justifying, defending, or “glorifying” terrorism. （在美国，宪法施加更严格的保护措施，为表达比在其他地方发现的，法院已要求将禁止煽动目前的风险"迫在眉睫"犯罪行动） ，但法律的趋势，在全球范围内不仅是刑事罪论处直接煽动恐怖活动，但以刑事罪论处间接煽动-禁止讲话，被视为辩护，捍卫，或"树碑立传"的恐怖主义。 This, from the standpoint of free expression, is problematic. 这，站在自由表达意见的，是有问题的。

The British government has been a leader in this effort. 英国政府一直带头在这方面作出努力。 Not only has it passed new domestic laws to regulate speech, it has pressed international institutions to take up the issue. 它不仅通过了新的国内法，以规管讲话，它已要求国际机构采取了这一问题。 In September 2005, the UN Security Council adopted a UK-sponsored resolution that purported to repudiate “attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.” Although the resolution used the term incitement, rather than indirect incitement, its references to justification and glorification suggested a broad understanding of the term. 2005年9月，联合国安理会通过了英国主办的决议，意图推翻" ，它企图在正当理由或颂扬（辩护）的恐怖行为可能煽动更多的恐怖行为" ，虽然该决议用了煽动行为，而不是间接煽动，其提述的理由和歌颂建议，广泛了解其任期。

Earlier that year, the Council of Europe, a European human rights body, adopted a Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism with similarly expansive language. 今年早些时候，欧洲理事会，欧洲人权机构，通过了一项公约关于预防恐怖主义与同样扩张性的语言。 The treaty requires states to criminalize “public provocation” of terrorism, a crime that could include indirect incitement. 该条约要求缔约国以刑事罪论处"公共挑衅行为"的恐怖主义，犯罪事实，可以包括间接煽动。 The convention defines public provocation as the public dissemination of a message “with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed.” Note the clear erosion of the incitement standard: There’s no need for the message to directly encourage terrorism, and rather than having to be “likely” to result in criminal action, it’s enough that the message may “cause a danger” of such action. 该公约界定公共挑衅作为公共传播的讯息"与意图煽动犯下恐怖罪行的，如果这种行为，无论是或不是直接鼓吹恐怖主义罪行，造成危险，即一个或多个这类犯罪的，可承诺。 "注明确侵蚀的煽动标准：有没有需要的信息，直接鼓励恐怖主义，而不是要成为"可能"会导致犯罪行动，它的足够的信息，可能会"造成一种危险"的这种行动。

A Global Survey 一项全球性调查

Let’s review a few examples from different countries to get a better sense of what kinds of statements these laws tend to cover: 再回顾举几个例子，我们从不同的国度，以获得更好的感觉是什么种报表，这些法律往往涵盖：

. 。 The UK’s 2006 counterterrorism law criminalizes any public statement that is intended to encourage, or that recklessly encourages, acts of terrorism, if the statement takes the form of “glorif[ying] the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences” and is such that the audience “could reasonably infer” that what is being glorified should be emulated. 英国2006年的反恐怖法为刑事犯罪任何公开声明，这是为了鼓励，或肆无忌惮地鼓励，恐怖主义行为，如果陈述采取的形式是" glorif [英]或准备（不论是在过去，在未来或一般）的这种行为或罪行" ， 是这样说，观众"可以合理地推断， "这是什么被歌颂，应该仿效。 (A 2000 UK law already specifies that “inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism” is a criminal offense, one punishable in the same manner as the offense that was incited.) （据2000年英国法律已明， "煽动他人犯下恐怖主义行为 " 是犯罪行为，可处以一在同样的方式进攻，那是煽动） 。

. 。 Under Zimbabwe’s 2006 counterterrorism law, a person who “solicits, invites, or encourages moral or material support” for a designated terrorist organization commits an offense. 根据津巴布韦的2006年反恐怖法规定，任何人"教唆，邀请或鼓励道德或物质上的支持" ，为指定为恐怖组织，即进攻。

. 。 The United Arab Emirates’ 2004 counterterrorism law reportedly provides for up to five years of imprisonment for anyone who promotes verbally or in writing any of the offenses set out in the law. 阿拉伯联合酋长国2004年反恐怖法的规定，据说长达5年的监禁任何人促进口头或书面的任何作案法例所定的。

. 。 Bahrain’s 2006 counterterrorism law includes extremely broad and vaguely-drafted restrictions on expression. 巴林2006年的反恐怖法列入了极其广泛和含糊其辞的起草限制表达。 The law provides that: “Whoever uses religion, religious buildings, public places or religious festivities to propagate provocative appeals or extremist ideas, or holds notices/posters, or puts up graphics, pictures, slogans or signs that might create fitna [disorder] or insult monotheist religions, their symbols or their believers, or harm the national unity or social peace, or destabilize security or public order shall be punished by imprisonment and fine or one or both penalties.” The legislation also provides that anyone who “promotes or approves, in any way” of a terrorist act faces imprisonment. 该法规定： "谁冒用宗教，宗教建筑，公共场所或宗教庆祝活动，以宣传挑衅上诉或极端思想，或持通知书/海报，或竖立的图形，图片，标语或迹象表明可能造成菲特纳[疾病]或侮辱monotheist宗教，其符号或其信徒，或损害民族团结或社会和平，或破坏安全或公共秩序，应被处以监禁和罚款，或一种或两种处罚" ，法律也规定，任何人"的推广或核准，以任何方式"的恐怖行为面临监禁。

. 。 El Salvador’s 2006 counterterrorism law prescribes a five- to ten-year prison sentence for anyone who publicly justifies terrorism. 萨尔瓦多的2006年反恐怖法明五年至十年徒刑的人，公开的理由恐怖主义。

. 。 In Australia, the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act bars organizations from advocating terrorism. 在澳大利亚， 2005年的反恐怖主义法酒吧组织从鼓吹恐怖主义。 An organization is understood to advocate a terrorist act if it: 1) “directly or indirectly counsels or urges” such an act; 2) “provides instruction” on how to commit such an act, or 3) “directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person Ö to engage in a terrorist act.” 一个组织的了解，提倡一种恐怖行为，如果 ： 1 ） " ，直接或间接地律师或敦促"这样的行为; 2 ） "的规定，指示" ，就如何实施这种行为，或3 ） " ，直接歌颂做一个恐怖行为的情况下，有一种风险是这样的赞美可能产生的效力是领导一个人ö从事恐怖主义行为" 。

. 。 Turkey’s 2006 counterterrorism law imposes criminal penalties on those who “make propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims.” The law provides for harsher penalties for those who do so using the media. 土耳其2006年的反恐怖法施加刑事处罚，对那些" ，使宣传，为恐怖组织或其目标"的法律规定更为严厉的处罚对于那些这样做，利用媒体。 A Council of Europe expert committee has criticized the provision, finding it to be “ambiguous and written in wide and vague terms.” 欧洲理事会的专家委员会曾批评条文，找出它是"含糊不清，写在广泛和模糊的条款" 。

. 。 Under French and Spanish counterterrorism laws, which predate the September 11 terrorist attacks, the act of justifying terrorism (apologie or apolog’a) is a crime. 根据法国和西班牙的反恐法律，要早于9月11日恐怖袭击事件，该法的恐怖主义辩解（辩护或apolog'a ） ，是一种犯罪行为。 The difference between the two countries is that such prosecutions are quite common in Spain, whereas they are extremely rare in France. 两者的区别是这样的检控工作是相当普遍的，在西班牙，而这些都是非常难得在法国。

What these laws generally have in common is broad language, which may in some instances cover legitimate political speech, and which gives prosecutors enormous discretion in deciding when and if to bring a case. 这些法律一般，有一点是共同广泛的语言，可能在某些情况涵盖合法的政治演说，并且赋予检察官很大的酌情权，决定何时以及是否要提起诉讼。

Possession of a Map Without an Excuse 藏有一张地图，没有一个借口

In some countries, moreover, not only is it illegal to express views deemed to support terrorism, it is illegal to possess materials that support terrorism. 在一些国家，而且，它不仅是非法的，以表达意见视为支持恐怖主义，它是非法的，以拥有物质支持恐怖主义。 Again, the UK has taken the lead in this area, both in passing legislation to restrict the possession and dissemination of such materials, and in prosecuting alleged offenders. 再次，英国已率先在这一领域，无论是在通过立法，以限制拥有和传播这种材料，并在起诉被指控罪犯。

. 。 Under the UK’s 2000 counterterrorism law, the possession of articles connected to terrorism–including terrorism-related publications or videos–is a criminal offense, as long as there is some minimal showing that the person’s possession of the items may be related to plans to commit terrorism. 根据英国2000年的反恐怖法，藏物品的连接与恐怖主义包括恐怖主义有关的书籍或影片是一种犯罪行为，只要有一些微不足道显示该人的占有该项目可能与作为规划中犯下恐怖主义。 Specifically, the law provides that: “[a] person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.” 具体而言，该法规定： "一人，即属犯罪，如果他有一篇文章，在何种情况下产生一个合理的怀疑，认为他所拥有的，是一个多用途连接委员会，准备或煽动恐怖主义行为。 "

. 。 Another provision of the same UK law criminalizes the possession of documents containing information “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” This extremely broad provision–which could otherwise bar, for example, possessing a map of London–also provides that a person charged with violating the law may defend against prosecution by proving that he has “a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.” 另一项规定的，同时英国法律为刑事犯罪藏的文件，内载信息"的一种，可能是有用的人，或准备恐怖行为" ，这种极其广泛的规定-这可能另有酒吧，举例来说，拥有一张地图伦敦还规定，一个人被控以违反该法可抵御起诉，证明他有"一个合理的借口，为他的行动，或拥有" 。

. 。 Finally, the 2006 UK counterterrorism law criminalizes the distribution of “terrorist publications,” defined as publications that either glorify terrorist acts or are made available “wholly or mainly” because they would be useful in the commission or preparation of terrorist acts. 最后， 2006年英国的反恐怖法为犯罪行为的分布"恐怖出版物， " 界定为出版物，无论是颂扬恐怖主义行为或提供"完全或主要" ，因为他们将是有益的，在委员会或准备恐怖行为。

Preemptive Action against Terrorism 先发制人的打击恐怖主义的行动

The reasoning behind such laws is understandable. 背后的理这样的法律是可以理解的。 Governments want to stop terrorism before it occurs; indeed, they would prefer to deal with the problem before the potential terrorist gets anywhere near the stage of actually planning violent acts. 政府要想制止恐怖主义之前，它发生，事实上，他们宁愿去处理此问题之前，潜在的恐怖随时随地获得近阶段的实际策划暴力行为。 Some proportion of the people who communicate support for terrorism, or who read terrorist publications, may one day be moved to action. 一些比例的人沟通，支持恐怖主义的人，或看过恐怖出版物，可一天移至行动。

Still, a spate of recent prosecutions in the UK does little to instill confidence in these laws. 尽管如此，接二连三的检控最近，在英国并无灌输信心，在这些法律。 Defendants have included a couple of 17-year-olds, and a young woman known (for her poems) as the “lyrical terrorist.” Are such people really a threat? 被告还包括一对夫妇， 17岁左右和一名年轻女子被称为（她的诗）为"抒情恐怖" ，是这样的人真的是一个威胁吗？ It’s hard to tell; the problem with preemptive action is that it’s based on prediction. 它难以分辨;问题与先发制人的行动，是它的基础上的预测。 And while some number of adolescents may go from downloading Al Qaeda videos to actively supporting terrorism, the gap between the two activities is large. 虽然有些青少年人数可能从下载基地影片积极支持恐怖主义，两者之间的差距活动，是大。

By wasting scarce legal and prosecutorial resources going after speech, rather than action, governments may be doing more harm than good. 由浪费稀缺的法律和检察资源去后讲话，而不是采取行动，各国政府可以做的事情是弊多于利。 The defendants in such cases no doubt see them as political and religious persecution, and their families, neighbors and larger communities may agree. 被告在这种情况下，毫无疑问，看看他们的政治和宗教迫害，以及他们的家人，邻居和较大的社区可同意。

Joanne Mariner is a human rights attorney based in New York. 乔安妮水手是一个人权律师总部设在纽约。

Comment on 'How Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Free Speech' : 评论』如何反恐法，威胁言论自由' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相关新闻：