How Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Free Speech如何反恐法，威脅言論自由

By由 JOANNE MARINER喬安妮水手

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.限制的種種成倍增加，在高度安全的環境，在過去六年和一個半月來，所以應該不會令人感到驚訝，在世界各地的，法律的限制，對語音有收緊。 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年以來，出現了一種明顯的趨勢，對禁止講話，被視為支持恐怖主義，對禁止傳播的材料，包括書籍，影片，以及其他形式的書面和圖形通信-被認為不能用於恐怖活動。

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. 國際保護，對自由的表達，在沒有辦法限制各國政府從刑事檢控直接煽動恐怖主義的講話中指出，直接鼓勵犯下罪行，是導致犯罪的行動，並有可能導致刑事行動與否犯罪行動確實，事實上，在結果。 (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. （在美國，憲法施加更嚴格的保護措施，為表達比在其他地方發現的，法院已要求將禁止煽動目前的風險"迫在眉睫"犯罪行動） ，但法律的趨勢，在全球範圍內不僅是刑事罪論處直接煽動恐怖活動，但以刑事罪論處間接煽動-禁止講話，被視為辯護，捍衛，或"樹碑立傳"的恐怖主義。 This, from the standpoint of free expression, is problematic. 這，站在自由表達意見的，是有問題的。

The British government has been a leader in this effort. 英國政府一直帶頭在這方面作出努力。 Not only has it passed new domestic laws to regulate speech, it has pressed international institutions to take up the issue. 它不僅通過了新的國內法，以規管講話，它已要求國際機構採取了這一問題。 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，聯合國安理會通過了英國主辦的決議，意圖推翻" ，它企圖在正當理由或頌揚（辯護）的恐怖行為可能煽動更多的恐怖行為" ，雖然該決議用了煽動行為，而不是間接煽動，其提述的理由和歌頌建議，廣泛了解其任期。

Earlier that year, the Council of Europe, a European human rights body, adopted a Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism with similarly expansive language. 今年早些時候，歐洲理事會，歐洲人權機構，通過了一項公約關於預防恐怖主義與同樣擴張性的語言。 The treaty requires states to criminalize “public provocation” of terrorism, a crime that could include indirect incitement. 該條約要求締約國以刑事罪論處"公共挑釁行為"的恐怖主義，犯罪事實，可以包括間接煽動。 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. 該公約界定公共挑釁作為公共傳播的訊息"與意圖煽動犯下恐怖罪行的，如果這種行為，無論是或不是直接鼓吹恐怖主義罪行，造成危險，即一個或多個這類犯罪的，可承諾。 "注明確侵蝕的煽動標準：有沒有需要的信息，直接鼓勵恐怖主義，而不是要成為"可能"會導致犯罪行動，它的足夠的信息，可能會"造成一種危險"的這種行動。

A Global Survey 一項全球性調查

Let’s review a few examples from different countries to get a better sense of what kinds of statements these laws tend to cover: 再回顧舉幾個例子，我們從不同的國度，以獲得更好的感覺是什麼種報表，這些法律往往涵蓋：

. 。 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. 英國2006年的反恐怖法為刑事犯罪任何公開聲明，這是為了鼓勵，或肆無忌憚地鼓勵，恐怖主義行為，如果陳述採取的形式是" glorif [英]或準備（不論是在過去，在未來或一般）的這種行為或罪行" ， 是這樣說，觀眾"可以合理地推斷， "這是什麼被歌頌，應該仿效。 (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.) （據2000年英國法律已明， "煽動他人犯下恐怖主義行為 " 是犯罪行為，可處以一在同樣的方式進攻，那是煽動） 。

. 。 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. 根據津巴布韋的2006年反恐怖法規定，任何人"教唆，邀請或鼓勵道德或物質上的支持" ，為指定為恐怖組織，即進攻。

. 。 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. 阿拉伯聯合酋長國2004年反恐怖法的規定，據說長達5年的監禁任何人促進口頭或書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極其廣泛和含糊其辭的起草限制表達。 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. 該法規定： "誰冒用宗教，宗教建築，公共場所或宗教慶祝活動，以宣傳挑釁上訴或極端思想，或持通知書/海報，或豎立的圖形，圖片，標語或跡象表明可能造成菲特納[疾病]或侮辱monotheist宗教，其符號或其信徒，或損害民族團結或社會和平，或破壞安全或公共秩序，應被處以監禁和罰款，或一種或兩種處罰" ，法律也規定，任何人"的推廣或核准，以任何方式"的恐怖行為面臨監禁。

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

. 。 In Australia, the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act bars organizations from advocating terrorism. 在澳大利亞， 2005年的反恐怖主義法酒吧組織從鼓吹恐怖主義。 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.” 一個組織的了解，提倡一種恐怖行為，如果 ： 1 ） " ，直接或間接地律師或敦促"這樣的行為; 2 ） "的規定，指示" ，就如何實施這種行為，或3 ） " ，直接歌頌做一個恐怖行為的情況下，有一種風險是這樣的讚美可能產生的效力是領導一個人ö從事恐怖主義行為" 。

. 。 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處罰，對那些" ，使宣傳，為恐怖組織或其目標"的法律規定更為嚴厲的處罰對於那些這樣做，利用媒體。 A Council of Europe expert committee has criticized the provision, finding it to be “ambiguous and written in wide and vague terms.” 歐洲理事會的專家委員會曾批評條文，找出它是"含糊不清，寫在廣泛和模糊的條款" 。

. 。 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. 根據法國和西班牙的反恐法律，要早於9月11日恐怖襲擊事件，該法的恐怖主義辯解（辯護或apolog'a ） ，是一種犯罪行為。 The difference between the two countries is that such prosecutions are quite common in Spain, whereas they are extremely rare in France. 兩者的區別是這樣的檢控工作是相當普遍的，在西班牙，而這些都是非常難得在法國。

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. 這些法律一般，有一點是共同廣泛的語言，可能在某些情況涵蓋合法的政治演說，並且賦予檢察官很大的酌情權，決定何時以及是否要提起訴訟。

Possession of a Map Without an Excuse 藏有一張地圖，沒有一個藉口

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. 在一些國家，而且，它不僅是非法的，以表達意見視為支持恐怖主義，它是非法的，以擁有物質支持恐怖主義。 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，英國已率先在這一領域，無論是在通過立法，以限制擁有和傳播這種材料，並在起訴被指控罪犯。

. 。 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. 根據英國2000年的反恐怖法，藏物品的連接與恐怖主義包括恐怖主義有關的書籍或影片是一種犯罪行為，只要有一些微不足道顯示該人的佔有該項目可能與作為規劃中犯下恐怖主義。 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.” 具體而言，該法規定： "一人，即屬犯罪，如果他有一篇文章，在何種情況下產生一個合理的懷疑，認為他所擁有的，是一個多用途連接委員會，準備或煽動恐怖主義行為。 "

. 。 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.” 另一項規定的，同時英國法律為刑事犯罪藏的文件，內載信息"的一種，可能是有用的人，或準備恐怖行為" ，這種極其廣泛的規定-這可能另有酒吧，舉例來說，擁有一張地圖倫敦還規定，一個人被控以違反該法可抵禦起訴，證明他有"一個合理的藉口，為他的行動，或擁有" 。

. 。 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. 最後， 2006年英國的反恐怖法為犯罪行為的分佈"恐怖出版物， " 界定為出版物，無論是頌揚恐怖主義行為或提供"完全或主要" ，因為他們將是有益的，在委員會或準備恐怖行為。

Preemptive Action against Terrorism 先發製人的打擊恐怖主義的行動

The reasoning behind such laws is understandable. 背後的理這樣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義之前，它發生，事實上，他們寧願去處理此問題之前，潛在的恐怖隨時隨地獲得近階段的實際策劃暴力行為。 Some proportion of the people who communicate support for terrorism, or who read terrorist publications, may one day be moved to action. 一些比例的人溝通，支持恐怖主義的人，或看過恐怖出版物，可一天移至行動。

Still, a spate of recent prosecutions in the UK does little to instill confidence in these laws. 儘管如此，接二連三的檢控最近，在英國並無灌輸信心，在這些法律。 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? 被告還包括一對夫婦， 17歲左右和一名年輕女子被稱為（她的詩）為"抒情恐怖" ，是這樣的人真的是一個威脅嗎？ It’s hard to tell; the problem with preemptive action is that it’s based on prediction. 它難以分辨;問題與先發製人的行動，是它的基礎上的預測。 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. 雖然有些青少年人數可能從下載基地影片積極支持恐怖主義，兩者之間的差距活動，是大。

By wasting scarce legal and prosecutorial resources going after speech, rather than action, governments may be doing more harm than good. 由浪費稀缺的法律和檢察資源去後講話，而不是採取行動，各國政府可以做的事情是弊多於利。 The defendants in such cases no doubt see them as political and religious persecution, and their families, neighbors and larger communities may agree. 被告在這種情況下，毫無疑問，看看他們的政治和宗教迫害，以及他們的家人，鄰居和較大的社區可同意。

Joanne Mariner is a human rights attorney based in New York. 喬安妮水手是一個人權律師總部設在紐約。

Comment on 'How Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Free Speech' : 評論』如何反恐法，威脅言論自由' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相關新聞：