“9·11”事件后美国言论自由案例的新分析路径

A New Analytical Path of Post-“9·11”Freedom of Speech Cases in the United States

"9·11"事件后,美国立法与行政机关出台并修订了一系列法律和政策以保障国家安全,其中包括限制言论自由的相关条款。在此背景下,涉及美国宪法第一修正案权利保障的案件区分了国家安全与非国家安全相关案例,开辟了围绕国家安全案例展开的全新审判分析路径。在涉及国家安全的言论自由案件中,美国联邦各级法院响应时局之变,与立法和行政机关积极配合,在法律分析过程中作出相应调整,预防性地阻止了很多恐怖主义袭击的发生。而在非国家安全相关的判例中,美国言论自由保护的审判分析路径则没有受到新分析路径的影响,保留了传统的审查标准和先例效力。总体来说,此"二分法"产生了两套平行并内在自洽的审判分析路径,到目前为止有效地服务了平常状态下和受到恐怖主义威胁的两个"美国"。

After"9·11",the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States passed as well as amended a series of statutes and policies to enhance national security,including statutes that would infringe upon the rights to freedom of speech.Correspondingly,the judicial analytical path of the First Amendment protections saw a fundamental transformation,separating normal and national security related cases.In national security cases that burden the freedom of speech,the Federal Courts of the United States reacted to the needs of the moment,by actively cooperating with the Legislative and Executive branches,and through adjustments in the analytical path,the Federal Courts preemptively thwarted many potential terrorist attacks.In non-national-security cases,nonetheless,the original judicial analytical path saw no effect from this transformation.Overall,this dichotomy has created two parallel yet internally consistent analytical paths,so far effectively serving two different"United States",one operates in normalcy and one threatened by terrorism.