【作者】 赵旭；

【导师】 范进学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法律， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 表达自由是指公民在法律规定或许可的情况下,适用各种媒介或方式表明、显示自己的思想、观点或主张而不受他人干涉或约束的一种自主状态。表达自由包括广义的言论自由以及象征性言论自由两类。广义的言论包括包括口头、书面(包括电子数据)、新闻出版,还包括书写、印刷、艺术、广播、电视、电影等现代传播媒介表达的各种形式的言论,以及发表政治性或政策性见解、学术性成果和艺术作品等。象征性言论是指所有目的在于表达、沟通或传播思想、意见等观念性质的因素的行为,即非语言的但有交流作用的行为,例如集会、游行、焚烧征兵卡、焚烧国旗、悬挂缀上和平象征的国旗等等用行动表达自己意愿的行为。表达自由是公民的一项基本权利,是各国宪法和国际人权文件确认并保障的重要内容之一,对于一国的政治、经济、文化、科技、以至于民族精神、公民素质等都有巨大的影响。因此,一国对公民的表达自由权利的保障的程度关系到社会进步与文明发展程度。美国宪法第一修正案禁止国会立法剥夺公民表达的自由和权利。若发生国会立法侵害公民为第一修正案所保护的权利的情况,联邦法院则有权审查国会立法是否合宪,从而救济被损害了的宪法权利。违宪审查以保障公民的权利、自由和人格为目标,是保障公民权利的有效形式。本文通过对表达自由违宪审查标准的研究,来更加清楚深刻的认识美国的表达自由的现状和保障表达自由的制度设计。本文共分为三个部分：第一章对言论自由的审查标准进行了阐述。由于美国有关言论自由的审查标准很多,我选择了影响比较大而又在一定时期得以普遍适用的审查标准予以阐述,包括保护恶劣倾向原则的审查标准、明显而即刻的危险的原则的审查标准、优先地位原则审查标准以及利益平衡原则审查标准。恶劣倾向原则的审查标准,是由大法官桑福德在审理1925年的吉特罗诉纽约州案中正式提出的,并在1927年的怀特尼诉加利福尼亚州案中法官将此理论发展完善,文中对此原则盛行的原因也从社会形势的角度进行了分析。明显而即刻的危险的原则的审查标准由霍姆斯大法官在申克诉合众国案中首次提出,1927年的惠特尼诉加利弗尼亚案中大法官布兰代斯对明显而即刻的危险进行了更加清楚的阐释,文中对明显而即刻的危险的审查标准也进行了解释和分析。美国诉卡罗林制造公司案中大法官斯通提出了优先地位原则的审查标准,大法官拉特里奇在审理托马斯诉库雷尼案中将优先适用原则进行的进一步的阐释,文中对该审查标准也进行了分析。在美国交流协会诉但兹案中,提出了利益平衡原则审查标准,文中对此原则也进行了分析和解释,并且指出了该原则的缺陷。第二章对象征性言论的审查标准进行了分析。由于象征性言论是由言论和行为组成,它的审查标准就是通过这两方面的关系进行区分的。把言论和行为区分开来分别按照不同的标准来审查的叫做附带性审查标准,而不区分言论和行为,把两者都视为言论而给予宪法第一修正案的保护的标准是严格审查标准。本章通过焚烧征兵卡案和焚烧国旗案两个案例分别就这两种标准予以介绍分析。第三章简单分析了表达自由审查标准的影响。它的影响主要是保护公民表达自由的权利以及维护国家安全与稳定。通过全文的分析可以看出这些标准的提出无非是联邦最高法院在公民权利和国家安全秩序之间进行平衡的工具,根据国际国内形势等因素选择使用哪种标准而使两者之间达到平衡,在不威胁国家安全稳定的情况下最大限度的保护公民的表达自由的权利。更多还原

【Abstract】 Freedom of expression refers to being able to freely seek, receive and express information without censorship and regardless of the medium used. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute in any society. Restrictions to freedom of expression should be founded on legitimate and necessary legal bases. Freedom of expression includes the broad sense of freedom of speech and freedom of symbolic speech. The broad sense of speech includes verbal, written (including electronic data), news publishing, writing, printing, art, radio, television, film and other modern ways of expression, as well as to make political and policy views, academic achievements and works of art and so on. Symbolic speech is a term used in the context of free speech rights under the First Amendment, to refer to conduct that expresses an idea, as opposed to verbal speech. Examples of symbolic speech, among others, include sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing protest buttons. Freedom of expression in all its forms and manifestations is a fundamental and inalienable right of all individual. Additionally, it is an indispensable requirement for the very existence of a democratic society. The protection of freedom of expression is extremely important in any society.The First Amendment of American Constitution prevents the congress to deprive citizens’freedom of expression. If this kind of situation happens, the Supreme Court has the power to review of laws drafted by the congress. Judicial review aims to protect the right and freedom of citizens. Judicial review is regarded as one of the effective ways to protect human rights. The paper researches into the judicial review standards in cases related to the freedom of expression so that we can have a better understanding of American’s freedom of expression.This paper divides into three parts.Chapter one illustrates judicial review standards of freedom of speech. There are many standards in America; I choose only four most influential ones to introduce. They are bad tendency doctrine, clear and present danger doctrine, preferred position doctrine and ad hoc balancing doctrine.Chapter two illustrates the judicial review standards of freedom of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is composed of speech and act, thus the standards are set up according to their relation. They are incidental review and strict review standards.Chapter three briefly analyzes the effluence of the judicial review standards of freedom of expression. The effluences are mainly on protecting citizens’right of expression and on maintaining the safety of the society.更多还原