首頁 »
2015/03/25

​邦聯旗邦聯車牌爭議>歧視黑人怎會是言論自由?兼談台灣大法官審案速度

美國最高法院法官2015/3/23對德州可否核准印有南北戰爭「美利堅聯盟國」(Confederate)旗幟的特製車牌爭議,結果台灣媒體不曉得怎麼樣翻譯的,如自由時報竟翻譯成「歧視黑人是言論自由? 美大法官激辯」,人家也沒這樣主張啊,是美國德州「美利堅聯盟國老兵之子」組織Sons of confederate veterans認為他們有權特製印有「美利堅聯盟國」旗幟的車牌而德州監理處拒絕已侵犯了言論自由!非他們有權利歧視黑人!不要誤導台灣人了!

這個名詞的特殊性在於某些人認為這是南部驕傲的象徵,有些人認為代表了種族歧視,多位法官擔心,若同意Sons of Confederate Veterans團體,那德州當局就沒有理由不准許支持激進伊斯蘭組織蓋達(Al Qaeda)言論的申請。

報導的另一重點是這個案子這幾天討論,卻「預定六月會有定論」,差不多3個月就解決,台灣呢?

台灣有一個先例,引用如下(太陽花學運與台灣民主法治的崩潰) : 
或許許宗力、許玉秀你們二個在釋憲生涯中對許多案件不只拖了釋憲聲請幾年之久,如今感覺到羞恥了嗎?舉例來說,關於中醫師特考的第六八二號解釋,其中一個羅姓考生於二○○五年十月聲請釋憲,到2010年11月解釋才出來,五年耶,五年的生涯規劃怎麼辦?人生有幾個五年?許宗力、許玉秀正忝列於2010年間的大法官!台灣15個大法官,一年不過作出幾個解釋,人家美國9個大法官一年幾個案件?效率與法學見解何止於你們的數十倍乃至百倍,怎麼還有臉說大法官釋憲緩不濟急?

什麼鬼案子能拖過五年?就是中醫特考這個鬼案子!大法官們要多麼怠惰才能好官我自為之的拖死狗拖五年?

唉!一個新聞證明了台灣新聞亂下標題,又打臉了許宗力、許玉秀那屆大法官,台灣還真是妙妙妙啊!

Blackjack 2015/3/25

自由時報引用:歧視黑人是言論自由? 美大法官激辯2015-03-25
南北戰爭時蓄奴南軍旗幟 民團要求印上車牌
〔編譯張沛元/綜合二十三日外電報導〕美國駕駛人能否把被部分人士視為帶有種族歧視意味、象徵南北戰爭時壓迫黑奴的南軍「美利堅聯盟國」的旗幟,放在車牌上並宣稱這是言論自由?美國聯邦最高法院九位大法官對此意見分歧,二十三日起就此進行聽取辯論,預定六月做出裁定。
Sons of Confederate Veterans issue
*************

美國媒體:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2015/mar/24/supreme-court-justices-struggle-free-speech-case-over-confederate-battle-flag-license-plates/294930/
Supreme Court justices struggle with free speech case over Confederate battle flag license plates
March 24th, 2015by Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- In a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate, the Supreme Court struggled Monday to balance worries about government censorship and concerns that offensive messages could, at worst, incite violence.

Nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the justices heard arguments in a case over Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the battle flag. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag, which remains both a potent image of heritage and a racially charged symbol of repression.

Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from, from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.

The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing.

The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides -- the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.

If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad," and a call to make marijuana legal?

Yes, lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded each time on behalf of the veterans group.

"That's okay? And 'Bong hits for Jesus?'" Ginsburg said, reaching back to an earlier case involving students' speech rights.

Again, George said yes, and remained firm even when Justice Elena Kagan added in "the most offensive racial epithet you can imagine."

He told the justices that "speech that we hate is something that we should be proud of protecting."

The result of such a ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, probably would be the end of the state's program of allowing many specialized license plates, and a loss of free speech. "If you prevail, it's going to prevent a lot of Texans from conveying a message," Kennedy said.

More skeptical about the state's argument, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the sheer number of messages and their wide range show that the state's only interest is financial.

"They're only doing this to get the money," Roberts said. "Texas will put its name on anything."

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller said the state makes the plates and owns them. "Texas has its name on every license plate," Keller said.

Car owners remain free to express any message they wish by attaching bumper stickers or painting their cars, he said.

Keller urged the court not to force Texas to recognize offensive speech. "Texas should not have to allow speech about al-Qaida or the Nazi party simply because it offers a license plate propagating the message 'Fight Terrorism,'" Keller said.

But Roberts was unpersuaded by that argument. "If you don't want to have the al-Qaida license plate, don't get into the business of allowing people to buy...the space to put on whatever they want to say," the chief justice said.

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways. The battle flag is etched on a century-old Civil War monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health -- however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

The case could be important for how the Supreme Court determines whether the speech at issue belongs to private individuals or the government.

Eleven states are supporting Texas because they fear that a ruling against the state would call into question license plates that promote national and state pride and specific positions on such controversial issues as abortion.

George said states concerned about seeming to endorse controversial messages could print on the plates "This is not the state's speech," in large orange lettering.

"Where is that going to fit on the license plate?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

A decision in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, 14-144, is expected by late June.


謝長廷們、江春男們、姚人多們、吳叡人們還在阻撓真相←上一篇 │首頁│ 下一篇→如果台灣舉辦「找出種族歧視者運動」