為出版自由辨護
Defense of Freedom of the Press

對於一個思想高尚的人，失去自由，不如死。

1733年，約翰‧彼得‧曾格開始出版《紐約週刊》。這本雜誌批評了殖民總督的政策。一年後，曾格因煽動性誹謗罪被捕，在獄中受了十個月的折磨，直至1735年8月對他審判為止。他的律師安德魯‧漢密爾頓辨護說，曾格在雜誌上發表的文章不可能是誹謗性的，因為文章裏說的都是真的。他還進一步堅持說，根據已經確定的先例，應當由陪審團而不是由法官來決定印刷文字的真實性。陪審員會被漢密爾頓說服了，認為對皇家總督的指責是真實的，宣告曾格無罪，這是在英國殖民地上出版自由的重大勝利。
在審判曾格的時候，安德魯‧漢密爾頓(約1676-1741)是殖民地著名的律師之一。他出生於蘇格蘭，1770年前不久，他作一個契約僕人移民到佛吉尼亞。他教過書，後經學習考取律師資格，在馬里蘭州議會下院工作。在倫敦學習法律以後，他定居在費城，在那兒他成為一個傑出的律師。

閣下，我同意檢查官先生(理查德‧布拉德利)關於政府是神聖的說法。但是，如果他想暗示受壞政府折磨的幾個人的正當抱怨就是在誹謗那個政府，我的意見就和他大相逕庭。要是我相信那應當成為法律，那我就不會勞駕法庭來聽證我在這樁訟事中所說的一切…

不僅在宗教方面而且在法律方面也有異端邪說，而兩者都已產生了很大變化。我們很清楚一個人因為在宗教問題上持像今天這樣公開寫出和印出的意見而被當作持異端邪說者燒死的現象不是兩個世紀前才有的。看來他們都是有過失的人。我們不僅冒昧在宗教觀點上與他們不同而且還譴責他們以及他們的觀點。我必須假定我們這樣自由地思考和談論信仰或宗教問題是正確的。因為，儘管據說在紐約人們對這類問題十分放肆，可我還沒有聽說過檢查官先生曾對這類違法問提出過起訴的情況。由此我想事情很明白，在紐約一個人可以對上帝很隨便，但他必須特別注意他講到總督的話。大家都同意這是一個自由的時代。當人們保持在事實這個界限之內時，我希望他們在談論和寫到對當權者品行的意見時，應當有安全保障。我是指僅僅影響到在他管轄之下的人民的自由或財產的那部分品行。如果這種保障都沒有，那麼下一步就是要把人民變成奴隸。人們遭受了最大的傷害和壓迫還不能隨便抱怨，或者說如果敢抱怨，他們的身體和財產就會因此被摧毀。如果這種折磨不是奴役，那還有什麼國家才能保持奴隸制呢？

據說，而且檢查官先生也堅持認為，政府是神聖的，政府應得到支援和尊重；政府保護了我們的人身和財產；政府防止了叛國、兇殺、搶劫、暴亂，及所有推翻王國和國家，毀滅個人的一系列罪惡的發生。他認為如果政府官員，尤其是最高長官，都得讓他們的品行受到私人的責難，那政府就無法存在。這就叫無法無天，是不能忍受的。據說這會使統治者受到蔑視，因此他們的權威就得不到尊重，結果使法律得不到執行。這些，我說，以及諸如此類的說法是當權者及其擁護者堅持要談的一般題目。但我希望你們會同時考慮到，濫用權力是造成這些罪惡的主要原因，這是經常發生的。而且正是這些大人物的不公正和壓迫常常使他們受到人民的蔑視。儘管這種人權術高超，但是就是最不熟悉歷史或法律的人，誰還會不知道這種當權者常用的表面偽裝，誰不知道他們利用這種偽裝進行專制統治並被破壞自由人民的自由……

如果誹謗是像檢查官先生極力主張的那樣是在廣泛而無限的意義上來理解，那麼就我所知幾乎沒有什麼文章可以不被稱為誹謗，或幾乎沒有什麼人可以不被責為誹謗者。因為，儘管摩西很謙和，但他還是誹謗了該隱，而又有誰沒有誹謗過魔鬼呢？根據檢查官先生的意見，說一個人名聲不好是不正當的。那麼伊查德就誹謗了我們的好國王威廉；伯內特在其他許多人中誹謗了查爾斯國王和詹姆斯國王；拉賓還誹謗他們所有的人。一個人應當怎麼說或怎麼寫，或他應寫聽什麼，讀什麼，或唱什麼？或者他應當什麼時候笑，以便不至於被當作誹謗者逮捕？我誠信，要是現在有幾個人走過紐約街道並讀出一段聖經，如果人們不知道這是聖經中的一段話，那麼檢查官先生借助他的註釋技巧，就很容易將這段話說成是誹謗。例如《以賽亞書》十一章第十六節："人民的領袖使他們誤入歧途，這些受他們領導的人被摧毀了。"但如果律師先生想把這句話當作誹謗，他就會這樣來讀這個句子："人民的領袖"(暗指紐約的總督和市議會)"使他們"(暗指這個省的人民)"誤入歧途"和"他們"(指總督和市議會)"被摧毀"(暗指被欺騙而失去他們的自由)"這是最壞的一種破壞"。或者，如果某人以一種令他的上司不快的方式公開重 覆同一本書中五十六章的第十和第十一節，那麼檢查官先生在巧妙運用他的註釋本領方面就有發揮他技巧的廣闊天地。這些話是："他的看守人是瞎眼的，都是無知的。"等等。"的確，它們都是貪食的狗，從不知飽足。"但是要把這些話當作誹謗，根據檢查官先生的教條，只要借助他正確採用註釋的技巧，別的什麼都不需要了……

對於一個高尚的人，失去自由，不如死。可是我們知道在各個時代都有那麼一些人，為了晉陞或虛榮，就隨便幫助人壓迫，不，來摧毀他們的國家。這使我想起不朽的布魯特斯說的話，當他看著凱撒的那些人──這些人都是大人物，但決不是好人──時，他說："你們羅馬人、如果我還能這麼稱呼你們的話，那麼你們想一想你們在幹什麼。記住，你們正在幫助凱撤打造鎖鏈，正是這些鎖鏈，他有一天會強迫你們戴上的。"這是每一個珍惜自由的人所應當考慮的問題。他應當憑自己的判斷行事，而不是憑感情或私利行事。因為在感情和私利佔上風時，就不會考慮到國家和親屬的關係。正如在另一方面，一個熱愛自己國家的人，寧可一切都不考慮，也要國家的自由，因為他很清楚，沒有自由，生活是痛苦的……

權力可正確地比作是一條大河，當河水保持在河界之內時，既美麗又有用，但是，當河水溢出河岸，那就變成奔騰的激流，無法 抑制，它會摧毀一切，無論流到哪裡，都會造成破壞和荒涼。那麼，如果權力的性質是如此，讓我們至少盡我們的職責，做個珍惜自由的聰明人，用我們最大的關心去支援自由。自由是反對濫用權力的唯一堡壘。在各個時代，濫用權力都是以最優秀的人的血為代價換取其野性的慾望和無窮的野心。先生，我希望能原諒我在這種場合所表現的衝動。"鄰居失火時，我們得注意自己的房子。"這是一個古老而明智的警告。因為，雖然托上帝的福，我生活在一個自由能被理解並自由享受的政府裏，可是經驗已經向我們大家表明(我確信經驗已經向我表明)一個政府裏的一個壞先例，很快就會在另一個政府裏建立起權威。因此，我只能認為當我們對當權者作出應有的服從時，我們同時應當警惕權力在我們擔心的任何地方可能影響我們自己或我們的同胞，這是我的責任，也是每一個誠實的人的責任。

由於多種原因，我實在是無法勝任這樣一種工作。你們看到我是在多年的重壓下工作的，而且被身體的虛弱所壓垮。可是儘管我又老又弱，我還是認為我有責任，在需要我的時候，去最邊遠的地方，用我的服務去幫助熄滅對新聞報道起訴的火焰。這是由政府發起的，其目的是要剝奪人民抗辯和抗議當權者專制企圖的權利。那些傷害和壓迫管轄下的人民的人激起了人民的吶喊和抗議，接著又把這種抗議當作新的鎮壓和起訴的基礎。我希望我能說不存在這樣的例子。但是，總而言之，擺在法庭面前的問題，還有你們，陪審團的先生們面前的問題，既不是小問題，也不是私人問題。你們現在審判的不是一個窮印刷工的訟事，也不光是紐約的訟事。不！就其後果，這將影響到美洲大陸在英國政府統治下的每一個自由人。這是一樁最好的訟事。這是自由的訟事。我毫不懷疑，今天你們的正直行為將不僅會使你們受到同胞的愛戴和尊敬，而且每一個熱愛自由、不願過奴隸生活的人，都將祝福你們，給你們以榮譽，把你們看作是阻撓了暴君企圖的人。你們以公正、清明的判決，為保證我們自己、我們的後代和同胞得到自由打下了崇高的基礎。這種自由是上天和我們國家的法律所賦予我們的權利，是以說真話、寫真話來揭露和反對專制權力(至少在世界上的這些地方)的自由……

Defense of Freedom of the Press

May it please your honors, I agree with Mr. Attorney [Richard Bradley] that government is a sacred thing, but I differ very widely from him when he would insinuate that the just complaints of a number of men, who suffer under a bad administration, is libeling that administration. Had I believed that to be law, I should not have given the court the trouble of hearing anything that I could say in this cause. . . .

    There is heresy in law as well as in religion, and both have changed very much; and we well know that it is not two centuries ago that a man would have burned as a heretic for owning such opinions in matters of religion as are publicly written and printed at this day. They were fallible men, it seems, and we take the liberty, not only to differ from them in religious opinion, but to condemn them and their opinions too; and I must presume that in taking these freedoms in thinking and speaking about matters of faith or religion, we are in the right; for, though it is said there are very great liberties of this kind taken in New York, yet I have heard of no information preferred by Mr. Attorney for any offenses of this sort. From which I think it is pretty clear that in New York a man may make   very free with his God, but he must take special care what he says of his Governor. It is agreed upon by all men that this is a reign of liberty, and while men keep within the bounds of truth, i hope they may with safety both speak and write their sentiments of the conduct of men of power; I mean of that part of their conduct only which affects the liberty or property of the people under their administration; were this to be denied, then the next step may make them slaves. For what notions can be entertained of slavery beyond that of suffering the greatest injuries and oppressions without the liberty of complaining; or if they do, to be destroyed, body and estate, for so doing?

    It is said, and insisted upon by Mr. Attorney, that government is a sacred thing; that it is to be supported and reverenced; it is government that protects our persons and estates; that prevents treasons, murders, robberies, riots, and all the train of evils that overturn kingdoms and states and ruin particular persons; and if those in the administration, especially the supreme magistrates, must have all their conduct censured by private men, government cannot subsist. This is called a licentiousness not to be tolerated. It is said that it brings the rulers of the people into contempt so that their authority is not regarded, and so that in the end the laws cannot be put in execution. These, I say, and such as these, are the general topics insisted upon by men in power and their advocates. But I wish it might be considered at the same time how often it has happened that the abuse of power has been the primary cause of these evils, and that it was the injustice and oppression of these great men which has commonly brought them into contempt with the people. The craft and art of such men are great, and who that is the least acquainted with history or with law can be ignorant of the specious pretenses which have often been made use of by men in power to introduce arbitrary rule and destroy the liberties of a free people....

    If a libel is understood in the large and unlimited sense urged by Mr. Attorney, there is scarce a writing I know that may not be called a libel, or scarce any person safe from being called to account as a libeler, for Moses, meek as he was, libeled Cain; and who is it that has not libeled the devil? For, according to Mr. Attorney, it is no justification to say one has a bad name. Eachard has libeled our good King William; Burnet has libeled, among many others, King Charles and King James; and Rapin has libeled them all. How must a man speak or write, or what must he hear, read, or sing? Or when must he laugh, so as to be secure from being taken up as a libeler? I sincerely believe that were some persons to go through the streets of New York nowadays and read a part of the Bible, if it were not known to be such, Mr. Attorney, with the help of his innuendoes, would easily turn it into a libel. As for instance: Isaiah 11:16: "The leaders of the people cause them to err, and they that are led by them are destroyed." But should Mr. Attorney go about to make this a libel, he would read it thus: "The leaders of the people" (innuendo, the Governor and council of New York) "cause them" (innuendo, the people of this province) "to err, and they" (the Governor and council meaning) "are destroyed" (innuendo, are deceived into the loss of their liberty), "which is the worst kind of destruction." Or if some person should publicly repeat, in a manner not pleasing to his betters, the tenth and the eleventh verses of the fifty-sixth chapter of the same book, there Mr. Attorney would have a large field to display his skill in the artful application of his innuendoes. The words are: "His watchmen are blind, they are ignorant," etc. "Yea, they are greedy dogs, they can never have enough." But to make them a libel, there is, according to Mr. Attorney's doctrine, no more wanting but the aid of his skill in the right adapting his innuendoes. . . .

    The loss of liberty to a generous mind is worse than death; and yet we know there have been those in all ages who, for the sakes of preferment or some imaginary honor, have freely lent a helping hand to oppress, nay, to destroy, their country. This brings to my mind that saying of the immortal Brutus, when he looked upon the creatures of Caesar, who were very great men, but by no means good men: "You Romans," said Brutus, "if yet I may call you so, consider what you are doing; remember that you are assisting Caesar to forge those very chains which one day he will make yourselves wear." This is what every man that values freedom ought to consider; he should act by judgment and not by affection or self-interest; for where those prevail, no ties of either country or kindred are regarded; as, upon the other hand, the man who loves his country prefers its liberty to all other considerations, well knowing that without liberty life is a misery. ...

    Power may justly be compared to a great river; while kept within its bounds, it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it comes. If, then, this be the nature of power, let us at least do our duty, and, like wdse men who value freedom, use our utmost care to support liberty, the only bulwark against lawless power, which, in all ages, has sacrificed to its wild lust and boundless ambition the blood of the best men that ever lived.

   I hope to be pardoned, sir, for my zeal upon this occasion. It is an old and wise caution that "when our neighbor's house is on fire, we ought to take care of our own." For though, blessed be God, I live in a government where liberty is well understood and freely enjoyed, yet experience has shown us all (I am sure it has to me) that a bad precedent in one government is soon set up for an authority in another; and therefore I cannot but think it mine and every honest man's duty that, while we pay all due obedience to men in authority, we ought, at the same time, to be upon our guard against power wherever we apprehend that it may affect ourselves or our fellow subjects.

    I am truly very unequal to such an undertaking. on many accounts. And you see I labor under the weight of many years and am borne down with great infirmities of body; yet old and weak as I am, I should think it my duty, if required, to go to the utmost part of the land, where my service could be of any use in assisting to quench the flame of prosecutions upon informations, set on foot by the government to deprive a people of the right of remonstrating, and complaining too, of the arbitrary attempts of men in power. Men who injure and oppress the people under their administration provoke them to cry out and complain, and then make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions. I -wish I could say there were no instances of this kind. But, to conclude, the question before the court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, is not of small nor private concern; it is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may, in its consequence, affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main continent of America. It is the best cause; it is the cause of liberty; and I make no doubt but your upright conduct, this day, will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow citizen, but every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and, by an impartial and uncorrupt verdict, have laid a noble foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors that to which nature and the laws of our country have given us a right--the liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power (in these parts of the world at least) by speaking and writing truth. . . .