川普告科技巨擘 面臨憲法第一增修條文阻礙

Whatever else might be said about the curious lawsuits filed by former President Donald Trump, in which he accused three Big Tech companies of violating his First Amendment rights by denying him access to their platforms, it is fitting that he sued in Florida.

不論美國前總統川普提起的奇怪訴訟會被如何談論，他指控三家大科技公司不讓他上這些平台，違反憲法第一增修條文賦予他的權利一事，在佛州提告倒是合理。

The state has long been on the cutting edge, and on the losing end, of efforts to force private companies to publish political messages to which they object.

這個州在強迫民間公司刊載其反對的政治訊息方面，長期以來居風氣之先，同時也居於劣勢。

Almost 50 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper articles critical of them. And late last month, a federal judge in Florida blocked a new state law that would have imposed large fines on some tech companies that “willfully deplatform a candidate for office.”

將近50年前，聯邦最高法院撤銷一項佛州法律，該法允許政治人物對於批評他們的報紙文章擁有「回應權」。上個月底，佛州一名聯邦法官擋下一項新州法，此法可對「將公職候選人刻意自平台移除」的一些科技公司處以罰金。

Together, the two decisions, one from the Nixon era and the other issued June 30, demonstrate that the lawsuits Trump filed in Miami against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube face steep odds. The First Amendment applies to government censorship and not private activities, courts have said.

這兩個判決，一個源自尼克森總統時期，另一個公告於6月30日，皆顯示川普在邁阿密控告臉書、推特和YouTube的訴訟，面臨更高難度。法院說過，憲法第一增修條文適用於政府審查，而非民間行為。

The case that gave rise to the 1974 Supreme Court decision was brought by Pat Tornillo, who was displeased by colorful editorials in the Miami Herald opposing his candidacy for the Florida House of Representatives.

導致1974年最高法院判決的案件，是派特．托尼洛所提出，他對於邁阿密先驅報反對他競選佛州州眾議員的生動社論感到不悅。

Tornillo invoked a Florida law that required newspapers to give candidates they criticized free space for a reply “in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type.” The newspaper refused, lost in the state’s highest court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

托尼洛援引一項佛州法律，該法要求報紙「以同樣顯著位置和同樣類型」，給予其批判的候選人免費回應版面。報社拒絕，在佛州最高法院敗訴，上訴至美國聯邦最高法院。

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous court. But the First Amendment, he wrote, does not permit the government to usurp the role of editors in deciding what ought to be published.

首席大法官華倫．柏格為全院一致意見撰寫判決書，他寫道，憲法第一增修條文並不允訴政府強占編輯的角色，去決定什麼可以刊載。

“A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal,” he wrote, “but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated.”

「一個負責任的媒體毫無疑問是個理想的目標」，他寫道，「但媒體責任並非由憲法規定，而且如同其他許多美德一樣，無法以法律規範」。

Justice Byron White, who was often hostile to the news media, wrote in a concurring opinion that an unregulated and unruly press is better than the alternative of government control.

對新聞媒體常抱持敵意的大法官布萊恩．懷特，撰寫一致意見說，一個缺乏規範和不受控的媒體，好過政府控制這個替代選項。

“Of course, the press is not always accurate, or even responsible, and may not present full and fair debate on important public issues,” he wrote. “But the balance struck by the First Amendment with respect to the press is that society must take the risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed.”

「當然，媒體並非總是正確或負責，而且在重要公眾議題上可能沒有呈現完整及公平的討論」，他寫道，「但是關於媒體，由憲法第一增修條文達到的平衡是，社會必須承受這種風險，亦即關於重要事務的討論偶爾不會全面性，也並非所有意見都能被表達。」

美國企業 愛用公開信表態

Over the past few years, CEOs have taken a stance on a variety of issues that previous generations of business leaders might have avoided altogether. Some have pledged money or reassessed their firm’s political giving. Mostly, though, they have written and signed countless public letters.

過去幾年，美國許多企業執行長針對前幾代商界領袖根本不碰的各類議題表達立場。有人承諾捐款，有的許諾重新評估該公司政治獻金，不過多數是撰寫和簽署大量公開信。

Anti-LGBTQ legislation, police brutality against Black Americans, violence against Asian Americans and the recent efforts to restrict voting access have all prompted strongly worded statements from some of the nation’s most prominent business figures. In one case, hundreds of them signed a letter together.

立法反對女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀、變性人及非異性戀人士，警察殘暴對待非裔，亞裔遭暴力攻擊，以及最近許多州推動增加投票難度的法案，都激起美國一些最知名商界人物發出措辭強烈的聲明，其中一次是數以百計要角共同簽署公開信。

It can be easy to dismiss the significance of a letter as a tool of change. A signed statement is, quite literally, all talk, and it doesn’t guarantee any further action. But these letters also mark a shift in the relationship between companies and their employees and customers, and in the scope of the role that CEOs are expected to play in the social and political landscape.

公開信促進改變的重要性，很容易被貶低。署名公開信確實是空口說白話，不表示一定會有進一步行動。不過，公開信也意味企業和員工與顧客之間關係轉變，以及社會與政治層面期望執行長們扮演的角色範疇有所改變。

“The tipping point really was the 2016 election,” said Meike Eilert, who researches company and consumer behavior, most recently at the University of Kentucky.

最近在美國肯塔基大學研究企業與顧客行為的美克．艾勒特說：「臨界點就是2016年總統大選。」

As politics were becoming more divisive, Gen Z was entering the workforce and gaining power as consumers. “Digitally native generations, but especially Gen Z, put a lot of pressure on companies to stand up and demonstrate their values,” she said.

政治變得更對立之際，Z世代進入勞動市場並成為有力的消費者。艾勒特說：「數位原生世代，尤其Z世代，對企業施加很大壓力，要企業挺身表達價值。」

The nature of the issues at the core of these conversations has also changed. Recent CEO letters against voting legislation, for example, are a case not of demanding change but of speaking up for democratic rights enshrined in law decades ago.

這些對話核心議題的本質也有改變，例如，最近幾封反對增加投票難度法案的執行長公開信，不是在要求變革，而是在強調數十年前就受法律保護的民主權利。

“What you’re seeing is CEOs holding the center,” said Michael Toffel, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies CEO activism. Ten years ago, securing voting rights would not have been considered a “liberal” thing, he said, adding: “It would have been kind of an American thing.”

哈佛商學院教授塔佛研究執行長如何參與社會運動，他說，「執行長們在力守中道」，十年前，捍衛投票權不會被認為是「自由派」的事，「這應該是美國人都認同的事」。

So why turn to an open letter? Companies want to balance the shift in consumer and employee expectations with pressure from investors, who have historically tended to frown on any efforts that could divert resources from shareholder value. Writing a letter is a relatively safe way to do that, suggested a paper in the Journal of Marketing last year. Signing a group letter is even safer.

那為什麼要寫公開信？企業想在消費者與員工期望和投資人壓力之間求取平衡，而投資人過往傾向反對用股東價值資源做其他事。去年在行銷期刊發表的一篇研究顯示，寫封公開信是求取平衡相對安全的作法，與他人聯名發表公開信更安全。

Consumers and employees “do not accept silence as neutrality anymore,” Nooshin Warren, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Arizona said.

亞利桑那大學行銷助理教授努欣．華倫說，消費者和員工「不再接受沉默是中道」。