(单词翻译:单击)
Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班，
and today we're gonna finish up our discussion of the First Amendment,
今天我们将结束对第一修正案的讨论，
finally, by talking about everybody's favorite: the press.
最后，我们来谈谈大家最喜欢的话题:媒体。
The First Amendment is pretty clear that Congress can't make any laws abridging the freedom of the press,
第一修正案很清楚，国会不能制定任何限制媒体自由的法律，
and since you understand the basics of free speech because you were paying attention, the reasons for this should make a lot of sense.
既然你因为专心听讲而理解了言论自由的基本原理，那么这样做的理由就很有道理了。
But as with any discussion of the First Amendment, things aren't as straight forward as we might think,
但是，就像对第一修正案的任何讨论一样，事情并不像我们想象的那么简单，
and the freedom of the press, just like the freedom of speech, is not absolute.
新闻自由，就像言论自由一样，也不是绝对的。
The main thing to know about the First Amendment and the press is that it prevents the government from censoring the press.
关于第一修正案和新闻界，最重要的是它阻止了政府对新闻界的审查。
For the most part, this means preventing the press from publishing some information in the first place,
在很大程度上，这意味着首先要阻止媒体发布某些信息，
although it can also mean punishing a news agency after they published something.
尽管这也可能意味着在新闻机构发布了某些内容之后对其进行惩罚。
Let's deal with pre-publication freedom of the press first.
让我们先谈谈出版前的新闻自由。
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入思想泡泡。
Censorship of the press before a story is published in print, broadcast on television, radio or the internet, is called prior restraint,
在一篇报道出版、电视、广播或互联网上播出之前，对媒体进行审查被称为“事先限制”。
and the supreme court ruled that it was not allowed in a case called Near v. Minnesota.
最高法院裁定，在“明尼苏达州诉明尼苏达州案”中，这种做法是不被允许的。
In that case, a newspaper called The Saturday Press was gonna publish a story that the city of Minneapolis was under the secret control of a cadre of Jewish gangsters, in particular the mayor and chief of police.
在这种情况下，一家名为《周六新闻报》的报纸将刊登一篇报道，称明尼阿波利斯市处于一群犹太黑帮的秘密控制之下，尤其是市长和警察局长。
City officials obtained an injunction to stop the publication of this story,
市政府官员获得了禁止刊登这篇报道的禁令，
and they gave The Saturday Press editors the opportunity to go before a judge to prove that the story was true.
他们给了周六的新闻编辑一个机会，让其到法官面前证明这篇报道是真的。
I'll get to this question of truth in a minute.
我马上就来回答这个问题。
The judge ordered the injunction and said that if the newspaper violated it, they would be punished for contempt of court.
法官下令发布禁令，并表示如果该报违反禁令，他们将因藐视法庭而受到惩罚。
Instead, the newspaper counter-sued, claiming that Minneapolis and Minnesota were violating their freedom of the press.
相反，该报提出反诉，声称明尼阿波利斯和明尼苏达州侵犯了他们的新闻自由。
The supreme court agreed that no government was allowed to censor the press because a free press is essential for the political system to work.
最高法院同意不允许任何政府对新闻进行审查，因为新闻自由对政治制度的运作至关重要。
They based their decision on a lot of history, including Blackstone - the British legal authority
他们的决定基于很多历史，包括黑石——英国法律权威对此作出了解释。
which explained “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state;
“新闻自由对自由国家的性质来说的确是必不可少的；
but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications and not in freedom from censure from criminal matter when published.”
但这并不包括对出版物施加任何限制，也不包括在出版时不受刑事指控。”
And they also relied on an important American authority on the constitution: James Madison - heard of him?
他们还依赖于美国宪法的一个重要权威：詹姆斯·麦迪逊——听说过他吗?
- who derived a lot of his constitutional expertise from the fact that he wrote the thing.
——他的很多宪法专业知识都来自于他写的东西。
He said, “This security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt not only from previous restraint by the executive as in Great Britain, but from legislative restraint also.”
他认为，“这种对新闻自由的保障要求新闻自由不仅不应像英国那样受到行政当局的限制，而且也不应受到立法方面的限制。”
Citizens need a free press to be able to criticize the government and to expose government wrongdoing
公民需要一个自由的媒体来批评政府并揭露政府的不法行为，
because otherwise the government can get away with all sorts of things that we don't want it to, like say spying on us, and reading our email, and reading our spy's email!
因为否则政府可以为所欲为，比如监视我们，看我们的邮件，看我们间谍的邮件!
Of course, even with a free press, the government can do this, and what constitutes a press in the age of the internet is a debatable question.
当然，即使有了自由媒体，政府也可以做到这一点，在互联网时代，什么是新闻是一个有争议的问题。
WikiLeaks, anyone?
维基解密，有人知道吗？
But the basic proposition that the press must be able to protect us against an over-reaching government still stands.
但是，媒体必须能够保护我们不受过度干预的政府影响这一基本命题仍然成立。
Thanks Thought Bubble.
谢谢思想泡泡。
There's another reason why the Court put the kibosh on prior restraint,
还有一个原因可以解释为什么法院会取消事前限制，
and that's because if a newspaper prints something that is untrue about the government, or more practically, about a government official, there's a remedy for this.
这是因为如果一家报纸刊登了关于政府的不实报道，或者更实际地说，关于政府官员的不实报道，那么就有补救办法了。
The person or agency about whom the untrue thing was said or written and published can sue the publisher for libel,
发表不实言论或文章的人或机构可以以诽谤罪起诉出版者，
and if he proves his case, can get monetary damages.
如果他证明了自己的观点，可以获得金钱赔偿。
This is supposed to prevent newspapers from flat out lying about public officials,
这本来是为了防止报纸对政府官员撒谎，
but libel suits can cause another problem, in that they can basically end up being after the fact censorship.
但诽谤诉讼可能会造成另一个问题，因为它们基本上可以在事实审查之后结束。
If a newspaper is so afraid of a libel suit that it decides not to publish a story, then it effectively censors itself.
如果一家报纸因为害怕诽谤诉讼而决定不发表一篇报道，那么它实际上就是在审查自己。
Sometimes courts call this a “chilling effect”
有时法院称之为“寒蝉效应”。
and it applies to speech that people are afraid to make because of potential lawsuit or other punishment, as well as articles and news stories that go unpublished out of fear of potential punishment.
“寒蝉效应”适用于人们因为潜在的诉讼或其他惩罚而害怕发表的言论，以及由于害怕潜在的惩罚而没有发表的文章和新闻故事。
Tell you what, I ain't afraid of punishment for that.
告诉你吧，我不怕为此受到惩罚。
I can do what I want!
我可以做我想做的!
Freedom of speech!
言论自由！
Luckily for us, the Court dealt with the libel issue in another landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan from 1964.
对我们来说，幸运的是，法院处理了另一个具有里程碑意义的案件，1964年的《纽约时报》诉沙利文案。
This case involved an advertisement in the Times that included some inaccurate statements about the way Alabama law enforcement was treating Civil Rights protesters
这起案件涉及《纽约时报》刊登的一则广告，广告中对阿拉巴马州执法部门对待民权抗议者的方式发表了一些不准确的言论，
including Martin Luther King Jr. The Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, L.B.
其中包括路易斯安那州蒙哥马利市公共安全专员小马丁路德金·沙利文认为这些虚假陈述构成了诽谤，于是起诉了《纽约时报》。
Sullivan thought these mis-statements amounted to libel and sued the Times.
沙利文认为这些虚假陈述构成了诽谤，于是起诉了《纽约时报》。
He lost at the Supreme Court, and they ruled that the standard for libel of a public figure was actual malice, which was my nickname in high school.
他在最高法院败诉，最高法院裁定诽谤公众人物的标准是真正的恶意，这是我在高中时的昵称。
This means that in order to win a libel case, you must prove that the publisher of the libelous statement knew that the statement was false
这意味着，要想打赢诽谤案，必须证明诽谤性声明的发布者知道该声明是虚假的，
and acted with reckless disregard, my friend's nickname in high school, for the truth.
并且不顾后果地行事，这是我朋友为了真相在高中时的昵称。
This is an almost impossible standard to prove, and what it means is that public figures almost never win libel cases.
这是一个几乎不可能证明的标准，这意味着公众人物几乎永远不会赢得诽谤官司。
This goes a long way toward explaining some of outlandish things you read about politicians and celebrities in print,
这很好地解释了一些你在出版物上读到的关于政客和名人的稀奇古怪的事情，
and I'm not even gonna begin to talk about some of what you can find on the Internet, like a bearded dude talking about government and punching eagles.
我甚至不打算谈论一些你在互联网上能找到的东西，比如一个留着胡子的家伙谈论政府并击打鹰。
Some argue that we shouldn't feel too bad about celebrities, and we should remember that they are celebrities and are usually doing alright for themselves.
一些人认为，我们不应该对名人印象太坏，我们应该认为 他们是名人，通常做得很好。
Unflattering publicity might simply be considered the price of fame.
不讨好的宣传可能仅仅被认为是名声的代价。
I'd point out that celebrities are human, too, except for Lil Bub, the only non-human celebrity, and probably don't like being libeled.
我想指出的是，名人也是人，除了唯一非人类的名猫Lil Bub，可能不喜欢被诽谤。
I guess Jar-Jar Binks is another non-human celebrity, and he gets a lot of bad press, but he truly is terrible, so it's not libel.
我猜Jar-Jar Binks是另一个非人类名人，他得到了很多负面的报道，但他真的很糟糕，所以这不是诽谤。
So it sounds like the First Amendment protection of a free press is pretty much absolute, but there are always exceptions that make things complicated.
这听起来像是第一修正案对新闻自由的保护是绝对的，但总是有例外使事情变得复杂。
One of these exceptions is the question of national security.
其中一个例外是国家安全问题。
There are some security issues that are so important that the government is allowed to censor the press before they can print stories about them.
有一些安全问题是如此重要，以至于政府被允许在媒体能够发表关于他们的报道之前对其进行审查。
The best example of this is that the government can prevent the press from printing detailed descriptions of troop movements during a war,
最好的例子是，政府可以防止媒体在战争期间印刷部队行动的详细描述，
because this would help the enemy and put soldiers' lives at risk.
因为这将帮助敌人，使士兵的生命处于危险之中。
It's kinda like in the spy movies when the bad guys learn all the names and aliases of the secret agents, except it's real.
这有点像间谍电影里坏人知道所有特工的名字和别名，除了这是真事。
Knowing this, most newspapers wouldn't print this sort of thing, at least while it's happening.
知道了这一点，大多数报纸都不会刊登这种东西，至少在它发生的时候不会。
But what about after the fact?
但事后呢?
Well, it gets complicated, but another Supreme Court case gives us some guidance about what to expect.
这很复杂，但是另一个最高法院的案子给了我们一些指导。
In New York Times v. US -- why is it always the New York Times?
纽约时报诉美国——为什么总是《纽约时报》?
-- the issue was whether or not the Times could publish the Pentagon Papers.
问题是《纽约时报》能否发表五角大楼的文件。
These were secret documents, stolen from the government by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked at the Defense Department.
这些是机密文件，是国防部的丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格从政府窃取的。
They showed that much of the government's reasoning behind the Vietnam War was untrue or at least highly questionable, hmm, I'm gonna go with untrue.
他们证明了政府关于越战的很多推论都是不真实的，或者至少是非常可疑的，嗯，我同意不真实的说法。
The government tried to stop the Times and the Washington Post, too, from publishing these papers,
政府试图阻止《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》发表这些论文，
because it would make the government look bad and perhaps turn public opinion against the war.
因为这会让政府看起来很糟糕，可能会让公众舆论反对战争。
Now, this was 1971, and a good deal of public opinion was kind of already against the war, so much so that Lyndon Johnson had decided not to run for re-election just a few years before in 1968.
那是1971年，很多公众舆论已经开始反对战争了，以至于林登·约翰逊在1968年决定不竞选连任。
But the government said that publication of this classified report would cause irreparable harm to America's ability to defend itself, and they tried to stop the publication.
但政府表示，这份机密报告的发表将对美国的自卫能力造成不可弥补的伤害，他们试图阻止这份报告的发表。
The Court ruled against this prior restraint, further strengthening the First Amendment protection of the free press.
法院裁决反对这种事先限制，进一步加强了第一修正案对新闻自由的保护。
It also slapped down the executive branch, which was trying to claim its privilege to keep state secrets.
它还打压了行政部门，后者正试图宣称自己拥有保守国家机密的特权。
But we already mentioned this when talking about Nixon and his attempts to hold on to the Watergate tapes.
但我们在谈论尼克松和他试图抓住水门事件录音带时已经提到了这一点。
Anyway, as you can see, the First Amendment offers a lot of protections to citizens in the press,
无论如何，正如你所看到的，第一修正案为媒体中的公民提供了很多保护，
especially when they're criticizing the government or its policies, or even when they're making fun of celebrities.
尤其是当他们批评政府或其政策时，甚至当他们取笑名人时。
This is really, really important, because American democracy relies on its citizens having enough information to make good decisions and hold elected officials accountable.
这一点非常非常重要，因为美国的民主依赖于其公民拥有足够的信息来做出正确的决定，并让民选官员负起责任。
We rely on the press to tell us what the government is doing so that we can decide whether or not we want to let them keep doing it.
我们依靠媒体告诉我们政府在做什么，这样我们就可以决定是否让他们继续这样做。
If the government can keep us from getting important or even not so important information by censoring the press or by preventing us from speaking out against what we see as wrong,
如果政府能让我们获得重要的或者不重要的信息审查媒体或阻止我们公开反对我们所看到的是错误的，
it will be able to keep doing this that might be bad, and this is the kind of tyranny that the Framers of the Bill of Rights were most worried about.
那么政府将能够一直这样做，这样可能并不好，这是制宪者的暴政的权利法案是最担心的。
So the more you're concerned about tyranny, the freer you want speech and the press to be.
因此，你越担心暴政，你就越希望言论和媒体自由。
This is something to think about when you engage in arguments about Edward Snowden and his NSA disclosures, or Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
当你就爱德华·斯诺登和他在美国国家安全局的泄密行为，或朱利安·阿桑奇和维基解密展开争论时，这是值得思考的问题。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
I'll see you next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org.
在Voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course is made with the help of all of these free speakers.
速成班是在所有这些免费演讲者的帮助下制作的。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
That guy speaks a little too freely, if you ask me.
如果你问我的话，我觉得那家伙说话有点太随便了。
