仇恨言论的宪法学分析--基于美国最高法院与欧洲人权法院判例的比较分析  

A Constitutional Analysis of Hate Speech——Based on Comparative Analysis on the Precedents of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights

作　　者：章小杉 Zhang Xiaoshan

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学法学院

出　　处：《人权》2022年第2期92-117,共26页Human Rights

摘　　要：《美国宪法》第一修正案的核心法理是内容中立,即政府不得基于内容对言论加以限制。虽然美国最高法院曾确立若干“不受保护的言论”类型,但是仇恨言论不在此列。在美国传统的言论自由分析框架之下,仇恨言论仍然是受宪法保护的言论。《欧洲人权公约》允许限制表达自由,欧洲人权法院明确反对仇恨言论,但处理仇恨言论的方法论并不统一。有时仇恨言论会被排除在表达自由的保护范畴之外,有时仇恨言论会被视为受保护但可予限制的言论。在面临仇恨言论的挑战时,美国和欧洲各自位于光谱的两端:前者保护言论自由而纵容仇恨言论,后者反对仇恨言论但过度限制表达自由。寻求规制仇恨言论与保护表达自由的合理平衡,需要对美国模式和欧洲模式扬长避短。The core legal principle of the First Amendment to the US Constitution is content neutrality,which means that the government is not allowed to restrict speech based on content.Although the hate speech is not included in the category of“speech free of protection”established by the US Supreme Court,it is still protected by the Constitution under the traditional analytical framework of freedom of speech in the United States.The European Convention on Human Rights allows restrictions on freedom of expression,and the European Court of Human Rights explicitly rejects hate speech.However,the methodology for hate speech is not uniform.The hate speech is either excluded from protecting the freedom of expression or considered protected yet restricted speech.When facing the challenge of hate speech,the United States and Europe are at opposite ends of the spectrum,respectively:The former protects freedom of speech and connives at hate speech,while the latter opposes hate speech but excessively restricts freedom of expression.To strike a reasonable balance between regulating hate speech and protecting freedom of expression,we need to adopt the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the American model and the European model.

关 键 词：仇恨言论 表达自由 不受保护的言论 权利滥用 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD911D998.2