策劃、編譯■李威撰、謝雯伃

美國紐約祖科提公園內的抗議營帳於15日清晨被警方拆除，

引發抗議者強烈不滿，

無論是抗議者的律師、市政府或公園所有者，

都共同面臨一個複雜難題：

徹夜露宿公共空間的抗議方式是否得當？

憲法又是否保障這一表達抗議的模式？

▲一名參加占領華爾街的男子試圖要進入杜瓦特廣場（Duarte Square）旁的空地，警方淨空祖科提公園，抗議者紛紛聚集到杜瓦特廣場附近，圖攝於15日。（圖文／路透）

過去數十年，美國不少案件牽涉到一項爭議，即憲法第一修正案與政府維護法律及確保公共場所秩序的意圖發生衝突。代表占領華爾街行動示威者的律師列文在15日的聽證會上向法官表示：「這與露營無關，而是跟憲法第一修正案有關，他們24小時睡在公園裡，以此做為一種表達方式。」

Over the past several decades, a handful of cases have grappled with the issue, which sits at the intersection of the First Amendment and the government's interest in maintaining law and order on public property. Alan Levine, a lawyer representing the protesters, told a judge at a hearing on Tuesday: "It's not a camping case, it's a First Amendment case. "They're sleeping there 24 hours a day as a form of expression."

在外露營是否等同於言論，這似乎成了祖科提公園法律大戰的核心。雖然法官史托曼否決讓示威者馬上回到公園的要求，但潛在問題仍是懸而未決。

The question of whether camping out equals speech seems likely to be a central point as the legal battle over Zuccotti Park proceeds. Although Justice Michael Stallman denied the protesters' request to return to the park immediately, their underlying case remains pending.

在美國最高法院1984年裁定的「克拉克控訴創意非暴力社團」案件中，示威者提出請願，要求在華盛頓國家廣場過夜的權利，以此喚起大眾對街友的關注。

In Clark v. Community Creative Non-Violence, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984, protesters petitioned for the right to sleep overnight on the National Mall in Washington as a way of calling attention to homelessness.

即使假定睡在公共場所也是一種受到保護的言論形式，但法庭最後仍以7比2的票數做出裁決，認為美國公園服務處維護空間的權力具有實質重要性，且該機構相當限縮的規定條文已經足以禁止示威者在該場地露宿。在不涉及言論內容本身、基於國家利益之理由，以及嚴格限縮的法規不至於阻礙其他言論表達方式時，對言論自由的限制是可能被允許的。

The court held 7-2 that, even assuming sleeping was a protected form of speech, the U.S. Park Service's interest in maintaining the space was substantial and its rules narrow enough to justify preventing the protesters from sleeping there. Such restrictions on free speech may be permitted if they are content-neutral （1）, serve a state interest, and are narrowly drawn so as to allow other means of expression.

相反地，在2000年紐約聯邦法院的一起案例中，法官裁定一個租屋者倡議團體有權在市長官邸附近的人行道過夜，抗議租金穩定公寓提高房租。

By contrast, in a 2000 case in federal court in New York, the judge ruled that a tenants' advocacy group had the right to sleep overnight on sidewalks near the mayor's home to protest proposed rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments.

由於認知到一條完全禁止在人行道上過夜的法規會讓政府權力過分膨脹，因此法官表示只要示威者遵守約定，只睡在人行道其中一側，就可滿足該市欲保護人行道交通無阻的目的。

Finding that a complete ban on sleeping on sidewalks was too broad, the judge said that the city's interest in keeping pedestrian traffic unimpeded would be met if the protesters kept their promise of sleeping on only half the sidewalk.

另一名代表占領華爾街運動示威者的律師奧利佛在17日表示，示威者可能會援引2000年的案例，聲稱祖科提公園的使用管理辦法過於籠統廣泛。

Gideon Oliver, another lawyer for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, said on Thursday that protesters may use the 2000 case to argue that the rules governing use of Zuccotti Park are too sweeping （2）.

不過，知名的憲法第一修正案律師艾布蘭表示，他並不認為露營是一種言論形式。「在我看來，宣聲在某特定區域的睡覺行為本身不是只有睡覺而已的話，那就是過度延伸了。」

But Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, said he is not convinced that sleeping could be considered a form of speech. "It seemed to me a real stretch to maintain that sleeping in a designated area itself is anything more than what it appears to be," he said.

就算睡覺被視為一種表達方式，艾布蘭表示，市政當局仍有相對強而有力的論點：為讓民眾能使用公園，且保護附近居民，有必要移除抗議者的營帳。

Even if sleeping is found to be a form of expression, Abrams said, the city would still have a relatively strong argument that removing the protesters' camp was necessary to keep the park accessible and to protect residents.

艾布蘭表示：「我的看法仍認為他們在法律上沒有權利讓自己成為公園的半永久居民。」

"I'm still of the view that they never had a legally enforceable right to establish themselves as semi-permanent residents of the park," Abrams said.

在抗議人士提出他們的觀點，表明睡覺過夜是一種言論之前，他們需要確立言論自由權在祖科提公園中是完全受保障的。

Before protesters make their case that sleeping overnight is speech, however, they will need to establish that free-speech rights are fully protected in Zuccotti Park in the first place.

根據美國最高法院的案例，他們必須證明祖科提公園並不是「限定」的公共廣場，而是一個「傳統」廣場。人行道和公共公園是典型的傳統公共廣場，但其他向大眾開放的區域並不一定屬於此類。

Under Supreme Court precedent （3）, they have to show that the park is not a "limited" public forum, but a "traditional" one. Sidewalks and public parks are classic examples of traditional public forums. The same is not necessarily true of other areas open to the public.

2002年，聯邦上訴法庭否決某一團體要在紐約林肯中心廣場舉辦集會的申請。法庭的裁決表示，就歷史上來看，該空間一直純粹被用來作為藝術用途，因此屬於限定的公共場所，而非傳統公共場所。在這一類案例中，對言論的限制會經法庭詳細審視，判斷言論是否符合該場所存在的目的，以林肯中心廣場來說，其目的是呈現藝術。

In 2002, a federal appeals court denied permission to a union seeking to stage a rally in Lincoln Center Plaza in New York. The court ruled that the space had historically been used solely for artistic purposes and was therefore a limited, not a traditional, public forum. In such cases, restrictions on speech are only subject to strict scrutiny by the courts if the speech falls into the category for which the forum exists -- in the case of Lincoln Center Plaza, artistic expression.

由於祖科提公園的特殊地位，使得目前的案例變得複雜：在與紐約市政府達成的協議中，祖科提公園是一處歸私人擁有的空間，但卻必需全天候開放給民眾使用。公園歸布魯克菲爾德物業管理公司所有，但營運的方式在本質上與公共公園一樣，且免除了公共公園的宵禁。

The question in the current case is complicated by Zuccotti Park's unusual status: under a zoning deal struck with the city, it is a privately owned space that must be open to the public at all times. Brookfield Properties owns the park but operates it essentially as a public park, although without the curfews （4）that exist in public parks.

在15日的聽證會上，抗議者爭論，祖科提公園40多年來一直是一個公共場所，這表示這塊區域應可完全納入美國憲法第一修正案的保護。也就是說，布魯克菲爾德和市府方面在侵犯受到保護的言論自由權時，應先證明像是公共安全這類的真實利益遭受到威脅。此外他們也爭論，只能以最不激烈的方式來執行限制言論的規定。

At Tuesday's hearing, the protesters argued that the park's four-plus decades as a round-the-clock public space suggested that they should be accorded full First Amendment protection. That is, Brookfield and the city would have to demonstrate a genuine interest -- such as a threat to public safety -- before it could impinge on protected expression. And it could only institute rules that restricted such speech in the least drastic manner possible, they argued.

不過，布魯克菲爾德代表律師佛洛姆和紐約市檢察官尼奧菲爾德聲稱，祖科提公園在歷史上從未用來作為抗議之用，因此不該被視為傳統公眾廣場。但佛洛姆和律師表示，只要抗議民眾移除公園內的帳篷，他們對示威者在公園中抗議行為就沒有意見。

But Brookfield lawyer Douglas Flaum and city attorney Sheryl Neufeld argued that the park has no history of being used for demonstrations and therefore should not be considered a traditional public forum. Nevertheless, Flaum and lawyers for the city said they had no problem with allowing protests at the park as long as the encampment （5）was removed.

紐約市當局也表示，抗議民眾在此駐紮，出現電線、木板和香菸等物品，這些都會造成安全上的顧慮，而解決辦法唯有完全移除營帳。

The city also argued that the presence of electrical wires, wooden pallets and cigarettes created a safety hazard that could only be remedied by the removal of the entire camp.

在發動突襲之前，市政府14日下午2點左右，將官員指稱會造成火警危險的景象先拍攝下來，作為15日的呈堂證供之一。

The city took photographs of what officials said were fire hazards around 2 p.m. Monday, hours before the raid began, and included them as court exhibits in its filing Tuesday.

「如果發生火警，人們無法有秩序地逃出現場。」尼奧菲爾德在法庭上表示。

"If there were a fire, people could not get out in an orderly fashion," Neufeld said in court.

但代表示威者的列文表示「仍存在較不具限制性的選項」，他說市政府可以在不驅逐所有紮營者的狀況下，採取其他確保安全及衛生的辦法。

But Levine, for the protesters, said that "there are less restrictive alternatives," saying that the city could take steps to ensure safety and health at the plaza without evicting the entire encampment.

史托曼法官在15日的裁決中表示，他認為示威者在廣場上的活動無疑受憲法第一修正案保護，但他裁定布魯克菲爾德有理由對公園內的帳篷和過夜者進行管理，以維持一個乾淨、安全且眾人皆可使用的公園。

In his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Stallman said he assumed that the protesters had full First Amendment protection at the plaza but found nevertheless that Brookfield's rules against tents and lying down were reasonable restrictions to maintain a clean, safe and accessible park.（路透Reuters）

1. content-neutral

(a.) 無關乎內容的

2. sweeping

(a.) 大範圍的、籠統的

3. precedent

(n.) 先例

4. curfew

(n.) 宵禁

5. encampment

(n.) 營地

立報歡迎您投稿與指教。詳情請參投稿與聯絡立報