英国应重写资讯自由

Some years ago, when I was the media editor of the FT, I used to deal with one David Cameron, the public relations executive of Carlton, a large broadcasting company. Since then, Mr Cameron has become prime minister of the UK while I have stayed roughly where I was.

若干年前，我还是英国《金融时报》媒体编辑的时候，就常与一位戴维·卡梅伦(David Cameron)打交道。当时他在一家大型广播公司——卡尔顿(Carlton)——任公共关系高管。后来，这位卡梅伦先生当上了英国首相，而我一直没怎么挪窝。

So it is with some disquiet that I face the prospect of my old sparring partner introducing a law to limit what I, and other members of the British press, are allowed to write. It was hard enough dealing with him on contentious stories when all he could do was complain.

因此，如今面临的前景令我有些不安——我的这位“老对头正打算通过一条新规，限制所有英国资讯从业人员（包括我在内）的写作内容。想当初卡梅伦任公共关系高管时，对一些有争议的文章，他所能做的只有投诉，而那时他就已经够难对付了。

Mr Cameron has just been handed a report by Lord Justice Leveson on the culture and misbehaviour of the UK press – notably Rupert Murdoch’s defunct News of the World, which hacked into the private phone calls of celebrities and less powerful victims. Lord Justice Leveson is expected to recommend some form of statutory intervention finally to tame the beast of Fleet Street, although few know exactly what.

卡梅伦刚刚接到上诉法院法官莱韦森(Leveson)递交的关于英国报业不良风气及不当行为的报告——特别是关于鲁珀特·默多克(Rupert Murdoch)旗下《世界资讯报》(News of the world)的。《世界资讯报》窃听了一些名人以及一些无权无势的受害者的私人电话，现已停刊。预计莱韦森法官最终将提议采取某种强制性干预措施，以驯服这只“舰队街(Fleet Street)上的怪兽（指英国资讯业——译者注）——尽管没多少人知道具体是什么样的措施。

We are thus at a vital, scary moment in British constitutional history. If it is mishandled by Mr Cameron and other politicians, the UK could be returned to the days of state licensing of the press, which was abolished in 1694. Nearly 100 years later, the US adopted the First Amendment to its new constitution, barring Congress from limiting free speech or press freedom.

因此可以说，我们现在正处在英国宪政史上一个万分危急的关键时刻。如果卡梅伦等政界人士处理不当，英国可能被打回资讯业需要政府发放许可证的时代。那种许可证制度早在1694年就已被废除了，而该制度被废除近100年之后，美国通过了宪法第一修正案(First Amendment)，禁止国会限制言论自由（即资讯自由）。

The first instinct of any journalist (or any engaged citizen) must be to oppose all such interference. As Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice – the head of the judiciary – phrased it last year: “The independence of the judiciary and the independence of the media are fundamental to the continued exercise, and indeed the survival, of the liberties which we sometimes take for granted.

面对这种对资讯业的干预，任何记者（或任何受影响的公民）肯定会本能地反对。正如首席法官（Lord Chief Justice，司法体系的首脑）去年所说：“我们有时认为是理所当然的那些自由权利，我们能否继续行使、甚至这些权利能否继续存在，都有赖于司法独立以及媒体独立。

Sadly, it may be too late. The odious behaviour of journalists employed by Mr Murdoch and Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star, which repeatedly implied that the parents of a missing child were involved in her kidnap, has provoked such outrage that self-regulation has been discredited. Time has been called in the last chance saloon.

不幸的是，一切或许已经太迟。默多克和理查德·德斯蒙德(Richard Desmond)旗下一些记者的劣行已激起民愤，人们已经不相信媒体能够自律了——最后一点耐心也已经耗荆德斯蒙德旗下的《每日快报》(Daily Express)和《每日星报》(Daily Star)曾反复暗示一名失踪儿童的父母与绑架案有关。

But things are not as parlous as they sound. The UK could use this chance to enshrine in its constitution an approach to the press that curbs abuses of power while enhancing, rather than limiting, its freedoms. There are many traps but a decent outcome is possible.

不过事情其实并没有听上去那么危险。英国可以利用这个机会设计一种机制，既限制资讯业滥用自由，又增强（而非限制）资讯业的自由，并将这种机制写入宪法。这个设计过程可能会遇到很多陷阱，但产生一个不错的结果是可能的。

Not all laws are bad, after all. The First Amendment was a law. So too was the UK Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, which for the first time enacted judicial independence in statute while changing the way in which judges are appointed. Both curbed the power of governments and parliaments.

毕竟不是所有的法律都是恶法。第一修正案是法律，英国2005年通过的《宪政改革法》(Constitutional Reform Act)也是法律。《宪政改革法》首次明文规定了司法独立性，并改变了法官任命的方式。以上两部法案都限制了政府及议会的权力。

That is the test that reform of the press (and of digital news media) must meet – to be independent, voluntary, and effective.

这是报业（以及数字资讯媒体）改革必须面对的一项大考——如何保持独立性、自愿性和有效性。

The principle of independence is self-evident. Any law that allowed politicians to exercise influence over mass media outlets in the guise of “balance or the protection of privacy would be awful. It would be a slippery, yet well-trodden, slope from that to the landscape of the Soviet Union or China.

独立性原则是不言自明的。任何法律，如果允许政客以“平衡或保护隐私的名义对大众媒体施加影响，那么就是糟糕的法律。这类法律最终会导致出现前苏联或中国的情形，这样的事情已屡见不鲜。

Equally, regulation has to be removed from the iron grip of press barons who have financed and dominated the current Press Complaints Commission, the existing oversight body. The PCC has done some good things, but it lacked the power or the willingness to combat the industry’s worst practices. No-one trusts a tabloid editor to guard himself anymore.

同样，我们也不能让监管权继续掌握在那些资讯大亨手中。这些人资助并主导了目前的资讯监管机构——英国媒体投诉委员会(Press Complaints Commission)。英国媒体投诉委员会办过一些好事，但是它没有权力、也没有意愿去与资讯业内最丑恶的行为做斗争。没人会再相信一份小报的主编能够自我监督。

It must be voluntary because forcing all organisations to submit to a regulatory body is akin to state licensing. If any government levied swingeing fines on a media outlet that chose to set its own standards within the law – the stance taken by The New York Times in the US – it would create martyrs.

要保障自愿性原则是因为，强迫所有机构顺从一家监管机构，这种制度非常接近政府许可证制度。如果有政府对试图在不违法的前提下建立自己标准的媒体（比如美国《纽约时报》(The New York Times)）征收巨额罚款，那么该媒体将成为制度的牺牲品。

A voluntary approach would also allow any publisher, large or small, online or in print, to place itself within the regulated framework. Compulsion would involve the new body picking and choosing among publishers. That raises all kinds of problems in a world of fracturing media, where all kinds of groups and individuals can publish.

自愿方式也令任何出版商——不论规模大孝是网媒还是纸媒——都能将自身置于受监管的框架中。强制方式则可能会导致新的监管机构“挑选出版商。如今各种团体和个人都能发布消息，媒体越来越碎片化，强制方式会导致各种各样的问题。

Why would anyone volunteer? Mr Desmond, after all, left the PCC and expressed his contempt for his fellow tabloid proprietors. But he and others would return if it were in their own interests – if there were sufficient incentives to persuade them to take part.

那这些媒体为何会自愿接受管制？德斯蒙德最终离开了英国媒体投诉委员会，并表达了他对其他小报老板的鄙视。不过只要有足够的激励措施，为了自身利益考虑，德斯蒙德和其他人会愿意回来的。

This brings us to effectiveness. Many incentives have been suggested for those agreeing to regulation – a kite-mark of public approval, favourable tax treatment – but the best carrot would be cheap, efficient arbitration of complaints from the aggrieved. That would make life simpler and less financially risky not only for the individuals who cannot afford to take their cases to court, but for publishers.

接下来再谈有效性。对同意监管者提供哪些激励，关于这一点已经有许多提议，比如授予他们某种标记、方便公众辨识，或为他们提供税收优惠。不过，最好的激励是对受侵害一方的投诉进行廉价而有效的仲裁。这样不仅简化了流程，而且财务上的风险要小得多，受益的不仅是无钱上法庭打官司的个人，也包括出版商。

If combined with the introduction of a public interest defence against claims of invasion of privacy, and other legal breaches, it could be highly attractive – a similar system has been introduced in Ireland, and has drawn widespread support. The Desmonds of the world might stay outside but would risk becoming pariahs after Leveson.

如果还能对侵犯隐私（和其他违法行为）是否违反公众利益进行判断，这种仲裁机制将非常有吸引力，事实上，冰岛已实行了一套类似的制度，并已赢得广泛的支持。当然，全世界类似德斯蒙德之流可能不参与这套制度，不过经过了莱韦森调查这件事之后，他们这么做就要冒被社会抛弃的风险。

This would require a constitutional reform on the lines of the 2005 Act – a statute allowing courts to take into account the results of arbitration and enshrining the independence of the media from government as securely as that of the judiciary. The new structure should, as James Harding, editor of The Times, suggested this week, be monitored by judges rather than politicians.

可能还需要再次修宪，好像2005年那次一样。要将宪法修改为允许法庭将仲裁结果纳入自己的考量，并像保护司法独立那样确保媒体的独立性。正如《泰晤士报》(The Times)总编辑詹姆斯·哈丁(James Harding)上周建议的那样，这种新机制应该由法官来监督，而不是由政客监督。

At this stage, editors would gain more by drafting their own law than by objecting to any change and, as statutes go, this one is hard to object to. It would also stop Mr Cameron from getting too close.

在目前这种情况下，主编们可以起草自己的法律，而不是拒绝任何改变，这样他们会获益更多。此外，只要法规存在，这种制度就很难推翻。这种做法还可以防止卡梅伦“手伸得太长。