美國一個車牌引發的“血案”
A licence plate displaying the Confederate flag has sparked a US Supreme Court battle over the right to free speech. Have "novelty" plates gone too far?
一張展示南部聯盟旗幟的車牌點燃了一場美國最高法院關於言論自由權的論辯。“新奇的”車牌鬧得太過火了嗎？
Take a road trip across the US - anywhere - and you won't even need to stop or talk to the locals to know exactly what they most care about.
在美國境內自駕遊的時候，無論去哪，你都不用停車或者和當地人攀談，就能知道他們最關注什麼。
Americans wear their hearts on their bumpers. Colourful licence plates celebrating everything from the Boy Scouts to the soft drink Dr Pepper appear in the rear view mirror.
因爲美國人已經把他們的想法掛在車的保險槓上了。五花八門的車牌上什麼都可能出現：童子軍，胡椒博士軟飲等等都會出現在後視鏡上。
For outsiders it is fascinating and bizarre to see the range of issues by which the proud motorist separates themselves from the crowd.
對於旁觀者而言，看到這些標新立異與衆不同的人們自豪於他們的想法會覺得這是一件非常酷非常奇異的事情。
Anti-abortion slogans like "Choose Life" compete with "Trees are cool" and "Mighty Fine Burgers".
反對墮胎者們的車牌口號是：選擇生命，用來和環保者的“樹就是酷”以及和吃貨們的“漢堡第一讚”一較高下。
Goofy personalised registrations like DUUUDE and BOO81ES park side-by-side with sombre memorials to 9/11 victims and cries to save the environment.
當然也有像“本大公子”和“我愛大胸”這種彰顯二缺的個性標語同沉痛悼念911事件遇難者或者保護環境的標語車牌並列停放的情況。
But among this odd parade - there is one plate which has provoked a controversy like no other.
但是這些稀奇古怪的車牌們並沒有像那張國旗車牌一樣引發什麼論戰。
The design features the Confederate Flag and the words "Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896".
因爲這張車牌上是一面南部聯盟國旗和一段文字“1896年南部聯盟士兵遺孤組織”。
It was rejected, twice, by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, who ruled that "a significant portion of the public" find the flag offensive, due to its historical association with slavery.
這張車牌被德克薩斯州機動車輛管理部門兩次拒批，被裁決爲“由於旗幟涉及奴隸制歷史問題，對大部分公衆而言是一種冒犯。”
"Why should we as Texans want to be reminded of a legalised system of involuntary servitude, dehumanisation, rape, mass murder?" asked state Senator Royce West at a public hearing about the plates in 2011.
2011年，德克薩斯州議員羅伊斯·韋斯特在一次聽證會上提到這些車牌時說：“爲什麼我們德克薩斯州人要被迫想起那個充斥着奴役、反人類行爲、強姦、大屠殺的法律制度呢？”
This could easily have been the end of the matter - rude and abusive slogans are vetoed every day by the 50 state motoring departments, each of whom has slightly different criteria for acceptability.
這本該讓這件事簡單地畫上句號了——50個州的機動車輛管理部門每天駁回很多粗俗的和具有侮辱性質標語的車牌，儘管各自的界定標準略有不同。
But what happened next drove the issue of "novelty" licence plates straight up the highway out of Texas and into the highest court in the land.
但是接下來的事讓“新奇的”車牌問題從德克薩斯州的高速公路上下來，進入了美國最高法院。
The Sons of Confederate Veterans, sponsors of the controversial plate - went to the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where they successfully argued that to reject their design was to restrict their right to free speech - protected by the First Amendment.
這是因爲該車牌的贊助者——南部聯盟士兵遺孤組織到美國第五巡迴上訴法院起訴，稱根據美國憲法第一修正案，不准他們使用這個設計限制了他們的自由言論權，隨後勝訴。
The case now stands before the nine Supreme Court justices - who must consider how the rights of constitution apply within these 12in-by-6in (30.48cm-by-15.24cm) metal plates.
如今，這個案子擺在了最高法院的九大法官面前，他們必須考慮憲法賦予的權力如何應用到這塊長12英寸寬6英寸（長30.48cm寬15.24cm）的鐵皮上。
How did it come to this? How did an object so utterly dull as a vehicle registration plate become a battleground for the rights of Americans?
事情是如何發展到現今這個地步的？爲什麼這麼一塊無聊透頂的車牌演變成了美國人權的戰場？
"What began as reasonable self-expression has become divisive and confrontational," says Dan Neil, automotive columnist at the Wall Street Journal.
《華爾街日報》汽車專欄作家丹·尼爾說：“這是因爲合理的自我表達演變得具有分裂意義和對抗性。”
Emblazoning the Confederate flag on your car "is like waving a red rag to a bull - they're daring you to be offended by their politics", he says.
把南部聯盟的國旗繪製在車牌上無異於“在公牛面前抖動紅布，這是一種政治挑釁”。
The story of licence plates begins at the turn of the 20th Century, when the first "horseless carriages" began careering around towns - frightening children and causing anxiety for authorities.
車牌的歷史起源於20世紀初——當時第一輛“沒有馬的馬車”開始在城裏橫衝直撞，嚇壞了兒童也讓當局緊張。
In 1907, the state of Texas decreed that all motorised vehicles must be registered - and drivers must display their digits.
1907年，德克薩斯州規定：所有機動車輛一律需要登記，司機必須展示車牌號。
Many of the first plates were entirely personalised - crude homemade efforts, cobbled together from wood, roof tiles and even leather.
很多第一批車牌都是完全個性化的——它們是粗糙的手工製品，用木頭、瓦片甚至是皮革拼在一起。
Jump forward to 2014 and license plates brought in $17.6m in revenue for the Texas state authorities - drawn from two distinct types of plates.
時間轉到2014年時，兩種類型的車牌每年給德克薩斯州創收1760萬美元。
Personalised "vanity" plates allow drivers to select a configuration of up to seven characters - typically spelling out a nickname, or humorous slogan - often something on the cheeky side.
個性化的“浮誇”車牌允許司機們最多選擇七個字母進行組合——比較典型的有暱稱綽號和幽默標語——通常都沒什麼下限。
These are not the subject of the dispute in the Supreme Court. The case relates to the other type - "specialty plates" - which carry pictures, symbols and slogans supporting a cause or an organisation - often a charity campaign, a university, or a sports team.
這些不在這次最高法院論戰的範圍。這個案子涉及的是另外一種車牌——特色車牌——上面帶有一些圖片、符號以及支持一些事件或者組織的標語等，通常這些組織都是慈善團體、大學或者是運動隊。
These groups apply to the state to have their specialty plate authorised to be licensed to motorists for an additional fee - which raises funds for the state and the organisation.
這些組織向州政府支付額外費用，申請製作自己的特色車牌給司機使用，爲該州和組織籌集資金。
Texas offers 385 varieties of these specialty plates - among which the most popular topic is the US military and its veterans - 92 of these plates pay tribute to them.
德克薩斯州提供385種特色車牌，其中最受歡迎的主題是美國軍方和退伍老兵，92種車牌是歌頌他們的。
But while Texas authorities were happy to issue plates commemorating US soldiers who have fallen in modern wars, they are not willing to stamp their badge on a plate which honours soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.
德克薩斯州政府樂於紀念那些在投身於現代戰爭中的美國軍人，但並不想爲一個表彰南方聯盟士兵的車牌放行。
The state argues it is "fully within its rights to exclude swastikas, sacrilege, and overt racism from state-issued license plates that bear the state's name and imprimatur."
該州稱自己“有權不發行與納粹黨十字記號、褻瀆宗教和種族歧視有關的車牌。”
Opponents say this violates the free speech of the drivers who would select the license plate - a view upheld by the Court of Appeals.
反對者稱，該規定違反了駕駛員們在選擇車牌時的言論自由權，而上訴法院認同這種觀點。
But the state counters that license plates are government property, on which the government can decide its own message - which would not breach the First Amendment.
但該州則反駁說車牌屬於政府財產，政府有權決定車牌傳遞的信息，且這並不違反第一修正案。
At the heart of this case, then, is a simple question for the Supreme Court justices.
那麼，對於最高法院的法官們來說，這個案子的核心就是一個簡單的問題：
"Does my licence plate speak for me, or my state?"
“我的車牌是代表我，還是代表我的州？”
Vocabulary
bumper：保險槓
career：全速前進，猛衝
imprimatur：認可
