2026-04-30 11:04 AM UTC / 路透社
作者：扬·沃尔夫
2026年4月30日 11:04 AM UTC 1小时前更新
节点运行失败
[1/2]2017年3月20日，美国华盛顿国会山，联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米在众议院情报委员会就所谓俄罗斯干预2016年美国大选举行的听证会上作证。路透社/约书亚·罗伯茨 档案照片 购买授权，将在新标签页打开
- 法律专家表示，科米的帖子属于受保护的言论，而非真正的威胁
- 该起诉被视为特朗普政府针对政治对手的举措之一
- 专家预计检方指控将被驳回，依据是第一修正案及最高法院过往判例
4月30日（路透社）——法律专家表示，针对詹姆斯·科米的最新刑事指控存在根本性缺陷，将以言论自由为由被驳回，并表示这位前FBI局长因其对总统唐纳德·特朗普的批评而遭到了针对性处理。
此次指控与科米去年5月在Instagram上发布的一张照片有关，照片中贝壳在海滩上被摆成“86 47”的数字组合。检方称该帖子威胁了特朗普。
立即订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律资讯直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间阅读。点击此处注册。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
科米在该帖子引发的指控被提起的次日，于周三出庭。他表示自己无罪，并将对指控进行抗辩。
贝尔蒙特大学法学院教授戴维·哈德森表示，科米的照片“品味不佳”，但属于“受保护的言论”，并补充称该帖子远远算不上真正的威胁。
“更合理的解读是，这条信息很可能是表达对总统的反对，或是将总统赶下台，”哈德森说，“第一修正案最核心的原则之一，就是公民有权批评政府官员——哪怕言辞过激、态度尖锐。”
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
此次起诉标志着代理司法部长托德·布兰奇针对总统 perceived 政治对手发起刑事起诉的新一轮行动。布兰奇本月早些时候接管了司法部的领导权。特朗普去年曾在社交媒体帖子中点名科米，呼吁对其政治对手提起刑事指控。
“86”这个数字在餐厅用语中意为驱逐、拒绝提供服务或售罄。该术语与禁酒令时期位于曼哈顿贝德福德街86号的地下酒吧查姆利有关。
在某些军事语境中，该术语演变为意为消灭或杀死。
47则可能指代特朗普这位美国第47任总统。检方声称，理性的接收者会将该信息解读为对特朗普的威胁。
科米在帖子发布后不久便将其删除，并表示他“没意识到有些人会将这些数字与暴力联系起来”。
作为特朗普长期以来的反对者，科米在特朗普第二任任期内已经面临司法部发起的两起刑事案件。此前一起指控科米向媒体泄露信息后向国会撒谎的案件，已被一名联邦法官驳回，法官称负责该案的临时检察官任命程序违法。
专家表示，他此次也将成功促使新的指控被驳回。
广泛的言论保护
美国宪法第一修正案为美国人提供了广泛的言论自由保护，禁止政府侵犯宗教、言论、新闻、集会和请愿的自由。
在1969年的“沃茨诉美国案”中，最高法院表示，第一修正案不保护“真正的威胁”，但允许“对政府和公职人员进行激烈、尖刻，有时甚至令人不快的尖锐攻击”。
该案涉及一名18岁男子的刑事指控，据称他在一场反战游行中威胁时任总统林登·贝恩斯·约翰逊。
被告曾对人群说：“如果哪天让我扛枪，我第一个要瞄准的就是林登·贝恩斯·约翰逊。”
最高法院最终推翻了对他的定罪，称其言论属于“政治夸张”。
在后续的判例中，最高法院指出“真正的威胁”是“明确表达实施非法暴力行为的意图”。
隶属于美国企业研究所智库的第一修正案学者克莱·卡尔弗特表示，科米的贝壳照片比“沃茨案”中涉及的言论更为温和。
“在海滩上摆放贝壳，用这种场景来传达暴力威胁，未免过于怪异，”卡尔弗特说，他补充称此案“符合特朗普政府对其 perceived 政治对手进行报复的模式”。
卡托研究所的宪法律师托马斯·贝里表示，科米是“ frivilous 起诉”和司法部“骚扰”的典型受害者。
贝里称，尽管科米“永远不会被定罪”，但他仍不得不耗费时间和金钱为自己辩护。
“诉讼程序本身就是惩罚，”贝里说。
本报记者：扬·沃尔夫；编辑：诺琳·瓦尔德和斯蒂芬·科茨
我们的报道准则：汤森路透信托原则，将在新标签页打开
Prosecution of ex-FBI chief Comey over seashell post is flawed, experts say
2026-04-30 11:04 AM UTC / Reuters
By Jan Wolfe
April 30, 2026 11:04 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
节点运行失败
[1/2]FBI Director James Comey testifies before the House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 20, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Legal experts say Comey’s post is protected speech, not a true threat
- Prosecution seen as part of Trump administration’s targeting of political adversaries
- Experts expect charges to be dismissed, citing First Amendment and prior Supreme Court rulings
April 30 (Reuters) – The latest criminal charges against James Comey are fundamentally flawed and will be dismissed on free speech grounds, according to legal experts, who said the former FBI director is being singled out for his criticism of President Donald Trump.
The charges relate to a post Comey made on Instagram last May showing seashells arranged on a beach to form the numbers “86 47.” Prosecutors say the post threatened Trump.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Comey, who appeared in court on Wednesday, a day after being indicted over the post, has said he is innocent and will fight the accusations.
Comey’s photo was in “bad taste” but “protected speech,” said David Hudson, a professor at Belmont University College of Law, adding that the post fell far short of being a true threat.
“More reasonably, the message likely means opposition to the president or ejecting the president out of office,” said Hudson. “One of the most fundamental of all First Amendment principles is the ability of individuals to criticize government officials – even intemperately and harshly.”
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The indictment marks a renewed push by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who took over leadership of the Justice Department earlier this month, to target perceived political enemies of the president with criminal prosecution. Trump mentioned Comey last year by name in a social media post calling for criminal charges against his adversaries.
The number “86″ is used by restaurants to mean eject, refuse service, or run out of an item. The term is associated with the Prohibition-era speakeasy Chumley’s, located at 86 Bedford Street in Manhattan.
In some military contexts, the term has evolved to mean eliminate or kill.
Forty-seven is a possible reference to Trump as the 47th U.S. president. Prosecutors allege that a reasonable recipient of the message would interpret it as a threat to Trump.
Comey deleted the post shortly after it was published, saying he “didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.”
Comey, a longtime Trump foe, has now faced two criminal cases from the Justice Department during Trump’s second administration. A previous case accusing Comey of lying to Congress about leaking to the media was dismissed by a federal judge, who said the interim prosecutor spearheading the case was unlawfully appointed.
Experts said he will succeed in having the new charges dismissed as well.
BROAD PROTECTIONS
Americans have broad free speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government infringement on the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
In a case from 1969, Watts v. United States, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment does not protect “true threats,” but it does allow for “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
That case involved criminal charges against an 18-year-old man who allegedly threatened President Lyndon Baines Johnson during an anti-war demonstration.
The defendant had told a crowd: “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
The Supreme Court threw out his conviction, saying his remarks were “political hyperbole.”
In later cases, the high court has said “true threats” are “serious expressions of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.”
Clay Calvert, a First Amendment scholar affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said Comey’s photo of seashells was more benign than the rhetoric at issue in the Watts case.
“Seashells on a beach would be an odd context to convey a threat of violence,” Calvert said, adding that the case “fits a pattern of retribution by the Trump administration against his perceived political enemies.”
Comey is the “poster child” for someone who has been subjected to a “frivilous prosecution” and “harrassment” by the Justice Department, said Thomas Berry, a constitutional lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Bery said that while Comey “will never be convicted,” he will have to waste time and money defending himself.
“The process is the punishment,” Berry said.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Stephen Coates
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复