Many people in Western countries seem to treat freedom of expression as an almost sacred, inviolable right, but this is far from the reality. In constitutional democracies, free speech is already justifiably restricted in many ways bylaw or policy, even in the United States. The famous example of prohibited speech is falsely shouting “$\fbox{1}$” in a crowded theater.

In practice, courts will look at circumstances on a case-by-case basis to see where a balance should be struck between freedom of expression and other rights. No single right should be treated as an absolute. For example, Canada's constitution allows fundamental rights such as freedom of expression to be limited to protect someone else's fundamental rights, such as the right to life or liberty - or in the case of abortion, women's right to safely access a necessary medical service, which courts have determined outweighs the protesters' right to protest outside abortion clinics. Canadian society has a consensus on the legitimacy of using laws to counter hate speech.

(1)The history of violence against abortion providers makes a strong case for prosecution of those who spread hate speech against them. Almost all of this violence has occurred in the U. S., which makes a compelling argument for limiting First　Amendment^*protections of free speech.

On a Sunday morning in May 2009, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was assassinated while attending church in Wichita, Kansas. The killer; Scott Roeder, had been planning the act for some time and had collected information about the doctor's movements from Operation Rescue(OR)-an anti-abortion group that Roeder was actively involved in and donated money to. This radical group had moved to Wichita in2002 for the sole purpose of driving Dr. Tiller out of business, and in the seven years (2)lead up to his murder, OR engaged in a relentless campaign of hate and harassment against him.

Of course, {(a) wasn't just (b) and (c) the targets (d) his clinic (e) that were (f) it (g) Dr. Tiller} of ongoing harassment and inflammatory hateful rhetoric. The reign of terror directed at clinics and providers across North America has been going on for 35 years including murders and 20 (3)attempt murders of doctors and clinic workers, and hundreds of arson and bomb attacks on clinics.

Some shootings in the early 1990s were directly preceded by “Wanted Posters” put out by anti-abortion groups on the doctors, complete with their home and clinic addresses and often their photographs. Doctors David Gunn and John Britten were murdered by anti-abortion extremists and had been featured on wanted posters along with Dr. Tiller, who was shot and wounded in 1993. The posters were deemed by a federal court in 2002 to be a “$\fbox{2}$ ” under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, federal legislation that protects clinics from violence. With this decision, the judges overturned a lower court ruling that had deemed the posters and a related website to be “protected speech” because they did not directly threaten violence.

When people and courts defend hate speech against abortion providers as “protected speech,” it must be asked: Why are abortion providers required to risk their lives so their persecutors^** can have free speech rights? Why should doctors constantly have to look over their shoulder in fear, pay out of pocket for security guards and other expensive safety measures, [           ], and see their children ostracized and (4)bully at school, just so their persecutors have the right to call them “baby killers”?

The idea that vulnerable people and groups should have to tolerate $\fbox{3}$ against them in the name of freedom of expression is offensive. We're talking about peoples' lives after all- this is not just a philosophical debate. The right to free speech is a fundamental value, but it should not be allowed to outweigh the basic human rights of other people, especially their right to life.

• ^* First Amendment: the statement in the U. S. Constitution that protects freedom of expression and religion and the right to meet in peaceful groups
• ^**persecutor: a person who treats another person or group of people in a cruel and unfair way

• 問1 下線部(1)を日本語に訳しなさい。
• 問2 $\fbox{1}$と$\fbox{2}$に入る最も適切な表現を、それぞれa～dから1つ選び、記号で答えなさい。
  • $\fbox{1}$
    • a. Be quiet!
    • b. Bravo!
    • c. Fire!
    • d. Speak up!
  • $\fbox{2}$
    • a. false alarm
    • b. kindly warning
    • c. legal notice
    • d. true threat
• 問3 第5パラグラフにある{           }内の語句を最も適切な順序に並べかえて、2番目と6番目にくるものの記号を順に書きなさい。
• 問4 下線部(2)～(4)の動詞をそれぞれ適切な形に直して1語で書きなさい。直す必要がない場合はそのままの形でよい。
• 問5 第7パラグラフの[           ]に入れるのに適当な英語表現を自由に書きなさい。
• 問6 $\fbox{3}$に入る最も適当な語句を、この本文で使われている連続した英語2語で書き抜きなさい。
• 問7 次のa～dから本文の内容と一致する英文を1つ選び、その記号を書きなさい。
  • a. The author supports the view that hate speech should only be restricted in extreme and very limited circumstances, such as when it leads directly to violence.
  • b. A federal court ruled in 2002 that wanted posters and a website identifying and sharing personal information about abortion providers are free speech protected by the First Amendment.
  • c. Since the assassination of Dr. Tiller, a clear pattern has emerged between the distribution of wanted posters and the murder of the doctors named on the posters.
  • d. The author indicates that Operation Rescue created an environment where a person who is already sympathetic to its vies feels validated and encouraged to take action.
• 問8 この本文に含まれている単語について、次の(1)と(2)のア～エの中に最も強く発音される音節の母音が他の3語と異なるものがそれぞれ1つある。その記号を書きなさい。
  • (1)
    • ア. campaign
    • イ. debate
    • ウ. legislation
    • エ. rhetoric
  • (2)
    • ア. photograph
    • イ. pocket
    • ウ. poster
    • エ. shoulder