论文部分内容阅读
国內学者常以为汉密尔顿和杰斐逊的出版自由思想是对立的。为了修正这种“二元对立”的认知框架,本文梳理汉密尔顿所经历的三个历史事件,深入探讨汉密尔顿的出版自由思想。分析《权利法案》入宪之争,可知汉密尔顿认为没有必要把《权利法案》写进宪法,但其反对理由中看不出他是否定出版自由的。他之所以支持《煽动法》,是因为该法包含了事实真相可以作为抗辩依据以及陪审团具有事实与法律裁决的权力这两项原则,而这也是他在克罗斯威尔案中极力辩护的。本文继而分析了这三起事件在反映汉密尔顿出版自由思想上的历史关联。最后还探究了汉密尔顿在本土研究中的缺失,以及国內学者为何会形成杰斐逊和汉密尔顿的出版自由“二元对立”的认知框架。
Domestic scholars often think that Hamilton and Jefferson’s publishing freedom are antithetical. In order to correct this “duality” cognitive framework, this article combs the three historical events that Hamilton experienced, and explores Hamilton’s freedom of the press in depth. Analysis of Bill of Rights into the constitutional dispute, we can see that Hamilton does not think it necessary to “bill of rights” into the constitution, but the objection does not show that he is denied publication freedom. The reason why he supported the “incitement law” is that it contains the principle that the truth can be used as a basis for defense and that the jury has the power of factual and legal adjudication, which is why he strongly defended the case of Croswell . This article then analyzes the historical correlation of these three incidents in reflecting Hamilton’s freedom of the press. Finally, it explores the shortages of Hamilton in native studies and the cognitive framework of why domestic scholars form the publishing freedom of Jefferson and Hamilton.