论文部分内容阅读
历史学家列维1960年出版了一部研究美国早期言论和出版自由问题的专著《压制的遗产》。列维通过梳理历史,认为制定言论和出版自由条款的原初意图不可避免地继承了北美的煽动性诽谤概念。直到1798年《反煽动法》通过,反联邦党的理论家才开始构建反对煽动性诽谤的现代自由主义的基石。在1964年“纽约时报诉沙利文”案中,布伦南大法官代表美国联邦最高法院撰写了判词,并创造了言论和出版自由条款“中心含义”概念,即煽动性诽谤和民主政体不兼容。为论证“中心含义”的合法性,布伦南简单而有选择性地引用了《压制的遗产》中的一小部分——麦迪逊的言论。面对布伦南大法官对该书的简单引用,保守派学者伯恩斯更加细致地考察了布伦南判词涉及的两段历史,同时将当时各州的煽动性诽谤法追溯到联邦党的汉密尔顿,这一司法传统远比反联邦党人的理论保守。
In 1960, historian Levi published a monograph entitled “The Legacy of Repression”, which deals with the issue of freedom of speech and press in the United States. By combing through history, Levi argues that the original intentions of establishing the terms of freedom of speech and press unavoidably inherit the concept of seditious defamation in North America. Until the Anti-Incitement Act passed in 1798, anti-Federalist theorists began to build the cornerstone of modern liberalism against seditious defamation. In the 1964 New York Times Sullivan case, Lord Brennan wrote the verdict on behalf of the United States Supreme Court and created the free speech and press freedom clause, the concept of “central meaning,” ie seditious defamation and democracy Polity is not compatible. To demonstrate the legitimacy of “central meaning,” Brennan simply and selectively cites a small part of Madison’s remarks. In the face of Lord Brennan’s simple quotation of the book, conservative scholar Burns examined two stages of Brennan’s verdict in more detail and at the same time, at the same time, seditious defamation laws of various states were traced back to the federalist party’s Hamilton, This judicial tradition is far more conservative than anti-Federalist theory.