论文部分内容阅读
对于试图在美国联邦宪法第一修正案体系内讨论乞讨问题的法官来说,乞讨是否构成言论自由是一个无法回避的核心问题。到目前为止,法官们分别采用了为乞讨下定义、将乞讨等同于慈善募捐、从先例中直接寻找依据等三种方法解答这一问题。解答的过程充满了纷争,而将乞讨等同于慈善募捐已成为同情乞讨者的法官所依赖的主要方法。同时,这一论争的过程也表明,争取权利和承认的过程并非一帆风顺,弹性的文本和丰富的先例可能提供“柳暗花明”的机会。
Whether or not begging constitutes a core issue of freedom of expression is an issue for judges trying to discuss the question of begging in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So far, the judges have adopted three methods, namely begging for definition, begging for charity donation, and direct finding of evidence from precedent, respectively. The process of answering questions is full of strife, and begging equates to charity fundraising has become the primary method relied upon by judges who sympathize with beggars. At the same time, the process of this debate also shows that the process of seeking rights and recognition is not plain sailing. Flexible texts and rich precedents may provide an opportunity to find their way out.