首页> 外文期刊>Communication Law and Policy >The New York Times Case: A Note on 'The Central Meaning of the First Amendment'
【24h】

The New York Times Case: A Note on 'The Central Meaning of the First Amendment'

机译:纽约时报案例:关于“第一次修正案的核心含义”的注释

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Imagining an America in which officials in the highest positions of federal government support laws that criminalize the speech of their critics is not difficult. Not only were such laws passed in 1798 and 1917-18, assaults on First Amendment culture have extended into the twenty-first century. To punish his critics, for example, then-candidate Donald Trump pledged to "open up" libel laws. The ruling most responsible for narrowing libel law and limiting the success of public official plaintiffs was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Co. A landmark analysis of the ruling followed. Taking Justice William Brennan's opinion, Harry Kalven Jr. extracted a small phrase and breathed life into the large concept that remains as vital and necessary today as ever: The First Amendment has a central meaning - the protection of speech that criticizes government or its officials, without which democracy cannot function.
机译:想象一下美国联邦政府支持法律的最高职位的官员,这些官员支持将其批评者的言论定为将其批评者犯罪并不困难。在1798年和1917-1888888岁的情况下,不仅是这样的法律,就第一次修正文化的侵犯已经扩展到二十一世纪。例如,惩罚他的批评者,然后候选人唐纳德特朗普承诺“开辟”诽谤法。裁决最负责缩小诽谤法和限制公共官方原告的成功的裁决是纽约时报公司诉苏利文公司对裁决的一个地标分析。在威廉布伦南的意见中,哈里卡文Jr.提取了一个小短语并呼吸生活进入大型概念,这仍然是至关重要的,如此:第一个修正案具有核心意义 - 保护批评政府或其官员的言论保护,没有哪种民主无法运作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号