大理寺的秀才遇到兵系列－－五楼更新

今天讲的是道光三年（1823，我查了才知道的）米国大理寺的判决。当年的大事还有李鸿章出世（晚清多少个条约经他的手啊），接下来的百余年就是小白兔家的茶几。如今都快两百年了，欧美又要霸了利比亚。本判决的中心思想就是：占山为王，五百年不动摇。

再说一下判决作者，John Marshall, 米帝开山大老之一，大理寺第四任首座长老，在位三十余年。他判的 Marbury v. Madison (1803) 确立了米帝司法审查制度，也就是JY最流口水的三权分立。我对这个也流口水，虽然俺不JY.

问一下有人喜欢 Vissi d'arte 吗？特别是 Caballe 唱的, devastating啊

案名：Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh (21 US 543)

摘译：
The plaintiffs in this cause claim the land, in their declaration mentioned, under two grants, purporting to be made, the first in 1773, and the last in 1775, by the chiefs of certain Indian tribes, constituting the Illinois and the Piankeshaw nations; and the question is, whether this title can be recognised in the Courts of the United States?

本案原告诉称，其于1773年和1775年分别从部落甲和部落乙首领处受让而得土地若干。本案争议焦点：米国法院是否承认原告的土地所有权。

The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance, so far as it could be given by their own people; and likewise show, that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is, in a great measure, confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country.

本案查明的事实表明：二位首领拥有各自部落的授权，二部落在出让时合法占有涉案土地。因此，本案关键在于解决：土著是否有权出让、他人是否有权受让能够被米国法院承认的土地所有权。
（强调所有权和占有权的区别）

On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.

发现美洲大陆以来，欧洲列强就开始尽可能多地将土地划归自家名下。本大陆地大物博，各路豪杰皆可天马行空，各取所需；依土著的性情（JY讲的素质）和信仰，欧洲自视为天朝上国也无妨。以文明教化和基督福音换取土著部落的独立自主，在欧洲君王看来也是一笔公平的买卖。
（当年的土鳖表示同病相怜）
列强逐鹿中原，为避免相互残杀，必须建立并共同遵守一个基本原则：新土地归发现国所有，他国不得干预。
（插红旗，占山头）

While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.

欧洲各国在尊重原住民权利的同时，各自对发现的土地主张主权，即使有土著居住其上，各国仍可依主权将土地分封。受封者之权属除受限于土著居住权外，放之四海皆准。
（俺思路广，想到地上附着物）

判决接着讲述英法西荷等列强在美洲打江山、分山头的历史。略去N千单词。

Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians.
如此，全国土地在还有土著居住的情况下就被君王分封完毕。

接下来讲述有人不守规矩，列强恶斗、讲和、再恶斗、再讲和的历史，俺再略去N千单词。

By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution, Great Britain relinquished all claim, not only to the government, but to the "propriety and territorial rights of the United States," whose boundaries were fixed in the second article. By this treaty, the powers of government, and the right to soil, which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to these States.
俺们米鳖革命后翻身做了主人。大英在和约中将政府、领土主权等一并交给米府。米府由此完全获享大英原有的权利。

Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted. The British government, which was then our government, and whose rights have passed to the United States, asserted a title to all the lands occupied by Indians, within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them, and the exclusive right of extinguishing the title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword. The title to a vast portion of the lands we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the Courts of this country to question the validity of this title, or to sustain one which is incompatible with it.
征服即意味着所有权，无论个人认同其正义性与否，征服者的法院都无法否认该所有权。大英在米帝上位前对其殖民地内的全部土著土地主张所有权。大英对各部落拥有部分主权，并可剥夺土著因居住产生的权利。大英的权利（自东海岸起）向西推至密西西比河，全凭刀剑建立维持。
米国国土有一大部分源自大英，米国法院无权质疑米府权利的效力，也无权承认与之冲突的其它权利。



Although we do not mean to engage in the defence of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.
我们无意为欧洲处理土著产权的所依据的原则做辩护，但是就土著的习性而言，这些原则看来也是合理的。

The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old, and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connexions, and united by force to strangers.
征服而的权属凭的就是武力，征服者有权决定该权属的范围。然而，对舆论有影响的人道主义则建立起了如下原则：被征服者不应任意地受到镇压，他们的处境在征战目的允许的范围内应尽量得到维持。通常情况下，被征服者并入获胜的国家，成为起政府治下的属民或公民。社会的新、旧成员相互融合，二者的区别逐步消失，终将变成同一个民族。在种族融合可行时，人道主义和英明的政策要求：被征服者的财产所有权不受侵犯，新、旧成员平等，假以时日，被征服者的安全感会消除其亡国之恨。

But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.
但本地土著乃凶残的蛮族，专职于战争，以狩猎为生。让他们拥有自己的国家就意味着将这个国家置于荒蛮之中。将土著作为一个独特民族进行统治是不可能的，因为他们在凶残的同时还勇敢骄傲，随时准备着武装反抗，以获得独立。

What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighbourhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred.
如此事态的归宿如何？欧洲只有两种选择：抛弃美洲或者以武力捍卫其权利，对付这些无法融合、无法驯服、无法和睦相处的凶蛮。

Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed. As the white population advanced, that of the Indians necessarily receded. The country in the immediate neighbourhood of agriculturists became unfit for them. The game fled into thicker and more unbroken forests, and the Indians followed. The soil, to which the crown originally claimed title, being no longer occupied by its ancient inhabitants, was parcelled out according to the will of the sovereign power, and taken possession of by persons who claimed immediately from the crown, or mediately, through its grantees or deputies.
频繁的血战（不一定由白人挑起）无可避免地发生。欧洲在战略、人数、技术上更胜一筹，白人挺进，土著自然后退。白人开拓的种植园附近已不再适合土著生存——猎物逃进深山老林，土著尾随之。他们空出来的土地（之前欧王已宣布为其所有）则依主上意志分赏，p民们就排排坐分果果。

长老好能聊，以下再略去n千单词。

The Court is decidedly of opinion, that the plaintiffs do not exhibit a title which can be sustained in the Courts of the United States.

大理寺宣：原告的所有权不为米国法院认可。

今天讲的是道光三年（1823，我查了才知道的）米国大理寺的判决。当年的大事还有李鸿章出世（晚清多少个条约经他的手啊），接下来的百余年就是小白兔家的茶几。如今都快两百年了，欧美又要霸了利比亚。本判决的中心思想就是：占山为王，五百年不动摇。

再说一下判决作者，John Marshall, 米帝开山大老之一，大理寺第四任首座长老，在位三十余年。他判的 Marbury v. Madison (1803) 确立了米帝司法审查制度，也就是JY最流口水的三权分立。我对这个也流口水，虽然俺不JY.

问一下有人喜欢 Vissi d'arte 吗？特别是 Caballe 唱的, devastating啊

案名：Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh (21 US 543)

摘译：
The plaintiffs in this cause claim the land, in their declaration mentioned, under two grants, purporting to be made, the first in 1773, and the last in 1775, by the chiefs of certain Indian tribes, constituting the Illinois and the Piankeshaw nations; and the question is, whether this title can be recognised in the Courts of the United States?

本案原告诉称，其于1773年和1775年分别从部落甲和部落乙首领处受让而得土地若干。本案争议焦点：米国法院是否承认原告的土地所有权。

The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance, so far as it could be given by their own people; and likewise show, that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is, in a great measure, confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country.

本案查明的事实表明：二位首领拥有各自部落的授权，二部落在出让时合法占有涉案土地。因此，本案关键在于解决：土著是否有权出让、他人是否有权受让能够被米国法院承认的土地所有权。
（强调所有权和占有权的区别）

On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.

发现美洲大陆以来，欧洲列强就开始尽可能多地将土地划归自家名下。本大陆地大物博，各路豪杰皆可天马行空，各取所需；依土著的性情（JY讲的素质）和信仰，欧洲自视为天朝上国也无妨。以文明教化和基督福音换取土著部落的独立自主，在欧洲君王看来也是一笔公平的买卖。
（当年的土鳖表示同病相怜）
列强逐鹿中原，为避免相互残杀，必须建立并共同遵守一个基本原则：新土地归发现国所有，他国不得干预。
（插红旗，占山头）

While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.

欧洲各国在尊重原住民权利的同时，各自对发现的土地主张主权，即使有土著居住其上，各国仍可依主权将土地分封。受封者之权属除受限于土著居住权外，放之四海皆准。
（俺思路广，想到地上附着物）

判决接着讲述英法西荷等列强在美洲打江山、分山头的历史。略去N千单词。

Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians.
如此，全国土地在还有土著居住的情况下就被君王分封完毕。

接下来讲述有人不守规矩，列强恶斗、讲和、再恶斗、再讲和的历史，俺再略去N千单词。

By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution, Great Britain relinquished all claim, not only to the government, but to the "propriety and territorial rights of the United States," whose boundaries were fixed in the second article. By this treaty, the powers of government, and the right to soil, which had previously been in Great Britain, passed definitively to these States.
俺们米鳖革命后翻身做了主人。大英在和约中将政府、领土主权等一并交给米府。米府由此完全获享大英原有的权利。

Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted. The British government, which was then our government, and whose rights have passed to the United States, asserted a title to all the lands occupied by Indians, within the chartered limits of the British colonies. It asserted also a limited sovereignty over them, and the exclusive right of extinguishing the title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword. The title to a vast portion of the lands we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the Courts of this country to question the validity of this title, or to sustain one which is incompatible with it.
征服即意味着所有权，无论个人认同其正义性与否，征服者的法院都无法否认该所有权。大英在米帝上位前对其殖民地内的全部土著土地主张所有权。大英对各部落拥有部分主权，并可剥夺土著因居住产生的权利。大英的权利（自东海岸起）向西推至密西西比河，全凭刀剑建立维持。
米国国土有一大部分源自大英，米国法院无权质疑米府权利的效力，也无权承认与之冲突的其它权利。



Although we do not mean to engage in the defence of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.
我们无意为欧洲处理土著产权的所依据的原则做辩护，但是就土著的习性而言，这些原则看来也是合理的。

The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable, humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old, and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connexions, and united by force to strangers.
征服而的权属凭的就是武力，征服者有权决定该权属的范围。然而，对舆论有影响的人道主义则建立起了如下原则：被征服者不应任意地受到镇压，他们的处境在征战目的允许的范围内应尽量得到维持。通常情况下，被征服者并入获胜的国家，成为起政府治下的属民或公民。社会的新、旧成员相互融合，二者的区别逐步消失，终将变成同一个民族。在种族融合可行时，人道主义和英明的政策要求：被征服者的财产所有权不受侵犯，新、旧成员平等，假以时日，被征服者的安全感会消除其亡国之恨。

But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.
但本地土著乃凶残的蛮族，专职于战争，以狩猎为生。让他们拥有自己的国家就意味着将这个国家置于荒蛮之中。将土著作为一个独特民族进行统治是不可能的，因为他们在凶残的同时还勇敢骄傲，随时准备着武装反抗，以获得独立。

What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighbourhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred.
如此事态的归宿如何？欧洲只有两种选择：抛弃美洲或者以武力捍卫其权利，对付这些无法融合、无法驯服、无法和睦相处的凶蛮。

Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed. As the white population advanced, that of the Indians necessarily receded. The country in the immediate neighbourhood of agriculturists became unfit for them. The game fled into thicker and more unbroken forests, and the Indians followed. The soil, to which the crown originally claimed title, being no longer occupied by its ancient inhabitants, was parcelled out according to the will of the sovereign power, and taken possession of by persons who claimed immediately from the crown, or mediately, through its grantees or deputies.
频繁的血战（不一定由白人挑起）无可避免地发生。欧洲在战略、人数、技术上更胜一筹，白人挺进，土著自然后退。白人开拓的种植园附近已不再适合土著生存——猎物逃进深山老林，土著尾随之。他们空出来的土地（之前欧王已宣布为其所有）则依主上意志分赏，p民们就排排坐分果果。

长老好能聊，以下再略去n千单词。

The Court is decidedly of opinion, that the plaintiffs do not exhibit a title which can be sustained in the Courts of the United States.

大理寺宣：原告的所有权不为米国法院认可。

在超大讲Honeywell无异于班门弄斧，本案涉及股东试图行使股权逼迫Honeywell停止向越战美军供火一事。明州最高法院认定该股东动机不纯，判其败诉。

案件号 191 N.W.2d 406 (1971)
案件名 STATE of Minnesota ex rel. Charles A. PILLSBURY v. HONEYWELL, INC.

事实部分：
Petitioner attended a meeting on July 3, 1969, of a group involved in what was known as the "Honeywell Project." Participants in the project believed that American involvement in Vietnam was wrong, that a substantial portion of Honeywell's production consisted of munitions used in that war, and that Honeywell should stop this production of munitions. 
上诉人于1969年7月3日参加名为＂Honeywell项目＂的组织聚会。该组织成员认为美国卷入越战错误的，而蜜井公司生产的军火有相当一部分销往越南，蜜井应停止这部分军火供应。

Petitioner had long opposed the Vietnam war, but it was at the July 3rd meeting that he first learned of Honeywell's involvement. He was shocked at the knowledge that Honeywell had a large government contract to produce anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. Upset because of knowledge that such bombs were produced in his own community by a company which he had known and respected, petitioner determined to stop Honeywell's munitions production.
上诉人长期以来反对越战，在这次聚会上他首次获知蜜井亦有染指。他对蜜井向米军供应集束炸弹的消息尤为震惊。本社区一个高大全形象就此化为浮云，上诉人恼怒之余决定阻止蜜井的军火生产。（史公叹：螳臂当车）

On July 14, 1969, petitioner ordered his fiscal agent to purchase 100 shares of Honeywell. He admits that the sole purpose of the purchase was to give himself a voice in Honeywell's affairs so he could persuade Honeywell to cease producing munitions.
当月14日，上诉人令其理财中介购入蜜井一百股。上诉人坦承其入股的唯一目的就是为了在蜜井的事务上有发言权，以便劝说蜜井停止军火生产。


Prior to the instigation of this suit, petitioner submitted two formal demands to Honeywell requesting that it produce its original shareholder ledger, current shareholder ledger, and all corporate records dealing with weapons and munitions manufacture. Honeywell refused.
上诉人在诉前曾两度要求蜜井提供原始及当前股东列表和有关军火生产的所有记录，遭拒。

On November 24, 1969, a petition was filed for writs of mandamus ordering Honeywell to produce the above mentioned records.
当年11月24日，上诉人向法院申请执行令，要求蜜井提供上述文件。

法律部分：
...the shareholder must prove a proper purpose to inspect corporate records...
股东在检查公司记录前必须证实其出于合理目的。

...a "proper purpose" contemplates concern with investment return...
＂合理目的＂应与投资回报有关。

...inspection will not be permitted for purposes of curiosity, speculation, or vexation, adverseness to management…
出于好奇、臆念、滋扰或者刁难管理层等目的，不得检视公司记录。

His avowed purpose in buying Honeywell stock was to place himself in a position to try to impress his opinions favoring a reordering of priorities upon Honeywell management and its other shareholders. Such a motivation can hardly be deemed a proper purpose germane to his economic interest as a shareholder.
上诉人购入蜜井股票的目的就是将其个人的意图强加于公司管理层和其他股东之上。如此动机不能视为关乎股东经济利益的＂合理目的＂。

结论：
The order of the trial court denying the writ of mandamus is affirmed.
维持初审法院拒绝签发执行令的决定。

在超大讲Honeywell无异于班门弄斧，本案涉及股东试图行使股权逼迫Honeywell停止向越战美军供火一事。明州最高法院认定该股东动机不纯，判其败诉。

案件号 191 N.W.2d 406 (1971)
案件名 STATE of Minnesota ex rel. Charles A. PILLSBURY v. HONEYWELL, INC.

事实部分：
Petitioner attended a meeting on July 3, 1969, of a group involved in what was known as the "Honeywell Project." Participants in the project believed that American involvement in Vietnam was wrong, that a substantial portion of Honeywell's production consisted of munitions used in that war, and that Honeywell should stop this production of munitions. 
上诉人于1969年7月3日参加名为＂Honeywell项目＂的组织聚会。该组织成员认为美国卷入越战错误的，而蜜井公司生产的军火有相当一部分销往越南，蜜井应停止这部分军火供应。

Petitioner had long opposed the Vietnam war, but it was at the July 3rd meeting that he first learned of Honeywell's involvement. He was shocked at the knowledge that Honeywell had a large government contract to produce anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. Upset because of knowledge that such bombs were produced in his own community by a company which he had known and respected, petitioner determined to stop Honeywell's munitions production.
上诉人长期以来反对越战，在这次聚会上他首次获知蜜井亦有染指。他对蜜井向米军供应集束炸弹的消息尤为震惊。本社区一个高大全形象就此化为浮云，上诉人恼怒之余决定阻止蜜井的军火生产。（史公叹：螳臂当车）

On July 14, 1969, petitioner ordered his fiscal agent to purchase 100 shares of Honeywell. He admits that the sole purpose of the purchase was to give himself a voice in Honeywell's affairs so he could persuade Honeywell to cease producing munitions.
当月14日，上诉人令其理财中介购入蜜井一百股。上诉人坦承其入股的唯一目的就是为了在蜜井的事务上有发言权，以便劝说蜜井停止军火生产。


Prior to the instigation of this suit, petitioner submitted two formal demands to Honeywell requesting that it produce its original shareholder ledger, current shareholder ledger, and all corporate records dealing with weapons and munitions manufacture. Honeywell refused.
上诉人在诉前曾两度要求蜜井提供原始及当前股东列表和有关军火生产的所有记录，遭拒。

On November 24, 1969, a petition was filed for writs of mandamus ordering Honeywell to produce the above mentioned records.
当年11月24日，上诉人向法院申请执行令，要求蜜井提供上述文件。

法律部分：
...the shareholder must prove a proper purpose to inspect corporate records...
股东在检查公司记录前必须证实其出于合理目的。

...a "proper purpose" contemplates concern with investment return...
＂合理目的＂应与投资回报有关。

...inspection will not be permitted for purposes of curiosity, speculation, or vexation, adverseness to management…
出于好奇、臆念、滋扰或者刁难管理层等目的，不得检视公司记录。

His avowed purpose in buying Honeywell stock was to place himself in a position to try to impress his opinions favoring a reordering of priorities upon Honeywell management and its other shareholders. Such a motivation can hardly be deemed a proper purpose germane to his economic interest as a shareholder.
上诉人购入蜜井股票的目的就是将其个人的意图强加于公司管理层和其他股东之上。如此动机不能视为关乎股东经济利益的＂合理目的＂。

结论：
The order of the trial court denying the writ of mandamus is affirmed.
维持初审法院拒绝签发执行令的决定。

案件号 340 U.S. 135 (1950)
案件名 FERES v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of United States

注：列兵甲乙丙在现役时伤亡，遂有此诉状告米府侵权。三案所涉法律问题相同，故合并审理。原告诉前均已获政府补助，诉讼仅涉及民事侵权赔偿责任。

案件事实：
The Feres case: Decedent perished by fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, while on active duty in service of the United States. Negligence was alleged in quartering him in barracks known or which should have been known to be unsafe because of a defective heating plant, and in failing to maintain an adequate fire watch. 
甲案：Feres在纽约松树基地营房大火中遇难，其当时处于现役状态。本案诉称军队未能提供安全的营房，表现在供热系统失灵和火情监控不足，政府有过失。

The Jefferson case: Plaintiff, while in the Army, was required to undergo an abdominal operation. About eight months later, in the course of another operation after plaintiff was discharged, a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide, marked "Medical Department U. S. Army," was discovered and removed from his stomach. The complaint alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. 
乙案：Jefferson在役时接受腹部手术。八个月后，在另一手术过程中，医生从其腹腔取出一条印有＂米军医疗部＂的长30寸、宽18寸的毛巾。原告诉称米军医因过失将毛巾遗其腹中。

The Griggs case: Griggs' executrix alleged that while on active duty he met death because of negligent and unskillful medical treatment by army surgeons. 
丙案：Griggs的遗产执行人诉称因军医的过失和拙劣的医术，处于在役状态的Griggs不幸身亡。

法律部分：
The common fact underlying the three cases is that each claimant, while on active duty and not on furlough, sustained injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces. The only issue of law raised is whether the Tort Claims Act extends its remedy to one sustaining "incident to the service" what under other circumstances would be an actionable wrong.  
三案的共同点为：现役、非休假状态下的官兵因军中其他人员的过失遭受损害。案件唯一的法律问题为：《侵权行为索赔法》是否涵盖在役人员所遭受的损害。

The Tort Claims Act does confer district court jurisdiction generally over claims for money damages against the United States founded on negligence. It does contemplate that the Government will sometimes respond for negligence of military personnel. 
诚然，《侵权行为索赔法》授权联邦地方法院受理基于米府侵权产生的经济赔偿诉讼；该法还规定，在特定情况下，米府须为军方人员的侵权行为负责。（注：先列举对原告有利的法律条文，下文中再作反驳，辩论中常见的让步作法）

《侵权行为索赔法》的由来：
The Tort Claims Act was not an isolated and spontaneous flash of congressional generosity. It marks the culmination of a long effort to mitigate unjust consequences of sovereign immunity from suit.  
《侵权行为索赔法》的产生不是因为国会心血来潮要做散财童子。它是长期以来消除不公正的主权豁免的努力结果。

While the political theory that the King could do no wrong was repudiated in America, a legal doctrine derived from it that the Crown is immune from any suit to which it has not consented was invoked on behalf of the Republic and applied by our courts as vigorously as it had been on behalf of the Crown.
虽然国君无犯错的政治理论早已在米国废除，但由此产生的政府豁免权在米国大行其道，就象早年间的君主豁免权一样。

As the Federal Government expanded its activities, its agents caused a multiplying number of remediless wrongs—wrongs which would have been actionable if inflicted by an individual or a corporation…
   随着联邦政府扩展其活动范围，各部门造成了大量在法律上没有救济的损害——此类损害如果是个人或企业所为，受害人可诉至法院。

At last, Congress waived immunity.
最终，国会放弃豁免权，(由此有《侵权行为索赔法》）

《侵权行为索赔法》的适用范围和效果：
…the Act goes on to prescribe the test of allowable claims, which is, "The United States shall be liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. . .,"
该法划定的适用范围为：米国政府承担责任的范围和方式与私人在相似情形下所应承担的一致…

 It will be seen that this is not the creation of new causes of action but acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence.
该法并未创立新的诉权，而是接受在私法领域已然存在的侵权责任。

 We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. 
据我们所知，美国法律从未允许在役士兵对长官或政府提出侵权行为之诉。（这是判决的重点，侵权法出台前无法律允许军人状告政府，由于侵权法本身没有创立新的诉权，军人仍然无权向政府索赔。）

Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.
《侵权行为索赔法》的效果是政府放弃对已有诉权的豁免权，而不是将全新的、无先例的赔偿责任加于政府。

结论：
We conclude that the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. 
根据《联邦侵权行为索赔法》，对现役军人在服役过程中所受到的损害，政府不承担责任。

案件号 340 U.S. 135 (1950)
案件名 FERES v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of United States

注：列兵甲乙丙在现役时伤亡，遂有此诉状告米府侵权。三案所涉法律问题相同，故合并审理。原告诉前均已获政府补助，诉讼仅涉及民事侵权赔偿责任。

案件事实：
The Feres case: Decedent perished by fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, while on active duty in service of the United States. Negligence was alleged in quartering him in barracks known or which should have been known to be unsafe because of a defective heating plant, and in failing to maintain an adequate fire watch. 
甲案：Feres在纽约松树基地营房大火中遇难，其当时处于现役状态。本案诉称军队未能提供安全的营房，表现在供热系统失灵和火情监控不足，政府有过失。

The Jefferson case: Plaintiff, while in the Army, was required to undergo an abdominal operation. About eight months later, in the course of another operation after plaintiff was discharged, a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide, marked "Medical Department U. S. Army," was discovered and removed from his stomach. The complaint alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. 
乙案：Jefferson在役时接受腹部手术。八个月后，在另一手术过程中，医生从其腹腔取出一条印有＂米军医疗部＂的长30寸、宽18寸的毛巾。原告诉称米军医因过失将毛巾遗其腹中。

The Griggs case: Griggs' executrix alleged that while on active duty he met death because of negligent and unskillful medical treatment by army surgeons. 
丙案：Griggs的遗产执行人诉称因军医的过失和拙劣的医术，处于在役状态的Griggs不幸身亡。

法律部分：
The common fact underlying the three cases is that each claimant, while on active duty and not on furlough, sustained injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces. The only issue of law raised is whether the Tort Claims Act extends its remedy to one sustaining "incident to the service" what under other circumstances would be an actionable wrong.  
三案的共同点为：现役、非休假状态下的官兵因军中其他人员的过失遭受损害。案件唯一的法律问题为：《侵权行为索赔法》是否涵盖在役人员所遭受的损害。

The Tort Claims Act does confer district court jurisdiction generally over claims for money damages against the United States founded on negligence. It does contemplate that the Government will sometimes respond for negligence of military personnel. 
诚然，《侵权行为索赔法》授权联邦地方法院受理基于米府侵权产生的经济赔偿诉讼；该法还规定，在特定情况下，米府须为军方人员的侵权行为负责。（注：先列举对原告有利的法律条文，下文中再作反驳，辩论中常见的让步作法）

《侵权行为索赔法》的由来：
The Tort Claims Act was not an isolated and spontaneous flash of congressional generosity. It marks the culmination of a long effort to mitigate unjust consequences of sovereign immunity from suit.  
《侵权行为索赔法》的产生不是因为国会心血来潮要做散财童子。它是长期以来消除不公正的主权豁免的努力结果。

While the political theory that the King could do no wrong was repudiated in America, a legal doctrine derived from it that the Crown is immune from any suit to which it has not consented was invoked on behalf of the Republic and applied by our courts as vigorously as it had been on behalf of the Crown.
虽然国君无犯错的政治理论早已在米国废除，但由此产生的政府豁免权在米国大行其道，就象早年间的君主豁免权一样。

As the Federal Government expanded its activities, its agents caused a multiplying number of remediless wrongs—wrongs which would have been actionable if inflicted by an individual or a corporation…
   随着联邦政府扩展其活动范围，各部门造成了大量在法律上没有救济的损害——此类损害如果是个人或企业所为，受害人可诉至法院。

At last, Congress waived immunity.
最终，国会放弃豁免权，(由此有《侵权行为索赔法》）

《侵权行为索赔法》的适用范围和效果：
…the Act goes on to prescribe the test of allowable claims, which is, "The United States shall be liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. . .,"
该法划定的适用范围为：米国政府承担责任的范围和方式与私人在相似情形下所应承担的一致…

 It will be seen that this is not the creation of new causes of action but acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence.
该法并未创立新的诉权，而是接受在私法领域已然存在的侵权责任。

 We know of no American law which ever has permitted a soldier to recover for negligence, against either his superior officers or the Government he is serving. 
据我们所知，美国法律从未允许在役士兵对长官或政府提出侵权行为之诉。（这是判决的重点，侵权法出台前无法律允许军人状告政府，由于侵权法本身没有创立新的诉权，军人仍然无权向政府索赔。）

Its effect is to waive immunity from recognized causes of action and was not to visit the Government with novel and unprecedented liabilities.
《侵权行为索赔法》的效果是政府放弃对已有诉权的豁免权，而不是将全新的、无先例的赔偿责任加于政府。

结论：
We conclude that the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. 
根据《联邦侵权行为索赔法》，对现役军人在服役过程中所受到的损害，政府不承担责任。

加州可否立法禁止游戏商向未成年人销售有血腥场景的电子游戏?
BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct ... R_0315_0568_ZS.html

本案为言论自由 v 对未成年人的保护。原文太长，我只能摘译，见谅。译文中的括号部分为注释；原文中很多象乱码一样的数字、符号是判决援引的判例编号；文中人名不翻译。
判决属公共领域资料，无版权。译文属译者劳动成果，有版权，不得用于商业目的；其它用途的，欢迎转帖，注明出处即可，谢谢。

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
美国最高法院

[June 27, 2011]
2011年6月27日

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

大法官Scalia发表法院观点。
（也就是判决）

     We consider whether a California law imposing restrictions on violent video games comports with the First Amendment .

我们在此考虑加州一项旨在限制暴力电子游戏的法律是否违反美国宪法第一修正案的问题。

     California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§1746–1746.5 (West 2009) (Act), prohibits the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, and requires their packaging to be labeled “18.” The Act covers games “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that “[a] reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the Act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. §1746.3.

该法律禁止向未成年人销售或出租＂暴力电子游戏＂，并要求在其包装上注明＂18禁＂。该法律适用于以下游戏：向玩家提供凶杀、残害、肢解、性侵人类形象的选项；且，在理性人看来，这些动作的描绘手法会迎合未成年人变态的或颓废的恶趣味；且，以社会主流标准评判，该游戏明显不适合未成年人；且，对未成年人而言，游戏作为一个整体缺乏文学、艺术、政治、科学等价值。违反该法律将会受到一千美元以内的罚款。

     Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, brought a preenforcement challenge to the Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Schwarzenegger , 556 F. 3d 950 (CA9 2009), and we granted certiorari, 559 U. S. ____ (2010).

被上诉人——代表电子游戏和软件产业——在该法律生效前向北加州美国联邦地方法院提起诉讼。地方法院判决该法律违宪并永久性禁止实施。上诉法院维持这一判决。我们决定受理对这一判决的上诉。

II
 The Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, but we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try.

宪法中的＂言论自由条款＂主要用于保护与政治问题有关的讨论，但本院长期以来认为政治与娱乐难以分离，危险勿试。

（往下举例说明娱乐性言论与政治性言论联系密切，同样也应受宪法保护，略）

     …The most basic of those principles is this: “[A]s a general matter, … government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens , 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul , 505 U. S. 377, 382–383 (1992) ). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957) , incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam) , and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id. , at 571–572.

…最基本的原则为：＂一般而言，政府不能因为言论的信息、思想、议题或内容而对其作出限制。＂当然，这一原则也有例外，＂从1791年至今，第一修正案允许在几个领域内对言论的内容作出限制，但不得在这些传统领域之外随意设限。＂（援引2010年《美国诉Stevens》一案）这些有限的领域——如龌龊言论，见Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957)一案；教唆，见Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969)；挑衅性的辱骂，见Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)——代表了明确的、极其有限的几类言论，对它们的惩处从来没有让人产生是否违宪的疑问。

     Last Term, in Stevens , we held that new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated. Stevens concerned a federal statute purporting to criminalize the creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. See 18 U. S. C. §48 (amended 2010). The statute covered depictions “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if that harm to the animal was illegal where the “the creation, sale, or possession t[ook] place,” §48(c)(1). …exempted depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,” §48(b). We held that statute to be an impermissible content-based restriction on speech. There was no American tradition of forbidding the depiction of animal cruelty—though States have long had laws against committing it.

上一个审案年度，本院在Stevens一案中指出，立法机构不得以某种言论危害过大为由将其加入禁止名单。Stevens涉及一项联邦法律。根据该法律，制作、销售、执有描述虐待动物作品的，可追究刑事责任。这项法律禁止以下描述：活体动物被故意残害、肢解、折磨、伤害或杀害的；且，此类虐待行为在制作、销售、执有该作品的州为非法；除非，此类描述有宗教、政治、科学、教育、新闻、历史或艺术等方面的价值。我们认定该法律基于言论内容对言论自由作出了违宪的限制。没有任何美国传统禁止描述虐待动物的行为，尽管有一些州立法禁止虐待行为本身。

      …That holding controls this case. As in Stevens , California has tried to make violent-speech regulation look like obscenity regulation by appending a saving clause required for the latter. That does not suffice. Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of “sexual conduct,” Miller , supra, at 24. See also Cohen v. California , 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971) ; Roth , supra, at 487, and n. 20.

Stevens一案决定了本案。如同在Stevens一样，政府试图将对暴力言论的约束打扮得如同对龌龊言论的约束，加入了类似的例外条款（即上一段提到的有艺术价值的除外）。但这样还不够，本院判例表明，龌龊言论不包含所有震惊立法机关的言论，仅指对＂性行为＂的描述。

    …California does not argue that it is empowered to prohibit selling offensively violent works to adults —and it is wise not to, since that is but a hair’s breadth from the argument rejected in Stevens . Instead, it wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.

…加州并不主张它有权禁止向成年人销售过分描述暴力的作品——此乃明智之举，因为这样的观点与Stevens一案中被否定的如出一辙。相反地，加州希望建立一个全新的基于内容的禁言种类：即面向未成年人的暴力作品。
（为防止大家走神，这里做个小结，上文讲到三个合宪的禁言种类：龌龊淫秽、教唆、挑衅性辱骂，加州试图加入第四个)


     That is unprecedented and mistaken. “[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville , 422 U. S. 205, 212–213 (1975) (citation omitted). No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, Ginsberg , supra , at 640–641; Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944) , but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” Erznoznik , supra, at 213–214. 3

这是没有先例且错误的。＂未成年人同样受到第一修正案的保护，政府只有在明确的少数几种情形下，才可限制向未成年人传播受宪法保护的言论。＂无疑，州政府有权保护儿童不受侵害，但这并不意味着政府可以随意限制儿童可能接触到的言论。＂凡是不属于龌龊或其它合宪被禁止的言论，即使立法机关认为其不适合于儿童，也不能以保护未成年人为由加以限制。＂
（当法院说某种观点没有先例，基本上就是说这种观点本院不支持）

     California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id. , at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id. , at 54.

如果美国有限制儿童接触暴力内容的传统，加州的论证会更有力，但是本国并没有这样的传统。我们让小孩念的书——或当他们更小的时候念给他们听——不乏血腥内容。格林童话就极为残忍。（这里法官玩弄了一下文字，格林Grimm，残忍Grim）当巫婆皇后因毒害白雪公主遭受惩罚时，毒皇后脚穿烧红的拖鞋，＂一路狂舞至死，以禁忌妒之人效尤＂。灰姑娘邪恶的继姐妹被鸽子啄出双眼。黑森林里的兄妹（儿童！）将老巫烧死在烤箱里。
(大家搜一下童声版的Abendsegen—Hansel and Gretel，俺的大爱）

     High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer’s Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake. The Odyssey of Homer, Book IX, p. 125 (S. Butcher & A. Lang transls. 1909) (“Even so did we seize the fiery-pointed brand and whirled it round in his eye, and the blood flowed about the heated bar. And the breath of the flame singed his eyelids and brows all about, as the ball of the eye burnt away, and the roots thereof crackled in the flame”). In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they be skewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp. 187–189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed. 1982). And Golding’s Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies 208–209 (1997 ed.). 4

高中书目中充满了此类读物。《荷马史诗》中，奥德塞用火红的棍子戳瞎Polyphemus的眼睛。＂我们夺过火热的铁枪，往他的眼睛招呼，顿时鲜血横飞。火舌燎过他的眼皮与眉毛，眼珠子连根烧绝。在《但丁神曲》炼狱里，贪官们争相潜入滚烫的湖水，以免被水面上的鬼怪插刺。在《苍蝇王》里一个叫小猪仔的学童被荒岛上的其他孩子残忍地杀害。

…California claims that video games present special problems because they are “interactive,” in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Since at least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to. Cf. Interactive Digital Software Assn. v. St. Louis County, 329 F. 3d 954, 957–958 (CA8 2003). As for the argument that video games enable participation in the violent action, that seems to us more a matter of degree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. “[T]he better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.” American Amusement Machine Assn. v. Kendrick , 244 F. 3d 572, 577 (CA7 2001) (striking down a similar restriction on violent video games).

加州称电玩游戏是＂互动＂的，因此非常独特——玩家参与暴力行为并决定游戏结果。＂决定结果＂并不是什么新鲜事：至少从1969年《甘蔗岛历险》出版以来，小读者们就可以根据自己的喜好翻到不同的页面来决定故事情节的发展。至于电子游戏让玩家动手参与，我们认为这只是一个程度的问题。正如法官Posner指出，文学作品都是互动性的。＂越优秀的作品，互动性越强。成功的文学作品让读者身临其境，与书中人物产生共鸣，读者可以评价、争吵、感同身受、同喜同悲。＂

Justice Alito has done considerable independent re-search to identify, see post , at 14–15, nn. 13–18, video games in which “the violence is astounding,” post , at 14. “Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces. . . . Blood gushes, splatters, and pools.” Ibid. Justice Alito recounts all these disgusting video games in order to disgust us—but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression. 

大法官Alito就这一问题做了大量独立研究，搜集了一些极度暴力的电玩游戏。＂游戏中的人物被肢解、斩首、开膛破肚、焚烧、凌迟…血肉横飞、血流成河。＂大法官Alito想用这些恶心的画面恶心我们，但恶心不是限制言论自由的合法理由。
（Alito是投反对票的异议法官）

III

     Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. , 505 U. S., at 395. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy , 529 U. S., at 822–823, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R. A. V. , supra, at 395. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy , supra, at 818.

因为涉案法律对受宪法保护的言论采取了限制措施，为使该法律符合宪法，加州必须证实该法律乃出于保护政府的迫切利益，并且采取的措施是完全必要的。州政府必须明确指出有待解决的＂实际问题＂，并且限制言论自由的措施是解决该问题所必需的。这是一个非常严格的标准，正如花花公子一案指出，＂因为言论内容而对其作出限制的法律几乎不可能不违宪。＂

     California cannot meet that standard. At the outset, it acknowledges that it cannot show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors…

…加州不能满足上述标准。首先，加州承认它无法证实暴力游戏和未成年人伤害之间的因果关系…

… The video-game industry has in place a voluntary rating system designed to inform consumers about the content of games. The system, implemented by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), assigns age-specific ratings to each video game submitted: EC (Early Childhood); E (Everyone); E10+ (Everyone 10 and older); T (Teens); M (17 and older); and AO (Adults Only—18 and older). …  This system does much to ensure that minors cannot purchase seriously violent games on their own, and that parents who care about the matter can readily evaluate the games their children bring home. Filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents’ control can hardly be a compelling state interest. 

…电玩业界已有一套自愿评级系统，用于告知消费者游戏内容。这套由娱乐软件评级委员会实施的系统对提交的游戏作出以下评定：EC幼儿；E全年龄段；E10+十岁及以上；T青少年；M十七岁及以上；AO成人18禁。
…这套系统大体上能保证未成年人不能获得过分暴力的游戏，关心小孩成长的家长也可以很方便地通过这套系统判断游戏内容。填补余下的小漏洞不能说是州政府的迫切利益。

     We affirm the judgment below.

It is so ordered.

本院维持下级法院判决。
此令。

加州可否立法禁止游戏商向未成年人销售有血腥场景的电子游戏?
BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct ... R_0315_0568_ZS.html

本案为言论自由 v 对未成年人的保护。原文太长，我只能摘译，见谅。译文中的括号部分为注释；原文中很多象乱码一样的数字、符号是判决援引的判例编号；文中人名不翻译。
判决属公共领域资料，无版权。译文属译者劳动成果，有版权，不得用于商业目的；其它用途的，欢迎转帖，注明出处即可，谢谢。

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
美国最高法院

[June 27, 2011]
2011年6月27日

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

大法官Scalia发表法院观点。
（也就是判决）

     We consider whether a California law imposing restrictions on violent video games comports with the First Amendment .

我们在此考虑加州一项旨在限制暴力电子游戏的法律是否违反美国宪法第一修正案的问题。

     California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§1746–1746.5 (West 2009) (Act), prohibits the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, and requires their packaging to be labeled “18.” The Act covers games “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that “[a] reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the Act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. §1746.3.

该法律禁止向未成年人销售或出租＂暴力电子游戏＂，并要求在其包装上注明＂18禁＂。该法律适用于以下游戏：向玩家提供凶杀、残害、肢解、性侵人类形象的选项；且，在理性人看来，这些动作的描绘手法会迎合未成年人变态的或颓废的恶趣味；且，以社会主流标准评判，该游戏明显不适合未成年人；且，对未成年人而言，游戏作为一个整体缺乏文学、艺术、政治、科学等价值。违反该法律将会受到一千美元以内的罚款。

     Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, brought a preenforcement challenge to the Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Schwarzenegger , 556 F. 3d 950 (CA9 2009), and we granted certiorari, 559 U. S. ____ (2010).

被上诉人——代表电子游戏和软件产业——在该法律生效前向北加州美国联邦地方法院提起诉讼。地方法院判决该法律违宪并永久性禁止实施。上诉法院维持这一判决。我们决定受理对这一判决的上诉。

II
 The Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, but we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try.

宪法中的＂言论自由条款＂主要用于保护与政治问题有关的讨论，但本院长期以来认为政治与娱乐难以分离，危险勿试。

（往下举例说明娱乐性言论与政治性言论联系密切，同样也应受宪法保护，略）

     …The most basic of those principles is this: “[A]s a general matter, … government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens , 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul , 505 U. S. 377, 382–383 (1992) ). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957) , incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam) , and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id. , at 571–572.

…最基本的原则为：＂一般而言，政府不能因为言论的信息、思想、议题或内容而对其作出限制。＂当然，这一原则也有例外，＂从1791年至今，第一修正案允许在几个领域内对言论的内容作出限制，但不得在这些传统领域之外随意设限。＂（援引2010年《美国诉Stevens》一案）这些有限的领域——如龌龊言论，见Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957)一案；教唆，见Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969)；挑衅性的辱骂，见Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)——代表了明确的、极其有限的几类言论，对它们的惩处从来没有让人产生是否违宪的疑问。

     Last Term, in Stevens , we held that new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated. Stevens concerned a federal statute purporting to criminalize the creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. See 18 U. S. C. §48 (amended 2010). The statute covered depictions “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if that harm to the animal was illegal where the “the creation, sale, or possession t[ook] place,” §48(c)(1). …exempted depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,” §48(b). We held that statute to be an impermissible content-based restriction on speech. There was no American tradition of forbidding the depiction of animal cruelty—though States have long had laws against committing it.

上一个审案年度，本院在Stevens一案中指出，立法机构不得以某种言论危害过大为由将其加入禁止名单。Stevens涉及一项联邦法律。根据该法律，制作、销售、执有描述虐待动物作品的，可追究刑事责任。这项法律禁止以下描述：活体动物被故意残害、肢解、折磨、伤害或杀害的；且，此类虐待行为在制作、销售、执有该作品的州为非法；除非，此类描述有宗教、政治、科学、教育、新闻、历史或艺术等方面的价值。我们认定该法律基于言论内容对言论自由作出了违宪的限制。没有任何美国传统禁止描述虐待动物的行为，尽管有一些州立法禁止虐待行为本身。

      …That holding controls this case. As in Stevens , California has tried to make violent-speech regulation look like obscenity regulation by appending a saving clause required for the latter. That does not suffice. Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of “sexual conduct,” Miller , supra, at 24. See also Cohen v. California , 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971) ; Roth , supra, at 487, and n. 20.

Stevens一案决定了本案。如同在Stevens一样，政府试图将对暴力言论的约束打扮得如同对龌龊言论的约束，加入了类似的例外条款（即上一段提到的有艺术价值的除外）。但这样还不够，本院判例表明，龌龊言论不包含所有震惊立法机关的言论，仅指对＂性行为＂的描述。

    …California does not argue that it is empowered to prohibit selling offensively violent works to adults —and it is wise not to, since that is but a hair’s breadth from the argument rejected in Stevens . Instead, it wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.

…加州并不主张它有权禁止向成年人销售过分描述暴力的作品——此乃明智之举，因为这样的观点与Stevens一案中被否定的如出一辙。相反地，加州希望建立一个全新的基于内容的禁言种类：即面向未成年人的暴力作品。
（为防止大家走神，这里做个小结，上文讲到三个合宪的禁言种类：龌龊淫秽、教唆、挑衅性辱骂，加州试图加入第四个)


     That is unprecedented and mistaken. “[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville , 422 U. S. 205, 212–213 (1975) (citation omitted). No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, Ginsberg , supra , at 640–641; Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944) , but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” Erznoznik , supra, at 213–214. 3

这是没有先例且错误的。＂未成年人同样受到第一修正案的保护，政府只有在明确的少数几种情形下，才可限制向未成年人传播受宪法保护的言论。＂无疑，州政府有权保护儿童不受侵害，但这并不意味着政府可以随意限制儿童可能接触到的言论。＂凡是不属于龌龊或其它合宪被禁止的言论，即使立法机关认为其不适合于儿童，也不能以保护未成年人为由加以限制。＂
（当法院说某种观点没有先例，基本上就是说这种观点本院不支持）

     California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id. , at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id. , at 54.

如果美国有限制儿童接触暴力内容的传统，加州的论证会更有力，但是本国并没有这样的传统。我们让小孩念的书——或当他们更小的时候念给他们听——不乏血腥内容。格林童话就极为残忍。（这里法官玩弄了一下文字，格林Grimm，残忍Grim）当巫婆皇后因毒害白雪公主遭受惩罚时，毒皇后脚穿烧红的拖鞋，＂一路狂舞至死，以禁忌妒之人效尤＂。灰姑娘邪恶的继姐妹被鸽子啄出双眼。黑森林里的兄妹（儿童！）将老巫烧死在烤箱里。
(大家搜一下童声版的Abendsegen—Hansel and Gretel，俺的大爱）

     High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer’s Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake. The Odyssey of Homer, Book IX, p. 125 (S. Butcher & A. Lang transls. 1909) (“Even so did we seize the fiery-pointed brand and whirled it round in his eye, and the blood flowed about the heated bar. And the breath of the flame singed his eyelids and brows all about, as the ball of the eye burnt away, and the roots thereof crackled in the flame”). In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they be skewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp. 187–189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed. 1982). And Golding’s Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies 208–209 (1997 ed.). 4

高中书目中充满了此类读物。《荷马史诗》中，奥德塞用火红的棍子戳瞎Polyphemus的眼睛。＂我们夺过火热的铁枪，往他的眼睛招呼，顿时鲜血横飞。火舌燎过他的眼皮与眉毛，眼珠子连根烧绝。在《但丁神曲》炼狱里，贪官们争相潜入滚烫的湖水，以免被水面上的鬼怪插刺。在《苍蝇王》里一个叫小猪仔的学童被荒岛上的其他孩子残忍地杀害。

…California claims that video games present special problems because they are “interactive,” in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Since at least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to. Cf. Interactive Digital Software Assn. v. St. Louis County, 329 F. 3d 954, 957–958 (CA8 2003). As for the argument that video games enable participation in the violent action, that seems to us more a matter of degree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. “[T]he better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.” American Amusement Machine Assn. v. Kendrick , 244 F. 3d 572, 577 (CA7 2001) (striking down a similar restriction on violent video games).

加州称电玩游戏是＂互动＂的，因此非常独特——玩家参与暴力行为并决定游戏结果。＂决定结果＂并不是什么新鲜事：至少从1969年《甘蔗岛历险》出版以来，小读者们就可以根据自己的喜好翻到不同的页面来决定故事情节的发展。至于电子游戏让玩家动手参与，我们认为这只是一个程度的问题。正如法官Posner指出，文学作品都是互动性的。＂越优秀的作品，互动性越强。成功的文学作品让读者身临其境，与书中人物产生共鸣，读者可以评价、争吵、感同身受、同喜同悲。＂

Justice Alito has done considerable independent re-search to identify, see post , at 14–15, nn. 13–18, video games in which “the violence is astounding,” post , at 14. “Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces. . . . Blood gushes, splatters, and pools.” Ibid. Justice Alito recounts all these disgusting video games in order to disgust us—but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression. 

大法官Alito就这一问题做了大量独立研究，搜集了一些极度暴力的电玩游戏。＂游戏中的人物被肢解、斩首、开膛破肚、焚烧、凌迟…血肉横飞、血流成河。＂大法官Alito想用这些恶心的画面恶心我们，但恶心不是限制言论自由的合法理由。
（Alito是投反对票的异议法官）

III

     Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. , 505 U. S., at 395. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy , 529 U. S., at 822–823, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R. A. V. , supra, at 395. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy , supra, at 818.

因为涉案法律对受宪法保护的言论采取了限制措施，为使该法律符合宪法，加州必须证实该法律乃出于保护政府的迫切利益，并且采取的措施是完全必要的。州政府必须明确指出有待解决的＂实际问题＂，并且限制言论自由的措施是解决该问题所必需的。这是一个非常严格的标准，正如花花公子一案指出，＂因为言论内容而对其作出限制的法律几乎不可能不违宪。＂

     California cannot meet that standard. At the outset, it acknowledges that it cannot show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors…

…加州不能满足上述标准。首先，加州承认它无法证实暴力游戏和未成年人伤害之间的因果关系…

… The video-game industry has in place a voluntary rating system designed to inform consumers about the content of games. The system, implemented by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), assigns age-specific ratings to each video game submitted: EC (Early Childhood); E (Everyone); E10+ (Everyone 10 and older); T (Teens); M (17 and older); and AO (Adults Only—18 and older). …  This system does much to ensure that minors cannot purchase seriously violent games on their own, and that parents who care about the matter can readily evaluate the games their children bring home. Filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents’ control can hardly be a compelling state interest. 

…电玩业界已有一套自愿评级系统，用于告知消费者游戏内容。这套由娱乐软件评级委员会实施的系统对提交的游戏作出以下评定：EC幼儿；E全年龄段；E10+十岁及以上；T青少年；M十七岁及以上；AO成人18禁。
…这套系统大体上能保证未成年人不能获得过分暴力的游戏，关心小孩成长的家长也可以很方便地通过这套系统判断游戏内容。填补余下的小漏洞不能说是州政府的迫切利益。

     We affirm the judgment below.

It is so ordered.

本院维持下级法院判决。
此令。

更新预留

更新预留

更新预留

更新预留

终结你的第一次

留爪待等！

楼上手快，更新预留

{:2_61:} 有我 火不起来额 lz 是看了上次那帖子想火一把？ 啧啧 创新才有意思。

上面有几个插队 真不给力

有创意·····

敢问lz，琉球可有德艺双馨之美女姐姐日夜教化我等？若有则虽琉球我去矣，若无则虽东京热吾不留

前排留爪~~

yugger 发表于 2011-3-20 11:59

请问说的是哪个贴子？是那个新东方不学英语如何带路的帖子吗？我看过那贴，当时就想不学英语怎么让别人带路，没有抄袭的意思。lz是丝带首飞时才来的超大，所发的贴子都是原创或自己翻译的，如冒犯了原来的老帖，请指正。

sbs387 发表于 2011-3-20 13:17


   史公再叹：只看不回，光写发配的判书就搞得京城纸贵了。

lz也叹，俺的贴子也是劳心劳神写出来的，咋就木人理会捏？伤心鸟。。。

LZ整的深奥了点
环保要给军队让路呀

传安南有美女子,可否改配安南

snowind2208 发表于 2011-3-20 22:42


     超大 YD,  准了

楼盖完了吧，速度填坑吧

984343 发表于 2011-3-20 23:57


    盖完了 , 每周填 一坑

九道巡抚改总督比较好吧。。。中间级别.节制几个省级单位。。。
巡抚貌似省长，其实地方法院用这个倒感觉更合适？

楼主加油！一周也太漫长了....期待尽快更新
此案有所耳闻，高功率主动声纳貌似对海豚等哺乳动物有危害
不知美军近岸反水雷专业受训海豚是如何与舰艇配合的

静待楼主填坑

看了 名还是要留一个的
楼主继续

更新预留

贼特 发表于 2011-3-21 00:28


    谢谢鼓励！原文与军事有关的基本上都翻出来了，太具体的东西都不在公开的判决里，俺在军事上纯属小白，贼大的问题我也等科普。

984343 发表于 2011-3-21 00:08


    你说的对，马上改，谢谢

更新预告：米大理寺审土著田产，赤果果的帝国心路历程。Lz也想快，但这是一篇很难懂的文章，容俺慢慢翻。
小赌一把，更新前如果有人猜得出是哪篇文章，lz 真人秀。

回复 26# 贼特
　　觉得这类帖子很欢乐，玩笑中科普;P

mark之，以后看

回贼大的问题，在网上找的，看来就是躲开自家海豚的频率。www.angelfire.com/nj4/navydolphins/


From 1965 to 1969 a dolphin trainer for the navy used acoustic signals to give commands to the dolphins and of course fish for rewards.
１９６５至１９６９，米军一调教师（好YD）用音频信号向海豚发布指令，以鱼为赏。

Dolphin experts now say that Navy research is now focused on using the dolphins for their echolocation to detect long-range nuclear missiles, and there is a growing fear that the Russians, who have also exploited dolphins abilities for warfare purposes may use the animals to counter-attack the Americans. All this has led the US Navy to investigate devices which can jam the sonar of these "enemy dolphins" to protect its own interests.
海豚专家讲米国海军目前在研究如何用海豚的回音定位能力搜索远程核蛋蛋。
米军还担心同样在进行海豚训练的俄罗斯会使用他们的海豚对付米国，因此正在研制可以屏蔽敌豚声纳的装置。

难道要承诺不首先使用海豚？:D

回贼大的问题，在网上找的，看来就是躲开自家海豚的频率。www.angelfire.com/nj4/navydolphins/


From 1965 to 1969 a dolphin trainer for the navy used acoustic signals to give commands to the dolphins and of course fish for rewards.
１９６５至１９６９，米军一调教师（好YD）用音频信号向海豚发布指令，以鱼为赏。

Dolphin experts now say that Navy research is now focused on using the dolphins for their echolocation to detect long-range nuclear missiles, and there is a growing fear that the Russians, who have also exploited dolphins abilities for warfare purposes may use the animals to counter-attack the Americans. All this has led the US Navy to investigate devices which can jam the sonar of these "enemy dolphins" to protect its own interests.
海豚专家讲米国海军目前在研究如何用海豚的回音定位能力搜索远程核蛋蛋。
米军还担心同样在进行海豚训练的俄罗斯会使用他们的海豚对付米国，因此正在研制可以屏蔽敌豚声纳的装置。

难道要承诺不首先使用海豚？:D

楼主，今天可是周一，不更新木有XJJ

snowind2208 发表于 2011-3-21 21:47


    这个也太狠了…

snowind2208 发表于 2011-3-21 21:47


    终于在夏威夷时间周一２４：００以前更新，保住了xjj

二楼更新完成了，希望看的人能多点。

更新预告：欲阻　honeywell　向越战供应武器，某男买股成股东。