法硕英语翻译

Alan Isaacman（人名~）: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a lot today,
陪审团的女士们，先生们，你们今天听到了许多，
and I'm not gonna go back over it, but you have to go into that room and make some decisions. 我不会重复这些，但是你们需要走进那个房间并作出一些决定
But before you do, there's something you need to know. I am not trying to suggest that you should like what Larry Flynt does.
但是在你们作出决定之前，有些事你们应当知道。

我不是试图建议你们像Larry Flynt那样做
I don't like what Larry Flynt does, but what I do like is the fact that I live in a country where you and I can make that decision for ourselves.我不喜欢Larry Flynt的做法，我喜欢的是事实上我生活在一个你我都可以为自己作出决定的国家。

I like the fact that I live in a country where I can pick up Hustler magazine and read it, or throw it in the garbage can if that's where I think it belongs.
我喜欢的是我生活在一个可以捡起一份hustler(妓女)杂志并阅读，或扔进垃圾桶，如果我认为那是它的归属
Larry Flynt: If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.
如果第一修正案可以保护像我这样卑微的人，它会你们保护所有人。

Mantke Clerk: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
你是否发誓述说事实，全部事实，且除事实之外再无它事，并让上帝见证？
Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
485 U.S. 46
February 24, 1988, Decided
LINK TO DISPUTED CAMPARI PARODY AD
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
REHNQUIST, C. J.,传达了法庭的意见，BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ.,和WHITE, J一起提交了支持判决的意见。

KENNEDY, J.没有参加案件审议或判决。

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
首席法官REHNQUIST, C. J.,传达了法庭的意见
Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher,
petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but found for respondent on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded damages. We now consider whether this award is consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
原告Hustler杂志集团是一家全国发行的杂志。

被告Jerry Falwell是一名全国知名的政治和公众事务评论员,起诉了原告和其发行人原告方Larry Flynt，要求恢复对其造成的隐私侵权，毁谤和故意对其情感上造成的伤害。

地区法院对侵犯隐私权诉讼做出了不利被告的判决，并将其他两项请求提交给了陪审团。

对毁谤行为，陪审团做出了有利于原告的判决，但是对故意造成感情伤害部分做出了对被告有利的判决，且判决对被告进行赔偿。

现在我们审理此赔偿是否符合美国宪法第一和第十四修正案，
The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their "first times." Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of "first times." Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler's editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged "interview" with him in which he states that his "first time" was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also lists the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Hustler杂志1983年11月版封面内页Campari酒的广告使用被告的姓名和图片并配以文字“Jerry Falwell讲述他的第一次”作成讽刺性模仿。

正式的Campari广告包含了对多名社会知名人士“第一次”的采访，此次不良模仿在Campari正式广告之后。

尽管这些采访最后明确表明是对这些人第一次品尝Campari酒的采访，但这个广告显然采用了与性有关的双关语“第一次”。

复制下Campari广告的格式和版面设计后，Hustler的编辑们选择被告作为主要名人，并撰写了被被告质疑的“采访”，采访中称被告说其第一次是在醉酒后与其母在屋外的厕所中进行乱伦。

Hustler的讽刺性模仿将被告及其母描述成醉鬼及不道德的，并暗示被告是一个只会在醉酒后进行布道的伪君子。

在该页底部的小字中，该广告进行了免责声明称“广告模仿——不应被严肃对待”。

杂志的目录上也声称广告乃“虚构的，广告及人物模仿”。

Soon after the November issue of Hustler became available to the public, respondent brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against Hustler Magazine, Inc., Larry C. Flynt, and Flynt
Distributing Co. Respondent stated in his complaint that publication of the ad parody in Hustler entitled him to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the evidence, the District Court granted a directed verdict for petitioners on the invasion of privacy claim. The jury then found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however and stated that he should be awarded $ 100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $ 50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners.
在11月该杂志对公众发行后，被告很快向西弗吉尼亚州地方法院起诉Hustler杂志，Larry C. Flynt以及Flynt发行公司。

被告称他有权针对发行的Hustler杂志中的广告模仿要求毁谤赔偿、侵犯隐私赔偿以及感情伤害赔偿。

法院对案件进行了审理。

审理结束后，地区法院在侵犯隐私方面做出了对原告有利的判决。

陪审团随后对毁谤请求做出了不利于被告的判决，特别指出“没有理由认为该广告模仿会被理解成对有关被告的事情或其参与的真实事件的描述“。

陪审团做出了对被告的感情伤害赔偿有利的判决，且表明他应得到100,000美元的损害赔偿，以及每名原告应付出50,000美元的惩罚性赔偿。

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment against petitioners. Given the importance of the constitutional issues involved, we granted certiorari.
在上诉中，美国上诉法院第四巡回法院维持了对原告的不利判决。

考虑到案件中宪法争议的重要性，我们下令调取案件。

This case presents us with a novel question involving First Amendment limitations upon a State's authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress. We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do.
该案件向我们展示了一个有关第一修正案对国家机关保护公民不受有意的感情伤害的保护的限制。

我们必须决定是否一个公众人物应当从公开发行的对他有侵犯的、且在大部分人眼中毋庸置疑的粗俗的、令人反感的广告模仿中得到损害赔偿。

被告或许会让我们发现国家保护公众人物免受感情伤害的需要足以否决第一修正案保护那些明显的侵犯性的、且有意造成情感伤害的言论，尽管这些言论不能合理的被解释为阐述公众人物所参与的真实事件。

我们拒绝这样做。

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. As Justice Holmes wrote, "When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . ."
第一修正案的核心是对有关公众利益和利害关系的事件的想法和意见的自由表达的重要性的认可。

“自由的阐述一个人的想法不仅与个人的自由有关——不仅因为对其自己有益——也对公众对真相的追求和社会整体的活力极为重要。

”我们因此特别警醒的确保个人思想的表达不会被政府惩罚。

第一修正案认为没有这样一种“非法”的想法。

如Holmes法官写到“当人们意识到时间颠覆了许多挑战性的信仰，他们可能会更倾向于相信通过思想的自由交流可以更好的达到他们所求的最好境界，对真相最好的检验是思想的力量本身通过在市场的竞争中得到承认，而不是他们本身行为的出发点，。

”
The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large." Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly（此处有没有句号？翻译起来顺序有点小变化的） when he said that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."
当Frankfurter法官说到“作为美国公民，他们享有的最大一个特权就是批评公众人物和议案。

”不可避免的是，这种批评不可能永远是合理的或道德的；公众人物和政府官员将会受到“激烈的，刻薄的，和有时不甚愉快的尖锐攻击”。

Frankfurter法官简洁的总结到，受第一修正案鼓励产生的激烈的政治辩论无可避免的会产生针对那些拥有公共事务办公室或“直接参与有关公共问题的解决，或因其声望参与主要关于公众利益的造势活动”的公众人物的批判性言论。

Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not...."
当然，这并不意味着任何有关公众人物的言论都会被免于赔偿性惩罚。

自纽约时报公司与Sullivan案件后，我们一直坚持公众人物有权让那些发表毁谤性虚假言论的人对其名誉损失造成的损害负责，但仅限于当这些言论是在“明知其是虚假的或毫不顾及后果的忽视其是否虚假…”的情形下制造的。

Here the State seeks to prevent not reputational damage, but the severe emotional distress suffered by the person who is the subject of an offensive publication. In respondent's view, and in the view of the Court of Appeals, so long as the utterance was intended to inflict emotional distress, was outrageous, and did in fact inflict serious emotional distress, it is of no constitutional import whether the statement was a fact or an opinion, or whether it was true or false. It is the intent to cause injury that is the gravamen of the tort, and the State's interest in preventing emotional harm simply outweighs whatever interest a speaker may have in speech of this type.
国家在此寻求阻止的不是名誉损害，而是攻击性的刊物中的被害人所遭受的严重的情感伤害。

在被告人以及上诉法庭的观点中，只要这些言论是有意造成感情上的伤害的、粗暴的、且事实上造成严重感情伤害的，那么不管它是否是个事实或是看法，或不管其真伪，它都是与宪法无关的。

它的目的是造成伤害，是构成侵权的关键要素，且国家在阻止感情伤害方面的利益比评论者发表的此类言论的利益更为重要，不论评论者发表这种言论的目的是什么。

Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment.
总的来说法律并不认为造成感情伤害的故意应当受到如此多的关注，并且可以理解的是如果不是全部，也有大部分司法机关在这种行为足够“粗暴”的时对它作出民事惩罚。

但是就公共事务的评论而言，许多因不是非常美好的动机而做出的行为是受到第一修正案保护的。

"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth."
“有关公众事务的讨论将不会是不受约束的如果发言者必须冒在法庭上被证实为发表仇恨性言论的险；尽管他发表仇恨性的言论，老实说讨论被认为对思想的自由交流以及对真相的追求有益的”
Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.
因此当这种不良动机在法律的其他领域中出于侵权责任的原因是受到限制的时候，我们认为第一修正案禁止这种结果出现在关于公众人物的公开议论中。

Were we to hold otherwise, there can be little doubt that political cartoonists and satirists would be subjected to damages awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject. Webster's defines a caricature as "the deliberately distorted picturing or imitating of a person, literary style, etc. by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect." The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploration of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events -- an exploration often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. The art of the cartoonist is often not reasoned or evenhanded, but slashing and one-sided. One cartoonist expressed the nature of the art in these words: "The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting and is always controversial in some quarters."
如果我们不这么认为，那么几乎无疑可以认为政治漫画家和讽刺作家将会被要求进行损害赔偿尽管没有任何东西表明他们的作品非法的毁谤了作品中的主人翁。

Webster定义漫画是“故意歪曲的画或模仿一个人，文学风格，比如，为达到讽刺效果夸张其特点或不良作风。

”政治连环画或漫画的吸引力通常是基于对不幸的生理特点或政治上的尴尬事件的探索——一种通常有一伤害漫画主体的感觉的探索。

漫画家的艺术通常是不合理的或公平的，而是严厉和一边倒的。

一个漫画家这样表达这种艺术的本质“政治漫画是一种蔑视的、揶揄的、讽刺的攻击武器；当他称赞政治家时最没有效果。

它通常和蜂蛰一样不受欢迎，且通常在某些方面有争议。

”
Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate. Nast's castigation of the Tweed Ring, Walt McDougall's characterization of presidential candidate James G. Blaine's banquet with the millionaires at Delmonico's as "The Royal Feast of Belshazzar," and numerous other efforts have undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of contemporaneous debate. Lincoln's tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt's glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.
不管它们有时讽刺的本质，从早期的漫画将乔治.华盛顿描述成一个混蛋直到现在，绘画的描写和讽刺的漫画在政治评论中起到重要作用。

Nast对Tweed Ring(特韦德集团)的抨击，Walt McDougall将总统候选人James G. Blaine在Delmonico与百万富翁们的宴会描述成“Belshazzar的皇家盛宴，”以及其他大量的杰作无疑对当时评论的进程和结果产生了影响。

林肯的升高，瘦长的姿态，泰迪.罗斯福的眼镜和牙齿，以及富兰克林 D. 罗斯福突出
的下巴和烟嘴被政治漫画刻画的效果是摄影师或肖像画家所不能做到的。

从历史的角度来说没有它们我们的政治演说将会变得更差。

Respondent contends, however, that the caricature in question here was so "outrageous" as to distinguish it from more traditional political cartoons. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description "outrageous" does not supply one. "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience.
被告辩称，不论怎样，本案中的讽刺是非常“粗暴的”，以将其和更加传统的政治漫画区别开来。

毫无疑问Hustler杂志刊登的关于被告和他母亲的讽刺画最多是上述政治漫画的远房表亲，和其关系也很少。

如果可以为其制定一个原则性的标准以区分这两者，公共评论也许只会受到很少的伤害或不受伤害。

但是我们怀疑这种标准并不存在，而且我们很确定这种贬义的“粗暴”描述并不为我们提供这样一个例子。

“粗暴”在政治或社会评论中具有与生俱来的主观性，它会让陪审团在陪审员的口味或观点的基础上，或在他们对某种表达的不喜欢的基础上做出判决。

长期以来我们拒绝要求因为所被质疑的言论可能会对听众造成负面影响而造成的损害而作出赔偿，这样一个“粗暴”的标准与我们的作法相冲突。

"The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."
“事实上社会可能会发现冒犯的言论不是足以禁止它的理由。

事实上，如果说话者的意图是进行攻击，其产生的结果是依照宪法得到保护的理由。

由于它是第一修正案的核心原则，政府必须在思想的市场中保持中立。

”
Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), we held that a state could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting " fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by the exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.
公认的是，这些常常被重复提起的第一修正案原则，像其他原则一样，是有限制的。

在Chaplisky 诉New Hampshire案，315 US 568(1942)中我们判决政府可以合法的惩罚使用侮辱性的“挑逗语言——那些用他们的不良言论造成伤害或企图导致直接的破坏和平行为。

”但本案中所述的言论对我们来说不属于上述的第一修正案原则适用的例外情况。

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.
上诉法院将陪审团的判决解释为广告的模仿“不是合理的可被相信的”，与我们的习惯法一致，我们同意这个判决。

被告请求因故意对其造成感情伤害的赔偿的请求因此得到陪审团支持。

但是由于之前所说的原因，与第一修正案所一致的是，该请求不能构成获得损害赔偿的基础，当所被请求的行为是如此案中所涉及的出版物中的讽刺性模仿漫画。

因此推翻上诉法院的判决。

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts。