美英报刊

2. Because it holds the view that the reform will place restriction on individual rights and therefore should be fiercely resisted.
3. Because the situation is not the same as before. In the 1950s, McCarthy and his inquisitors trampled the free expression of left-wing view; and so for the next two decades or so it was essential to defend the principle of free speech at every opportunity. Now the free speech is not in jeopardy, it should not be rigidly defended.
2. Tracey Meares and Dan Kahan’s criticism of the ACLU’s other issues
V. Author’s comment
(12) Liberty has a price.
Lesson 6
Answers to the Questions
6. The ACLU’s rigid defence of rights ends up favoring the strong more than the weak.
7. He thinks that America’s free speech has a price. Though America has been one of the freest countries in the world, it is one of those in which the gap between the rich and poor is the starkest.
II. Reasons for the close relationship
(3—
1. High tech industry’s fast expansion and the appearance of more issues
2. Politicians’ strong interest in the job growth industry
4. The industry believes that government should do what it needs to do but leave them alone. The software tycoons have little patience for bureaucratic oversight and tend to be uncompromising. The hardware tycoons are willing to look for compromise.
3. Increasing conflicts between high tech industry and other industries
4. High tech industry’s urgent need for solution to many problems
III. Relationship between high tech industry and government
3. Deep split within the ACLU over the campaignfinance
IV. Criticism of the ACLU’s rigid defence of rights
(6—11)
1. Burt Neuborne’s view on the ACLU’s line on campaign spending
Lesson 5
Answers to the Questions
V. 1. B 2. B 3. B 4. C 5. D
VI.
1. Because they regard First Amendment freedom as essential American rights and will not allow any restriction on it.
III. American public’s qualified support for free speech
(3—5)
1. Firm belief in the first amendment
2. Strong support for the campaign finance reform
4. Mr. Neuborne holds that in modern political campaign rich candidates flood voters with commercials and propaganda of every kind, so that others have no chance of attracting attention. Poor candidates may enjoy the right to speak, but not the hope that everyone will hear what they have to say. To give them a hearing, he suggests that the speech of rich candidates be limited.
V. 1. D 2. C 3. D 4. D 5. B
VI.
1. It indicates that Microsoft corp. has tight control over the software business.
2. The present honeymoon will not last long. The industry does not speak with one voice. At the same time, their success has greatly damaged the interests of other industries. So there will be troubles ahead. Besides this, there’s also potential for a huge culture clash. A lot of Silicon Valley types don’t realize the importance of politics and have disdain for government.
Outline
I. The burial of the campaign finance reform and its implications
(1)
II. Two sides’ views on the reform
(2)
1. Opponents’ view
2. Majority’s view
5. They are: easing immigration restriction; securities-litigation reform and ending export limit of encryption technology.
6. The Internet and electronic commerce have been rearranging the business landscape—changing how Americans buy everything. They are spreading into all sorts of digital services, from entertainment to online banking to telephony.
5. The authors mean that the situation now is different from that of the 1960s. Americans should not abide by the same principle in spite of the change of time. In the 1960s heyday, the ACLU was absolutely correct in upholding citizens’ rights against the police and other authorities. This was because they did not reflect the interests of America’s black minority. However, all that has now changed: many policemen, and police chiefs, are black, as are many mayors. If these leaders, reflecting the wishes of their constituencies, choose to adopt tough measures to fight crime, the ACLU should not presume to second-guess them. It’s time to adopt a different attitude.
(1—2)
1. Specific example: Bill Gates and Scott G. McNealy’s attendance at the March 3 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee