[1] | 中国互联网络信息中心:“1994—1996互联网大事记”, http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwdsj/201206/t20120612_27415.htm,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[2] | 参见林军:《沸腾十五年》,中信出版社2009年版,页30-32。
|
[3] | 同上注,页3-5。
|
[4] | Owen Fiss, “In Search of a New Paradigm”, 104 Yale Law Journal, 1613 (1995).
|
[5] | Ibid.,at 1614.
|
[6] | Ibid.,at 1614.
|
[7] | Owen Fiss,“Free Speech and Social Structure”,in Owen Fiss, Liberalism Divided : Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996, pp. 8 — 30.
|
[8] | Ibid.,pp. 12 — 13.
|
[9] | Jack Balkin Sanford Levinson (eds.), Legal Canons, New York, NY: New York University Press, 2000.
|
[10] | Ibid.,at ix.
|
[11] | Ibid.,at ix.
|
[12] | Ibid., pp. 410 — 411.
|
[13] | 249 U.S.47(1919).
|
[14] | 395 U.S.444(1969).
|
[15] | Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone,“Epilogue”,in Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone(eds.), Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press,2002, pp.311-317.
|
[16] | 249 U.S.204(1919).
|
[17] | 249 U.S.211(1919).
|
[18] | 250 U.S.616(1919).
|
[19] | 此外,值得注意的还有阿布拉姆斯案的判决时间。上述四个“一战”案件虽然都在1919年判决,但前三个案件却是在上半年做出,而阿布拉姆斯案判决则迟至下半年的十一月才下达。众所周知,美国最高法院的一个开庭期通常会在夏天开始前结束,在经历了一个漫长的“暑假”之后,大法官们才会回到华盛顿开始一个新的开庭期。因此,阿布拉姆斯案和另外三个案件其实分属两个不同的开庭期。因此,很多第一修正案学者、法律史学者以及霍姆斯研究者都会把目光投向1919年的那个夏天。他们试图探究那个夏天究竟发生了什么,促使霍姆斯的思想发生了如此巨大的转变。相当一部分美国学者倾向于认为霍姆斯的这种“转变”是因为那个夏天他与汉德法官、查菲和拉斯基等“言论自由之友”的频繁交流和接触。对此更详细的讨论,可参见:David Rabban,“The Emergence of Modern First Amendment Doctrine”,50 University of Chicago Law Review,1205(1983),pp.1303-1320.
|
[20] | 268 U.S.652(1925).
|
[21] | 274 U.S.357(1927).
|
[22] | Ibid., pp.375-376.
|
[23] | 参见 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, New York, NY: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948. Alexander Meiklejohn,“The First Amendment Is an Absolute”,1961 Sw-preme Court Revieiv, 245 (1961).
|
[24] | (美)亚历山大·米克尔约翰:《表达自由的法律限度》,侯健译,贵州人民出版社2003年版,页18。本书为《言论自由及其与自治的关系》的中译本,出版时原书名有所改动。
|
[25] | 341 U.S.494(1951).
|
[26] | (美)罗伯特·波斯特:《民主、专业知识与学术自由:现代国家的第一修正案理论》,左亦鲁译,中国政法大学出版社2014年版,页11。
|
[27] | 参见 Martin Redish,“Value of Free Speech”,130 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 591 (1982),pp. 591 — 645. David Strauss, “Persuasion,Autonomy,and Freedom of Expression”,91 Columbia Law Review, 334 (1991),pp. 334 — 371. C Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992.
|
[28] | Balkin, Supra note 14,pp.5-8.
|
[29] | Kathleen Sullivan and Gerald Günther (eds)., First Amendment Law (Fourth edition) , Founda-tion Press,2010.该书最新版目前是2010年6月出版的第四版。
|
[30] | Balkin,Supra note 14,at411.
|
[31] | Geoffrey Stone,Louis Seidman,Cass Sunstein, Mark Tushnet and Pamela Karlan(eds.), The First Amendment(Fourth Edition),Aspen Publishers,2012.该书最新版是2012年1月出版的第四版。
|
[32] | Eugene Volokh(ed)., The First Amendment and Related Statutes, Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments(Fifth Edition),Foundation Press,2013.最新版目前为2013年12月出版的第五版。之所以专门选取这本教科书,一是由于沃洛克的政治立场。之前两本教材的编者均为自由派学者,而沃洛克本人的政治倾向则偏保守。二是从年龄上看,出生于1968年的沃洛克要比另外两本教材的编者年轻一代甚至两代。由他所编的教材,在某种程度上可以代表目前四十至五十岁上下这批学者的关注和侧重。
|
[33] | Jack Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faithinan Unjust World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011,pp.1-16.
|
[34] | Robert Post, Supra note 31,at9.
|
[35] | Robert Bork,“Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems”,47 Indiana Law Journal, 1(1971),pp.23-26.
|
[36] | Ibid., at 29.
|
[37] | Supra note 3.
|
[38] | New York Times v. United States; United States v. Washington Post,403 U.S.713(1971).
|
[39] | 对此更详细的分析,请参见左亦鲁:“‘基于媒介’模式——大众传播时代的美国言论自由”,《北大法律评论》2012年第13卷第2辑。
|
[40] | (美)欧文·费斯:《言论自由的反讽》,刘擘、殷莹译,新星出版社2005年版,页2。
|
[41] | 参见Frederick Schauer,“The Heroes of the First Amendment”,101 Michigan Law Review,2118(2003),pp.2118-2133.
|
[42] | 关于积极自由与消极自由,请参见以赛亚·伯林:《自由论》,胡传胜译,译林出版社2003年版。
|
[43] | Hugo Black,“The Bill of Rights”,35 New York University Law Review,865(1960).
|
[44] | John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital : Und er Standing the First Generation of Digital N atives, New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008.
|
[45] | Jack Balkin, “The First Amendment Is an Information Policy”, 41 Hofstra Law Review,1 (2013).
|
[46] | Jack Balkin, "The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age“, 36 Pepperdine Law Review, 427 (2008), p. 427.
|
[47] | Owen Fiss, Supra note 12, pp. 13 —17.
|
[48] | Owen Fiss, Supra note 9, pp. 1614 —1615.
|
[49] | Jack Balkin,“ Old School/New School Speech Regulation”, 127 Harvard Law Review, 2296 (2014), p. 2297.
|
[50] | (美)劳伦斯·莱斯格,《思想的未来》,李旭译,中信出版社2004年版,页23-24。
|
[51] | (美)劳伦斯·莱斯格,《代码:塑造网络空间的法律》,李旭译,中信出版社2004年版,页7。
|
[52] | 同上注,页3-79。
|
[53] | Lawrence Lessig,“The Law of Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach”,113 Harvard Law Review,501(1999),pp.509-510.
|
[54] | Tim Wu,“Network Neutrality FAQ”,athttp://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[55] | Ibid.
|
[56] | The Consumerist,“Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown”,athttp://consumerist. com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[57] | The Washington Post,“Netflix Strikes Deal to Pay Comcast to Ensure Online Videos Are Streamed Smoothly”,at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/netflix-strikes-deal-to-pay-comcast-to-ensure-online-videos-are-streamed-smoothly/2014/02/23/0e498d18-9cc2-11e3-975d-107dfef7b668_ story.html,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[58] | 《2010年开放互联网的规定》全文,请参见https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[59] | Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d623(D.C.Cir.2014).
|
[60] | FCC向公众征集的意见,请见http://www.fcc.gov/comments。
|
[61] | Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
|
[62] | 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
|
[63] | Jack Balkin, Media Filters, “The V-Chip and the Foundations of Broadcast Regulation”, 45 Duke Law Review , 1133 (1996) , p. 1145.
|
[64] | Ibid., pp. 1141 一1143.
|
[65] | Jack Balkin,Beth Simone Noveck and Kermit Roosevelt, “Filtering the Internet: A Best Practices Mode;“, in Jens Waltermann and Marcel Machill (eds.), Protecting Our Children on the Internet : Towards a Nezv Culture of Responsibility , Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, 2000,pp. 17 — 26.
|
[66] | 本期主题研讨的论文已经发表在2014年6月14日出版的《哈佛法律评论》第127卷第8辑。请参见《哈佛法律评论》官网:http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/volume-127-issue-8/。
|
[67] | Mark Tushnet, “Introduction: Reflections on the First Amendment and the Information Economy”,127 Harvard Law Review, 2234(2014).
|
[68] | New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S.254(1964).
|
[69] | 这次主题研讨的论文发表于1995年5月出版的《耶鲁法律杂志》(Yale Law Journal)第104卷第7辑。这次研讨由《耶鲁法律杂志》召集,参与者包括凯斯·桑斯坦(Cass Sunstein)、劳伦斯·莱斯格(Lawrence Lessig)、尤金·沃洛克(Eugene Volokh)和小卢卡斯·鲍威(Lucas Powe, Jr.)等学者。欧文·费斯(Owen Fiss)教授代表组织者耶鲁法学院撰写了一篇导言。
|
[70] | Google, “Our History in Depth”,athttp://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/history/,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[71] | Lessig, Supra note 56,pp.219-222.
|
[72] | Balkin, Supra note 54,at2318.
|
[73] | Balkin, Supra note 68,at1132.
|
[74] | Bork, Supra note 40,at26.
|
[75] | Jed Rubenfeld,“The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality”,112 YaleLaw Journal, 1(2002),pp.30-35.
|
[76] | Zechariah Chafee,“Book Review”,62 Harvard Law Review,891(1949),pp.899-900.
|
[77] | Meiklejohn, Supra note 28,pp.245-266.
|
[78] | Ibid.,at 257.
|
[79] | Ibid.,at 256.
|
[80] | Cass Sunstein, Democracy and Problems of Free Speech,New York, NY: Free Press, 1993, pp. 121-165.
|
[81] | 参见 Roth v. United States,354 U.S. 476 (1957) ; Miller v. California,413 U.S. 15 (1973).
|
[82] | 参见 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,438 U.S. 726 (1978) ; Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,485 U.S. 46 (1988).
|
[83] | 参见 United States v. O''Brien,391 U.S. 367 (1968) ; Cohen v. California,403 U.S. 15 (1971); Texas v. Johnson? 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
|
[84] | 参见 Beauharnais v. Illinois,343 U.S. 250 (1952) ; National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).
|
[85] | 参见 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) v. Finley,524 U.S. 569 (1998).
|
[86] | Jack Balkin, ”Digital Speech and Democratic Culture:A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, 79 New York University Law Review, 1 (2004), pp. 1 — 58.
|
[87] | Ibid., at 3.
|
[88] | Ibid., pp.9-13.
|
[89] | 参见Bing chun Meng,“From Steamed Bunto Grass Mud Horse: E Gao as Alternative Political Discourse on the Chinese Internet”,Global Media and Communication7.1(2011),pp.33-51.
|
[90] | Balkin, Supra note 86,pp.3-6.
|
[91] | Ibid.,at 3.
|
[92] | Ibid.,pp.28-33.
|
[93] | Jack Balkin,“Populism and Progressivism as Constitutional Categories”,104 Yale Law Journal,1935(1995),pp.1943-1950.
|
[94] | Balkin, Supra note 86,at 5.
|
[95] | Balkin, Supra note 54,at 2296.
|
[96] | Ibid.,at 2298.
|
[97] | Fiss, Supra note 45,pp.26-50.
|
[98] | Post, Supra note 31,at15.
|
[99] | Fiss, Supra note 45,pp.1-25.
|
[100] | Cass Sunstein,“Free Speech Now”,59 University of Chicago Law Review,255(1992),p.262.
|
[101] | Lochner v.New York,198 U.S.45(1905).
|
[102] | 对此的批评,可参见Susan Crawford,“First Amendment Common Sense”,127 Harvard Law Rview, 2243(2014),pp.2243-2391.
|
[103] | Balkin, Supra note 54,at2306.
|
[104] | Yochai Benkler,“A Free Irresponsible Press: Wikileaks and the Battle over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate”,46 Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review,311(2011),pp.313-314.
|
[105] | The Washington Post,“U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program”, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-datafrom-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html.TheGuardian,“NSAPrismProgramTapsintoUserDataofApple,GoogleandOthers”,at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[106] | The Guardian,“NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily”,at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order,最后访问日期:2014年7月26日。
|
[107] | (美)格伦·格林沃尔德:《无处可藏:斯诺登、美国国安局与全球监控》,米拉、王勇译,中信出版社2014年版,页101。
|
[108] | (美)C·赖特.米尔斯:《社会学的想象力》,陈强、张永强译,三联书店2001年版。
|
[109] | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.310(2010).
|
[110] | United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S.460(2010).
|
[111] | Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S.8(2011).
|
[112] | Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S.___(2011).
|
[113] | FCC v .Fox,567 U.S.___(2012).
|
[114] | United States v. Alvarez,567U.S.___(2012).
|
[115] | Balkin, Supra note 14,at411.
|