2016年5月30日 星期一

《民意,誰說了算?人民知情的抉擇》註腳-第十章

第十章:說一套、做另一套的表裡不一
                從教化到思辨
註腳
1 Judging Amy, Trial by Jury, Season 1, Episode 3, September 28, 1999.
2 Meredith Doig, Reason vs Emotion: Key Drivers in the History of Moral Progress, http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/articles/ReasonVsEmotion-MDoig.pdf (last visited May 07, 2016) (“Plato saw Reason and Emotion as two horses pulling a chariot in different directions, while the charioteer struggles to get them to work as a team. He proposed that the human soul comprises three parts: Reason, the Appetites and the Will. Only when the Appetites and the Will are working under the control of Reason can the soul be fully human. Both Plato and Aristotle saw Reason as inherently superior to the Emotions, with Aristotle arguing that human happiness depends on the exercise of Reason. This idea of the superiority of Reason influenced philosophers for centuries. Reason was what distinguished humans from the animals and the emotions simply got in the way of its proper exercise.”).
3 Jay Heinrichs, How to Teach a Child to Argue, Wonderime, 2007, http://inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/ (last visited May 07, 2016).
4 Id.
5 Sarah Kliff, Meet Sandra Kliff: The Woman You Didn’t Hear at Congress’ Contraceptives Hearing, The Washington Post, February 16, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html (last visited May 07, 2016).
6 Molly Morehead, In Context: Sandra Fluke on Contraceptives and Women’s Health, PolitiFact, March 06, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/ (last visited May 07, 2016); also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ (last visited May 07, 2016).
7 Anne-Marie Slaughter, On Thinking Like a Lawyer, May 2002, https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Commentary/On%20Thinking%20Like%20a%20Lawyer.pdf (last visited May 07, 2016) (Arguments may be bad because they are illogical, because they do not fit the facts or the law, because they are silly or inconsequential.”).
8 批教育部長蔣偉寧偽善!清大陳為廷公布影音與發言全文,ETtoday東森新聞雲,2012124日,http://www.ettoday.net/news/20121204/135256.htm(最後瀏覽日:201657日);影音檔https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnaNftH8X18(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
9 費孝通,鄉土中國,頁311947年。
10同上,頁34
11同上。
12The Week Staff, Rush Limbaugh v. Sandra Fluke: A Timeline, The Week, March 06, 2012, http://theweek.com/articles/477570/rush-limbaugh-vs-sandra-fluke-timeline (last visited June 08, 2016).
13David Frum, Are We Being Fair to Rush Limbaugh? CNN, March 06, 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/ (last visited May 07, 2016).
14司法院大法官會議釋字第509號大法官吳庚協同意見書,http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/uploadfile/C100/509.pdf(最後瀏覽日:201654日)。
15費孝通,註9
16同上,頁35
17同上,頁49
18同上,頁38-40
19馮光遠,除了吳育昇,金溥聰也是我的!是的,我很貪心,自由時報,2015921日,http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/917250(最後瀏覽日:201668日)。
20馮光遠,不騙大家,只有金溥聰夠資格稱馬英九「馬子」,2013220日,http://whiteeyeishere.blogspot.tw/2013/02/blog-post_20.html(最後瀏覽日:201668日)。
21台灣高等法院103年度上易字第2515號刑事判決。
22政治中心,影射搞同性戀  金溥聰越洋告馮光遠,蘋果日報,20131111日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20131111/290593/(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
23馮光遠,安下言論自由這根大樑,自由時報,2014714日,http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/795797(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
24馮光遠,法院認證「男妓」之真相,自由時報自由評論網,2015323日,http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/865301(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
25司法院,註14
26Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1988).
27Id. at 57.
28Id. at 56-57 (“The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not ‘reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated.’”).
29 Id. at 57, White J. Dissenting (“As I see it, the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), has little to do with this case, for here the jury found that the ad contained no assertion of fact.”).
30Id., at 56-57 (“We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing, in addition, that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. This is not merely a "blind application" of the New York Times standard, it reflects our considered judgment that such a standard is necessary to give adequate "breathing space" to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated. App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jurys 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.”).
31蕭婷芳,「男妓」說得罪性工作者和同志?馮光遠再諷金溥聰,自由時報,2015728日,http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1393523(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
32Ralph Jennings, Taiwan’s Year of Deadly Disasters: The Real Damon, Forbes, July 02, 2015, available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2015/07/01/taiwans-year-of-deadly-disasters-the-real-demon/ (last visited May 07, 2016).
33黃揚明,林柯配 何宗勳:林義雄、柯文哲搭檔選2016總統,蘋果日報,2015年月11日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150111/540025/(最後瀏覽日:201657日)
34政治中心,訓分局長 「法輪功被揍就換掉你」,蘋果日報,20141226日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20141226/36290094/(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
35綜合報導,柯文哲再開罵 趙藤雄心被狗啃了,蘋果日報,2015123日,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuNcnrZaaYg(最後瀏覽日:201657日)
36政治中心綜合報導,蔡英文接任黨主席挨轟  柯文哲:別每次都先看衰,三立新聞網,201633日,http://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=127636(最後瀏覽日:201644日)。
37陳思豪,吳思華告學生  柯文哲:反正他也是打手阿,蘋果日報,2015725日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150725/655218/(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
38綜合報導,要求吳思華出面!柯文哲:要當打手就該勇敢,自由時報,2015731日,http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1396370(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
39陳思豪,張景森:柯P對戴季全感情用事  最後傷了自己,蘋果日報,2015917日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150917/693617/(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
40劉宛琳,美河市判決  P:有兩個小官很賤,聯合新聞網,20151228日,http://udn.com/news/story/2/1405661-%E7%BE%8E%E6%B2%B3%E5%B8%82%E6%A1%88%E5%88%A4%E6%B1%BA-%E6%9F%AFP%EF%BC%9A%E6%9C%89%E5%85%A9%E5%80%8B%E5%B0%8F%E5%AE%98%E5%BE%88%E8%B3%A4(最後瀏覽日:201668日)。
41台灣桃園地方法院刑事判決102年度軍重訴字第3號。
42威克,台灣《軍事審判法修正案引發的爭議,BBC中文網,201386日,http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/china/2013/08/130806_taiwan_military_law(最後瀏覽日:201657日)。
43Meredith Doig, supra note 2.

2 則留言:

  1. 作者已經移除這則留言。

    回覆刪除
  2. 田老師您好,敝姓邱,名紹群,台大法律2017年的畢業生,現於花蓮地檢署服替代役。最近在拜讀您的書,受益良多。
    在此冒昧想指出一件小事:本章(第十章)的題目,應該是《陳為廷在立法院的發言》,特此通知。
    為我的冒昧打擾再次抱歉,我先回去讀《第三部分:法律制度》了。

    回覆刪除