× 翻译是不同文化交流的桥梁,翻译是全球化过程中的一个重要角色! 翻译是不同文化交流的桥梁,翻译是全球化过程中的一个重要角色! 在这里你可以享受翻译的乐趣,在这里你可以与他人共同学习共同进步分享翻译的酸甜苦辣!竞争、淘汰!翻译竞技,欢迎各位翻译高手来这里打擂!请文明交流,请勿人身攻击!

Topic-icon 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备

  • Fanyigongbing
  • Fanyigongbing的头像 题主
  • 离线
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
更多
2011-08-04 00:53 - 2011-08-04 00:53 #1 Fanyigongbing
新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备 was created by Fanyigongbing
摘译:
BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.
原文链接:
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics...CR_0315_0568_ZS.html

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。

     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。

(译注: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(译注: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。
(译者注: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。"


     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。

     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。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • Fanyigongbing
  • Fanyigongbing的头像 题主
  • 离线
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
更多
2011-08-04 01:00 - 2011-08-04 01:00 #2 Fanyigongbing
Replied by Fanyigongbing on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
不好意思,第一帖就把链接搞错了,应该是这个

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZO.html

此外,Alito是附议法官不是异议。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

更多
2011-08-04 01:54 - 2011-08-04 04:58 #3 hongzh
Replied by hongzh on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备

We affirm the judgment below.


below 一词理解错了。【sorry, 是我理解错。】

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

更多
2011-08-04 01:58 - 2011-08-04 01:58 #4 fcs
应该是对的。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • Fanyigongbing
  • Fanyigongbing的头像 题主
  • 离线
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
更多
2011-08-04 02:19 - 2011-08-04 02:19 #5 Fanyigongbing
Replied by Fanyigongbing on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
judgment below
就是下级的判决

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

更多
2011-08-04 02:22 - 2011-08-04 02:22 #6 hongzh
Replied by hongzh on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备

应该是对的。

对,原译没错。We affirm the judgment below 是法院用语,比日常说法精简。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • grandmaster
  • grandmaster的头像
  • 离线
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
更多
2011-08-04 03:31 - 2011-08-04 03:31 #7 grandmaster
Replied by grandmaster on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
译文质量很高。
有几处有意无意之间与原文有些出入,虽无伤大体,似有改进的空间。比如:
“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.
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。”

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • Fanyigongbing
  • Fanyigongbing的头像 题主
  • 离线
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
更多
2011-08-04 03:55 - 2011-08-04 03:55 #8 Fanyigongbing
Replied by Fanyigongbing on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
还请大师指点,我不是英语专业的,什么证也没有
翻成这样会好些吗?"加州必须证实该法律乃出于保护政府重大利益、并且在适用时仅仅针对这一利益。"
双重否定直翻过来很麻烦,还是肯定句表达得清楚点。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • grandmaster
  • grandmaster的头像
  • 离线
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
更多
2011-08-04 04:22 - 2011-08-04 04:22 #9 grandmaster
Replied by grandmaster on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
我倒不是质疑你句式的选择,而是觉得你完全放弃了对“strict scrutiny”这个术语的翻译,而且draw这里是“起草、制定”的意思。
“工兵”谦虚了,怎么也是个“师长”,呵呵~~

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

  • Fanyigongbing
  • Fanyigongbing的头像 题主
  • 离线
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
更多
2011-08-04 04:35 - 2011-08-04 04:35 #10 Fanyigongbing
Replied by Fanyigongbing on topic 新手报到帖,做好了被拍的准备
你说的是对的,我看到draw就想到了draw a weapon, 就往法律"适用"那方面想,strict scrutiny 在宪法判决里通篇都是,看多了也就麻木了,要改过来才是。翻译和阅读完全两回事,我平时看得多,翻的少,等真正动手时就抓耳挠腮。加上我打字慢,上几个月买了手写板才开始翻的。

请先 登录注册一个帐号 才能操作。

创建页面时间:0.092秒
核心: Kunena 论坛