首页> 外文OA文献 >Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations of Speech Technologies
【2h】

Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations of Speech Technologies

机译:枪支和语音技术:携带武器的权利如何影响语音技术的版权法规

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This Article examines the possible effect the Supreme Courtu27s landmark Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause.u27 Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendmentu27s right to bear u22armsu22 and the Free Press Clauseu27s right to the freedom of the u22press,u22 meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as pre-existing, natural rights to the Framing generation and were separately called during the Framing the u22palladium of libertyu22 and essential to u22the security of freedom in a state.u22 The development of both concepts traces back to the abuses of the Crown in disarming the populace and restricting the printing press in England. During the seventeenth century, the people in England were deprived of both technologies-in the case of the printing press, by the copyright holders of the period known as the Stationersu27 Company, which conducted warrantless searches to seize unauthorized presses with the backing of the Crown. The Bill of Rights was enacted to stop these abuses in the new Republic. Both clauses developed in direct reaction to the perceived threat of government restrictions on the respective technologies. Given this historical connection, the analysis of the Second Amendment in Heller may provide a useful point of reference for the Court in future cases interpreting the Free Press Clause. Just as Heller held that banning handguns for the purpose of gun control violates the Second Amendmentu27s core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense, banning speech technologies for the purpose of copyright control violates the Free Press Clauseu27s core protection of speech technologies for self-expression.
机译:本文研究了最高法院在哥伦比亚特区诉海勒(Heller)案中具有里程碑意义的《第二条修正案》的裁决对根据自由新闻条款提出的未来案件可能产生的影响。 u27根据《宪法》的文本和历史,两者之间的联系正如海勒法院本身一再提出的那样,两个条款不可否认。整个宪法中只有两项规定保护技术的个人权利:第二修正案的武器使用权和自由新闻条款的印刷自由权,即印刷机。而且,这两种权利都被视为帧一代人的既有自然权利,并且在构架期间被分别称为自由钯,这对于国家的自由安全至关重要。这些概念可追溯到英国政府在解除民众武装和限制印刷机方面的滥用。在17世纪,英格兰人民被称为Stationers u27 Company的时期的版权所有者剥夺了两种技术的权利-在印刷机方面,该公司进行了毫无根据的搜查,以抓住未经许可的印刷机,并获得了皇冠。颁布了《人权法案》,以制止新共和国境内的这些虐待行为。这两个条款的提出都是对政府对相应技术的限制的威胁的直接反应。鉴于这种历史联系,对《海勒第二修正案》的分析可能为法院在解释自由新闻条款的未来案件中提供有用的参考。就像海勒(Heller)认为以枪支控制为目的禁止手枪违反了《第二修正案》拥有自卫武器权利的核心保护一样,以版权控制为目的禁止语音技术也违反了《自由新闻》条款的核心保护。用于自我表达的语音技术。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lee Edward;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2009
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号