Overkill Dec 5th 2002 From The Economist print edition A controversial law is put to the test 1. WHEN Dmitry Sklyarov, a young Russian computer scientist, got up to deliver a technical paper at a conference in Las Vegas last year, he little suspected that he was about to become something of a global celebrity. But soon after delivering the paper he was arrested by the FBI for breaching the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 American law that bans any efforts to bypass software that protects copyrighted digital files. The arrest sparked a rash of protests in both America and Europe. The Internet hummed with indignation. Charges against Mr Sklyarov have since been dropped, in exchange for a promise to testify. But the case against his employer, Moscow-based ElcomSoft, went ahead this week in San Jose, California. 2. The closely-watched trial is the first criminal prosecution brought under the DMCA, a law loathed by Internet enthusiasts. The trial will mark a crucial stage in the growing struggle between industries supplying content and those arguing that overly strict enforcement of copyright may crush the creativity of cyberspace. 3. ElcomSoft is being prosecuted for selling in America, over the Internet, a program developed by Mr Sklyarov, which allowed purchasers to bypass the copy- protection features of Adobe's popular e-book software. ElcomSoft, which sells various software utilities, says that it never intended to breach the law. It seems eager to fight the case. Mr Sklyarov is, in effect, testifying for both sides, and proceedings were delayed until special visas were obtained both for him and for Alex Katalov, ElcomSoft's chief executive, to attend the trial. The firm's lawyers have echoed the arguments of long-standing opponents of the DMCA. They claim that the law is so vague as to be unconstitutional, that it breaches the first-amendment free-speech rights of programmers, and that it brushes aside “fair use” rights of consumers protected by mainstream copyright law. 4. The DMCA makes it a criminal offence to circumvent in any way technology used by copyright holders to limit access to their work. It also outlaws the manufacture or distribution of any tools or technologies that make getting around such controls easier. Critics complain that this is overkill, criminalising much perfectly innocent research by computer programmers. Moreover, they say, even legitimate efforts to copy protected material, such as for quotation, criticism, or purely private use, are turned into crimes by the DMCA's sweeping provisions. 5. As a matter of fact, Adobe's software allows e-book publishers to set their own level of protection. Many publishers have chosen to allow users to make copies for private use on different computers, or for lending copies to friends. But if publishers opt for maximum protection, then e-book purchasers
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
OverkillDec 5th 2002 From The Economist print edition
A controversial law is put to the test
1. WHEN Dmitry Sklyarov, a young Russian computer scientist, got up to deliver a technical paper at a conference in Las Vegas last year, he little suspected that he was about to become something of a global celebrity. But soon after delivering the paper he was arrested by the FBI for breaching the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 American law that bans any efforts to bypass software that protects copyrighted digital files. The arrest sparked a rash of protests in both America and Europe. The Internet hummed with indignation. Charges against Mr Sklyarov have since been dropped, in exchange for a promise to testify. But the case against his employer, Moscow-based ElcomSoft, went ahead this week in San Jose, California.
2. The closely-watched trial is the first criminal prosecution brought under the DMCA, a law loathed by Internet enthusiasts. The trial will mark a crucial stage in the growing struggle between industries supplying content and those arguing that overly strict enforcement of copyright may crush the creativity of cyberspace.
3. ElcomSoft is being prosecuted for selling in America, over the Internet, a program developed by Mr Sklyarov, which allowed purchasers to bypass the copy-protection features of Adobe's popular e-book software. ElcomSoft, which sells various software utilities, says that it never intended to breach the law. It seems eager to fight the case. Mr Sklyarov is, in effect, testifying for both sides, and proceedings were delayed until special visas were obtained both for him and for Alex Katalov, ElcomSoft's chief executive, to attend the trial. The firm's lawyers have echoed the arguments of long-standing opponents of the DMCA. They claim that the law is so vague as to be unconstitutional, that it breaches the first-amendment free-speech rights of programmers, and that it brushes aside “fair use” rights of consumers protected by mainstream copyright law.
4. The DMCA makes it a criminal offence to circumvent in any way technology used by copyright holders to limit access to their work. It also outlaws the manufacture or distribution of any tools or technologies that make getting around such controls easier. Critics complain that this is overkill, criminalising much perfectly innocent research by computer programmers. Moreover, they say, even legitimate efforts to copy protected material, such as for quotation, criticism, or purely private use, are turned into crimes by the DMCA's sweeping provisions.
5. As a matter of fact, Adobe's software allows e-book publishers to set their own level of protection. Many publishers have chosen to allow users to make copies for private use on different computers, or for lending copies to friends. But if publishers opt for maximum protection, then e-book purchasers cannot do many of the things that are perfectly legal with printed books, such as copying sections.
6. So far, the federal judge conducting the trial has dismissed ElcomSoft's constitutional arguments as irrelevant to the criminal case. But these are likely to become the key issues if the case, or another DMCA test case like it, goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the vehement arguments made on both sides of the issue, it is not clear how the Supreme Court would rule. Meanwhile, content industries, led by the mighty American movie and music businesses, are squaring off against critics not just in the courts, but also in America's Congress, where bills both to soften the DMCA's provisions and to make them even more draconian have been introduced this year.
Vocab. in the News(in order of appearance) Arrest To deprive a person of his liberty
by legal authority. ก�รจิ�บก�มโดิยุผู้3-ม�อ��น�จิต�มกฎหม�ยุ
Copyright The right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by positive law. ล�ขสิ�ทธิ์��
Act A bill which has been enacted by legislature into law. พิระร�ชบ�ญญ�ต�
Charge The specific crime the defendant is accused of committing. ข-อห�วั$�กระท��ผู้�ดิกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ�
Testify To give evidence as witness. เบ�กคำวั�มเป1นพิยุ�น
Prosecution A criminal action. ก�รดิ��เน�นคำดิ�อ�ญ�
Unconstitutional That which is contrary to or in conflict with a constitution. ไม$ชอบดิ-วัยุร�ฐธิ์รรมน3ญ
Fair Use A privilege in others than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner’s consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner. ก�รท��กฎหม�ยุอน�ญ�ตให-ผู้3-ท��ไม$ใช$
Offence A breach of the criminal laws. ก�รกระท��ผู้�ดิกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ� ฐ�นคำวั�มผู้�ดิ
Legitimate That which is lawful, legal, recognized by law, or according to law. ชอบดิ-วัยุกฎหม�ยุ
Provision A condition which formally included in law. บทบ�ญญ�ต�ของกฎหม�ยุ
Asbestos claims
No way to right a wrongOct 24th 2002
From The Economist print editionCancerous product, cancerous litigation1. WHAT should America do about mass torts? The toll from asbestos litigation continues to mount. ABB, a European engineering firm, is the latest company to face ruin because of work done by a subsidiary that was not only legal at the time, but carried out in the interest of safety. And asbestos is only one cause of such litigation. Tobacco, lead paint and pharmaceutical products are all ripe business opportunities for lawyers, who routinely earn 30-50% of settlements. 2. A paper published earlier this year by the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that America's tort system soaks up 1.8% of GDP, or $180 billion a year. And for little purpose: only 20% of the money goes to claimants for economic damages. In a number of mass tort cases, courts have begged Congress to intervene. But politicians hesitate. Reform would reduce payments to a constituency that recycles settlement money into political contributions: the trial lawyers.
3. Certainly, companies must take responsibility for disclosing the known potential hazards of the products they produce, and for shouldering the consequences when they do not. But asbestos does harm in a particularly insidious way. Its horrible cancers and respiratory problems may emerge only long after the statute of limitations has expired, meaning that there may be no redress even for medical costs. This lag has encouraged lawyers to seek huge settlements for people who are not harmed and will never be harmed. The result is not only to wreak havoc upon companies forced to pay the bill, but in effect to limit the compensation for real victims. 4. Two remedies that are being widely discussed for asbestos could be used elsewhere. The more modest is to create a registry of people who might eventually be able to file a tort claim for exposure to a toxic substance, to preserve their right to litigate beyond any normal statute of limitation. Courts in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have already begun to do this. But it can only be a partial solution. No one would want to be at the end of the line in cases with huge potential financial settlements, because there may be nothing left when their turn comes. The registry also leaves a huge liability hanging over existing businesses.
5. A second idea is to address mass torts by creating a giant administrative compensation system, along the lines of the fund for victims of the September 11th attacks. The fund could compensate for economic damage—lost wages and medical costs—rather than for the more abstract “pain and suffering” that largely feeds the plaintiff bar. But cutting out the plaintiff bar would undoubtedly jeopardise passage through Congress.
Think modest6. The best approach would be twofold. First, as suggested by Victor Schwartz of the Campaign for Asbestos Justice, limit litigation to where plaintiffs live, or were exposed, or where the defendant has its principal place of business. That would control the rush to tort havens in Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas and Illinois, where verdicts are most irresponsibly open-handed. Defendants complain that, in a handful of jurisdictions, judges allow the introduction of poor scientific evidence and block depositions by plaintiffs, with devastating consequences. Second, end the consolidation of claims that have little to do with one another. In a recent case in West Virginia, more than 8,000 plaintiffs took 250 companies to court. After pre-trial settlements, there were still 5,000 plaintiffs when the trial began. Supreme Court rulings may also help. 7. Solutions exist. But all have one dire weakness: less money for lawyers. Could Congress ever swallow that—even to benefit true victims of corporate carelessness?
VOCAB. IN THE NEWS LITIGATION (N) The process of fighting or defending a case in a civil court of law.
กิรืะบวนกิ�รืต็�อส��คด้�แพ�งTORT (N) A violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all
persons occupying the relation to each other which is
involved in a given transaction. กิ�รืฝ่B�ฝ่Cนต็�อหน��ทำ��ซึ่4�งกิ��หนด้โด้ยกิฎหม�ยหรื�อโด้ยปรืะกิ�รือ��นส��หรื�บบ)คคล่ทำ)กิคนในส�วนทำ��เกิ��ยวกิ�บคว�มส�มพ�นธุ,ทำ��ม�ต็�อกิ�นในกิ�จกิ�รือย��งหน4�งอย��งใด้. กิ�รืล่ะเม�ด้
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (N) Statutes of the federal government and various states setting maximum time periods during which certain actions can be brought or rights enforced. After the time period set out in the applicable statute of limitations has run, no legal action can be brought regardless of whether
any cause of action ever existed. กิฎหม�ยขึ้องสหพ�นธุรื�ฐหรื�อมล่รื�ฐทำ��กิ��หนด้รืะยะเวล่�หรื�ออ�ย)คว�มส��หรื�บกิ�รืฟ้2องรื�องคด้�
LIABILITY(N) An obligation one is bound in law or justice to perform. หน�#หรื�อคว�มรื�บผิ�ด้ทำ��ผิ�กิพ�นต็�มกิฎหม�ย
DEFENDANT (N) The person defending or denying; the party against whom relief
or recovery is sought in an action or suit or the accused in
a criminal case. จ��เล่ยในคด้�แพ�งแล่ะคด้�อ�ญ� DEPOSITION (N) The testimony of a witness, taken in writing, under oath or
affirmation, before some judicial officer in answer to questions or interrogatories. The deposition is conducted under oath outside of the courtroom, usually in one of
PLAINTIFF (N) A person who brings an action. โจทำกิ, TRIAL (N) A judicial examination and determination of issues between
parties to action, whether by they be issues of law or fact,
before court that has jurisdiction. กิ�รืพ�จ�รืณี�พ�พ�กิษั�คด้� (ต็�มปกิต็�จะทำ��โด้ยม�กิ�รืส�บพย�นด้�วย)
Just don't say itDec 12th 2002
From The Economist print edition
To what extent do companies have the right to free speech?
1. IN THE next few days the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the case of Nike v Kasky. America's top judges reject 99% of the briefs that thud into their in-tray, but can they dare to ignore this one? At stake is the basic principle of the first amendment to the American constitution: free speech. To what extent should companies have the same rights as individuals when they make public statements? Specifically, are their public pronouncements—in debates,
on websites, or in published letters or articles—normal speech, or are they advertising that could expose them to million-dollar lawsuits? 2. More than 40 bodies, from Microsoft, Pfizer and the US Chamber of Commerce, to CNN, Bloomberg and the New York Times, have joined Nike in pressing the Supreme Court to take the case. They hope it will overturn a Californian judgment. 3. The original suit was brought by an anti-corporate activist named Marc Kasky. His private action claimed that Nike had violated California's unfair trade practice and advertising law when it issued press releases, newspaper ads and letters to editors to rebut claims that workers in its South-East Asian factories laboured in “sweatshop” conditions. Although two lower courts found for the sports-goods maker, last spring California's supreme court ruled by a 4-3 majority that Nike's public defences constituted “commercial speech”. Thus they were aimed at consumers of their products and so, like other advertisements, not protected under the first amendment. 4. Admittedly, this is not wholly illogical. A reputation for running sweatshops may damage a brand, and thus hit sales. So defending the brand from that taint is arguably aimed at boosting sales. 5. Unless the ruling is reversed, companies fear they could face lawsuits for anything they say in good faith on matters relating to their business, from globalisation to the environment to race relations, if it later turns out to be untrue or misleading. According to Floyd Abrams, a constitutional lawyer: “the California ruling is extraordinarily dangerous. It puts corporations at terrible risk if they speak out on public issues that involve their business.” 6. Mr Abrams says that the effect would be to muzzle companies, stifle debate and reverse a welcome trend towards greater transparency. According to Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer acting for Nike, if the ruling holds, “companies will be much more reluctant to speak. Even the truth will not be a defence, since any statement deemed misleading could be actionable.” Nike has already decided not to release its annual “corporate social responsibility” report. Talking to the press could also be risky, as firms cannot control how quotes are used. 7. If the ruling stays, firms everywhere may be hit, including in Europe. As Mr Abrams points out “California's supreme court is rightly taken as a serious court whose rulings could well be adopted elsewhere.” Since European firms have stricter requirements than American ones about publishing social responsibility reports, they could less easily withdraw from public debate. (On the other hand, they already have to operate without a constitutional right of free speech.) That web content produced in one country may be subject to the laws of a country where it is read was made clear on December 10th when Australia's High Court ruled that an article on Dow Jones's American website could be grounds for a defamation lawsuit in Victoria, where the article was downloaded. With companies already under fire for not communicating honestly and openly enough, how odd to stifle their ability to take part in public-policy debates in the name of consumer protection.
Free Speech Right guaranteed by First Amendment of U.S. Constitution to express one’s thoughts and views without governmental restrictions. เสิร�ภ�พิในก�รพิ3ดิและแสิดิงคำวั�มคำ�ดิเห5นท��ไดิ-ร�บก�รร�บรองต�มร�ฐธิ์รรมน3ญของสิหร�ฐอเมร�ก�ฉบ�บแก-ไขเพิ��มเต�มคำร�(งท��หน'�ง
Lawsuit An action or proceeding in a civil court ก�รฟBองร-องดิ��เน�นคำดิ�แพิ$ง
Judgment The official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination. คำ��พิ�พิ�กษ�วั�น�จิฉ�ยุประเดิ5นข-อพิ�พิ�ทท��คำ3$คำวั�มกล$�วัอ-�ง
Majority Vote by more than half of voters. เสิ�ยุงข-�งม�ก
Ruling A judicial or administrative interpretation of a provision of a statute, order, regulation, or ordinance. คำ��วั�น�จิฉ�ยุต�คำวั�มบทบ�ญญ�ต�ของกฎหม�ยุหร�อระเบ�ยุบต$�งๆ
Reverse To overthrow, vacate, set aside or revoke. ก�รกล�บคำ��พิ�พิ�กษ�ของศ�ลล$�ง
Good Faith Honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. โดิยุสิ�จิร�ต
Actionable That for which an action will lie, furnishing legal ground for an action. กรณ�ท��อ�จิถู3กฟBองร-องดิ��เน�นคำดิ�ไดิ-
Ground A foundation or basis for bringing civil action. ม3ลคำดิ�ท��อ�จิน��ไปฟBองเป1นคำดิ�แพิ$งไดิ-
Defamation An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name. ก�รหม��นประม�ทอ�นเป1นเหต�ให-บ�คำคำลอ��นเสิ��อมเสิ�ยุช��อเสิ�ยุง
CRIMINAL LAW 101Chapter 1 (1)
(excerpt from Criminal Law in a Nutshell, Prof. Arnold H. Loewy (1975))
1 Before an intelligent study of criminal law can be undertaken, it is necessary to focus on the single characteristic that differentiates it from civil law. This characteristic is punishment.2 Generally, in a civil suit, the basic questions are (1) how much, if at all, has defendant injured plaintiff, and (2) what remedy or remedies, if any, are appropriate to compensate plaintiff for his loss.In a criminal case, on the other hand, the questions are (1) to what extent, if at all, has defendantinjured society, and (2) what sentence, if any, is necessary to punish defendant for his transgressions. 3 Since the criminal law seeks to punish rather than compensate, there should be something about each course of conduct defined as criminal that renders mere compensation to the victim inadequate. This follows from the truism that no human being should be made to suffer if such suffering cannot be justified by a concomitant gain to society.4 No rational assessment of the kinds of activity that should be punished can be undertaken without some analysis of the purposes of punishment. Those purposes most frequently mentionedare reformation, restraint, retribution, and deterrence (perhaps more easily remembered as three “R”s and a “D” of punishment).
Purpose of Punishment
A. REFORMATION
5 There is little, if any, dispute to the principle that punishment ought to reform. Certainly, societygains and nobody loses if any individual who has transgressed against society’s standards isreformed. 6 There is, however, some difference of opinion as to the relative importance of reformation.Some believe that since criminals represent the worst in society, it is unjust to take tax dollars from those they consider more worthy to finance the rehabilitation of those they deem less worthy. Othersbelieve that reformationis a valid purpose, but should be
subordinated to other purposes, such asdeterrence. ….7 Generally speaking, however, reformationis regarded by criminologist as the most worthwhilegoal of punishment. The real objection to reformationis simply that it doesn’t work. This observation can be supported by the high degree of recidivism among those who have been imprisoned. Moreover, it can be persuasively argued that the very nature of the prison system runs counter to the goal of reformation. ... One might also compare imprisoning a criminal to requiring one who has engaged in some Communistic activity to associate only with Communists. Just as the Communistwould likely increase his Communistic tendencies by such as association, it can be argued that prison increases rather than decreases the criminal propensities of its inmates. 8 Notwithstanding the above analysis, it would be unfair to dismiss the noble concept ofreformation as a total failure. All of us are familiar with instances in which unskilled, uneducated andapparently incorrigible criminals have developed skills in prison which have transformed them intohighly useful citizens. Perhaps the real tragedy of the penal system is that this happen so infrequently that when it does occur, we hear about it. (To be continued)* Paragraph numbers are added.** Numbering of titles and topics have been changed from the
original to simplify the text.References to other parts in the original book have also been
removed.
ว�ช�กิฎหม�ยอ�ญ� 101
บทำทำ�� 1 (1) (คำ�ดิยุ$อจิ�กหน�งสิ�อ Criminal Law in A Nutshell โดิยุศ�สิตร�จิ�รยุ� Arnold H. Loewy (1975))
Punishment A deprivation of life, liberty, property or right inflicted upon aperson by judgment of the court, for
some criminal offense committed by the person, e.g., fine, imprisonment, exection. ก�รลงโทษซี'�งในท��น�(หม�ยุถู'งก�รลงโทษท�งอ�ญ�โดิยุคำ��พิ�พิ�กษ�ของศ�ลดิ-วัยุก�รท��ให-บ�คำคำลท��กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิต-องปร�ศจิ�กเสิร�ภ�พิ ทร�พิยุ�สิ�น หร�อช�วั�ตอ�นเป1นผู้ลเน��องม�จิ�กก�รท��บ�คำคำลดิ�งกล$�วัไดิ-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ� เช$น ก�รปร�บ จิ��คำ�ก ประห�รช�วั�ต
Compensate To indemnify, or pay damages, to an injured party in order torestore him to his position as existed at the time of the incidence. ก�รให-คำ$�สิ�นไหมทดิแทนคำวั�มเสิ�ยุห�ยุแก$ผู้3-เสิ�ยุห�ยุเพิ��อท��จิะท��ให-ผู้3-เสิ�ยุห�ยุกล�บคำ�นสิ3$สิถู�นะเดิ�มขณะท��เก�ดิเหต�ข'(น
Reformation A process aimed to bring about a better result, or to rectify adefendant’s behavior. แนวัคำ�ดิทฤษฎ�ท�งกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ�ท��ประสิงคำ�จิะลงโทษผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิเพิ��อแก-ไขฟ9( นฟ3ผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิอ�ญ�ให-กล�ยุเป1นคำนดิ�
Retribution A purpose of criminal punishment aimed to make a wrongdoersuffer as a consequence of his crime. แนวัคำ�ดิทฤษฎ�ท�งกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ�ท��ประสิงคำ�จิะลงโทษผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิเพิ��อเป1นก�รแก-แคำ-นท��ผู้3-น� (นไดิ-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิอ�ญ�จินท��ให-ประช�ชนและสิ�งคำมไดิ-ร�บคำวั�มเสิ�ยุห�ยุ
Deterrence A purpose of criminal punishment aimed to discourage othersfrom committing a crime by showing consequences that they may incur if they commit similar crime. แนวัคำ�ดิทฤษฎ�ท�งกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ�ท��ประสิงคำ�จิะลงโทษผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิเพิ��อปBองปร�มบ�คำคำลอ��นม�ให-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิเช$นเดิ�ยุวัก�นอ�ก
RehabilitationA process aimed to restore a wrongdoer to be a good citizen anddignified member of a society. แนวัคำ�ดิทฤษฎ�ท�งกฎหม�ยุอ�ญ�ท��ประสิงคำ�จิะลงโทษผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิเพิ��อแก-ไขฟ9( นฟ3ผู้3-กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิให-กล�ยุเป1นสิม�ช�กท��ดิ�และม�คำ�ณคำ$�ของสิ�งคำมเช$นเดิ�ยุวัก�บแนวัคำ�ดิ Reformation
Criminologist A person who perform a scientific study of crime and criminals.น�กอ�ชญ�วั�ทยุ�
Engage To do or involve in doing some activity. ลงม�อหร�อเก��ยุวัข-องก�บก�จิกรรมอ�นใดิอ�นหน'�ง
Propensity A natural tendency, inclination, or character to behave in a particular way. แนวัโน-มหร�อบ�คำล�กล�กษณะต�มธิ์รรมช�ต�ของบ�คำคำลท��จิะประพิฤต�ตนในแนวัท�งใดิแนวัท�งหน'�ง
Inmate A person who is punished by means of imprisonment. น�กโทษท��ถู3กจิ��คำ�ก
CONSTITUTION 101Chapter 1 (1)
์, LIBERTY AGAINST GOVERNMENT : THE BASIC ANALYSIS(excerpt from Constitutional Analysis, Prof. Jerre S. Williams (1995))
1 To aid in understanding the nature of the distinction between liberty and the exercise ofgovernmental power and to give us the foundation for the constitutional analysis, let us develop a simpleimaginary concept ….
2 Imagine, if you will, that we took all of the power that any government could have and placed it ina huge oblong box. Included in this box would be the most autocratic and despotic powers ofgovernment. Along with other generally acceptable governmental powers in our box, then would be the power to execute someone without trial or without charges. So also would be included the power to throw a person in jail for criticizing the government, or the power to take a person’s home and his or herother property without any excuse and without compensating for it. Other despotic powers wouldinclude forcing all citizens to wear a uniform, to attend a state church, to listen to a governmental leader[s speech. So assume, if you will, in the box are all possible governmental powers, including the most despicable and the ugliest exercises of power, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.
3 In the United States under our Constitution, we saw this long oblong box into tow parts. We shall represent this by drawing a vertical line through the box as shown:
4 The reason for cutting the box apart is to take away from the government those powers which wedo not want our government to have. We take away the powers of the despot. We protect the individual citizen against intrusions upon freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We require fair courtprocedures. We insist that the citizen can be fined or imprisoned only on fair charges involving a valid offense and after a fair and complete trial. So we set aside a large part of this box of potential governmental powers. We insist that our government cannot have the powers which would infringe uponour liberty.
5 After we have severed these excessive and undesirable governmental powers out of our totalaggregation of powers, we set them aside. We call governmental
attempts to control in these protected areas invasions of “freedom” or “individual liberty” or, as we shall see later, we often just call them the protections of “due process of law” as a shorthand expression. We accomplish this withdrawal of possible governmental powers by writing into the Constitution a Bill of Rights and other protections of individual liberty.
6 So now our box of governmental power looks like this:
Freedom or Individual Liberty
Governmental Power
7 On the left side, within the dotted lines, we have that part of the original box of governmental powers where power has been taken away from our government under our system. We call that area: liberty. On the right side are the remaining governmental powers. Those are the powers which are not taken away by our constitutional requirement for liberty. It is the Constitution which has severed our box by drawing the line which protects our liberties from government powers.
8 A word of caution here; although our schematic line is drawn down the middle of our diagram, itwas carefully said that the box was sawed into two parts, not sawed in half. There is not attempt by the placement of the line to show how much governmental power has been taken out of the total potential amount. At the moment, we are not interested in the quantity of governmental power. We are interested in the nature of the qualities of the powers involved.
9 To understand the application of this boxlike configuration, which will more often now be called a diagram, consider a simple, although very important, constitutional issue. A person makes a speech advocating revolutionary overthrow of the government. As most readers probably already know, this revolutionary advocacy is not automatically subject to criminal penalties by the government. If this advocacy of revolution is advocacy in the abstract, philosophical
sense, we have adequate constitutional holdings establishing that it is protected free speech. Only when the advocacy becomes advocacy for immediate, significantly revolutionary or antigovernmental action may the speaker bepunished for such statements.
10 In terms of our diagram, the issue in such a case is simply whether this case falls on the left sideof the dividing line, in the area of individual freedom (the government may not prohibit the speech) (1),or falls on the right side in the area of government power (the government does have the power tocontrol the speech) (2):
Liberty(1)
Governmental Power(2)
11 To make this analysis clearer, consider some other examples. A book is charged with beingobscene. Is it protected free speech, or is it a book which is not protected free speech and therefore, can be prohibited from circulation by the government? The issue in terms of our diagram is whether theresult of the case falls in the area of individual liberty on the left side – (1), or in the area of governmentalpower on the right – (2). The vertical line which cuts apart our box-diagram is the dividing line betweenpersonal liberty on one side and governmental power to control the activities and conduct of persons on the other.
Law VocabularyLiberty Freedom from restraints except such
as those that are justly imposedby law and indispensable for the equal enjoyment of the same rightby others. อ�สิรภ�พิจิ�กก�รถู3กจิ��ก�ดิต$�งๆ เวั-นแต$เป1นข-อจิ��ก�ดิท��ถู3กก��หนดิโดิยุชอบดิ-วัยุกฎหม�ยุและเป1นกรณ�ท��จิ��เป1นเพิ��อคำ�-มคำรองสิ�ทธิ์�เสิร�ภ�พิของบ�คำคำลอ��น
Execute To kill someone as a punishment for committing a criminal offense.
ก�รประห�รช�วั�ต
Compensate To indemnify, or pay damages, to an injured party in order torestore him to his position as existed at the time of the incidence. ก�รให-คำ$�สิ�นไหมทดิแทนคำวั�มเสิ�ยุห�ยุแก$ผู้3-เสิ�ยุห�ยุเพิ��อท��จิะท��ให-ผู้3-เสิ�ยุห�ยุกล�บคำ�นสิ3$สิถู�นะเดิ�มขณะท��เก�ดิเหต�ข'(น
Exercise Use of right or authority. ก�รใช-สิ�ทธิ์�
Freedom of religion The freedom of an individual to believe or practice his or her belief, which is protected by the Constitution. เสิร�ภ�พิของบ�คำคำลท��จิะเช��อหร�อปฏิ�บ�ต�พิ�ธิ์�กรรมต�มคำวั�มเช��อของตนซี'�งไดิ-ร�บคำวั�มคำ�-มคำรองต�มร�ฐธิ์รรมน3ญ
Fine To punish someone for committing an offense by ordering him to pay a specific sum of money. ก�รลงโทษบ�คำคำลท��กระท��คำวั�มผู้�ดิอ�ญ�ดิ-วัยุก�รสิ��งให-จิ$�ยุเง�นต�มจิ��นวันท��ก��หนดิ
Imprison To restrict one’s freedom by putting him into prison. ก�รจิ��คำ�ก
Valid Having the authority of law and the binding force as permitting by law. ม�อ��น�จิกระท��ไดิ-โดิยุชอบดิ-วัยุกฎหม�ยุ
Infringe To violate a law, regulation or right, to break into, or to trespass upon. ก�รละเม�ดิสิ�ทธิ์�หร�อบทบ�ญญ�ต�แห$งกฎหม�ยุ
Due process of law a course of legal proceedings as prescribed by law or regulation aimed at protecting individual rights. กระบวันก�รต�มท��กฎหม�ยุโดิยุม�วั�ตถู�ประสิงคำ�เพิ��อคำ�-มคำรองสิ�ทธิ์�เสิร�ภ�พิของประช�ชน ภ�ยุใต-หล�กก�รน�( ร�ฐจิะท��ให-ประช�ชนสิ3ญเสิ�ยุหร�อเสิ�ยุห�ยุในสิ�ทธิ์�ในช�วั�ตร$�งก�ยุ เสิร�ภ�พิ และทร�พิยุ�สิ�นไม$ไดิ- เวั-นแต$ในกรณ�ท��ไดิ-ดิ��เน�นกระบวันก�รต�มท��กฎหม�ยุก��หนดิคำรบถู-วันแล-วั นอกจิ�กน�(น ในก�รพิ�จิ�รณ�พิ�พิ�กษ�คำดิ� ศ�ลจิะต-องให-โอก�สิคำ3$คำวั�มในก�รน��เสินอข-ออ-�งข-อเถู�ยุงและพิยุ�นหล�กฐ�นอยุ$�งเพิ�ยุงพิอจิ'งจิะถู�อวั$�ไดิ-ดิ��เน�นกระบวันก�รโดิยุชอบแล-วั
Advocacy The act of supporting in public. ก�รเร�ยุกร-องให-สิน�บสิน�นต$อสิ�ธิ์�รณะ
Penalty A legal punishment. ก�รลงโทษต�มกฎหม�ยุ
Holding A legal principle that can be drawn from the judgment of the court,
and that is directly relating to the issue in dispute in that particular case. หล�กกฎหม�ยุท��ไดิ-จิ�กคำ��พิ�พิ�กษ�ของศ�ลในประเดิ5นท��พิ�พิ�ทโดิยุตรงในคำดิ�ท��ต�ดิสิ�นน�(น
Obscene Being offensive, especially when relating to naked people. ม�ล�กษณะล�มกอน�จิ�ร
แปลวั$� ก�รขวั�ดิ หร�อก�รท��สิ�ตวั�ม�เข�ท��ร-�ยุดิ-วัยุเข�ของม�น ต�วัอยุ$�งเช$น The bullfighter was badly gored. (วั�วัชนถู3กขวั�ดิจินบ�ดิเจิ5บหน�ก) He was gored to death by an angry bull. (เข�ถู3กวั�วับ-�ขวั�ดิต�ยุ หร�อท$�นใดิจิะแปลวั$� วั�วัโกรธิ์แทนคำ��วั$�วั�วับ-�ก5ไดิ-ต�มอ�ธิ์ยุ�ศ�ยุคำร�บ)
จิ�กร3ปคำ��ปกต� น�ยุ Albert Gore หร�อท��เร�ยุกก�นสิ�(นๆ วั$� อ�ล กอร� ไม$ม�เข�ท��จิะขวั�ดิใคำรไดิ-แต$เม��อช��อสิก�ลของน�ยุกอร� ไปสิะกดิตรงก�บคำ��วั$� gore เข-� หน�งสิ�อพิ�มพิ�จิ'งเอ�ช��อน�ยุกอร�ม�พิ�ดิห�วัเพิ��อเร�ยุกคำวั�มสินใจิ น��เป1นเพิ�ยุงบ�งต�วัอยุ$�งวั$� ก�รจิะจิ��สิ��นวันจิ�กหน�งสิ�อพิ�มพิ�ไปใช-ในช�วั�ตประจิ��วั�นน�(นน$�จิะต-องม�ข-อคำวัรระวั�งให-ม�ก คำ��วั$� gore ห�กเป1นคำ��น�มจิะแปลวั$�โชกเล�อดิ เช$น ภ�พิยุนต�ท��บ3Rดิ�เดิ�อดิเล�อดิท$วัมจิอ ก5จิะเร�ยุกวั$� a movie with too
much gore. หร�อ a movie with too much blood and
gore. อยุ$�งเช$นภ�พิยุนตร�เร��อง ”บ�งระจิ�น ” ซี'�งเป1นภ�พิยุนต�ท��ดิ�แต$ออกจิะม�บทบ3Rเล�อดิสิ�ดิท$วัมจิอไปหน$อยุ (“Bang Rajan” is a great film,but there’s a lot of blood and gore in it.) ในก�รใช-ถู-อยุคำ��ท��อยุ�กจิะให-ม�สิ�สิ�น บ�งคำร�วัจิะใช-คำ��วั$� gore แทนคำ��วั$� blood ท��แปลวั$�เล�อดิ เช$น The bodies lay in a
pool of blood. (ผู้3-คำนนอนจิมกองเล�อดิอยุ3$) ก5อ�จิกล$�วัไดิ-วั$� The bodies lay in a pool of gore. คำ��น�มท��แปลวั$�โชกเล�อดิ ก5ม�ท��ม�จิ�กคำ��กร�ยุ� ท��แปลวั$�ขวั�ดิ น��นเอง เม��อขวั�ดิก5ต-องม�เล�อดิคำ��น�มและคำ��กร�ยุ�ท��แปลวั$�ขวั�ดิ และเล�อดิดิ�งกล$�วัจิ'งเป1นท��ม�ของคำ��วั$� gory ซี'�งเป1น adjective
แปลวั$�ช�$มโชกไปดิ-วัยุเล�อดิ เช$น a gory film (ภ�พิยุนตร�ท��ฆ$�ก�นเล�อดิสิ�ดิท$วัมจิอ) a gory battle /fight (ก�รต$อสิ3-ท��ช� $มไปดิ-วัยุเล�อดิ) The newspaper account of the accident gave all the gory details.(หน�งสิ�อพิ�มพิ�เก��ยุวัก�บอ�บ�ต�เหต� ไดิ-ให-ร�ยุละเอ�ยุดิชน�ดิไดิ-กล��นคำ�วัเล�อดิ) หร�อ He told us all the gory
details of the accident he’d seen. (เข�เล$�เร��องอ�บ�ต�เหต�ท��เข�เห5นให-เร�ฟEงอยุ$�งละเอ�ยุดิเหม�อนเร�อยุ3$ในเหต�ก�รณ�เช�ยุวั)
คำ��วั$� the gory details ยุ�งม�คำวั�มหม�ยุต$อไปวั$� เร��องเลวัๆ เร��องไม$น$�ร�บฟEง เช$น ถู-�ใคำรม�พิ3ดิวั$�น��คำ�ณ ไดิ-ข$�วัน�ยุฮอนกฮ3กถู3กบ�ตรสินเท$ห�เร��องม�แม$ยุ�ยุม�กไหม ถู-�เร�ไม$อยุ�กฟEง ก5จิะยุอกคำนพิ3ดิวั$� spare me the gory details, please. (อยุ$�เล$�เร��องช��วัๆ น�( ให-ผู้มฟEงเลยุคำร�บ ไดิ-โปรดิ) หร�ออ�จิพิ3ดิวั$� Please
spare me the gruesome details. ซี'�งม�คำวั�มหม�ยุอยุ$�งเดิ�ยุวัก�น ในท�งกล�บก�น ถู-�เร�อยุ�กฟEงก5บอกเข�เลยุวั$� Come
on,I want to know all the gory details. ( เอ�เลยุผู้มอยุ�กฟEงร�ยุละเอ�ยุดิท�(งหมดิ ) คำ��วั$� gory อยุ$�ไปสิ�บสินก�บคำ��วั$� glory นะคำร�บ คำ��วั$� glory เป1นท�(ง verb และ noun แปลวั$�ร� $งโรจิน�โชต�ช$วัง เหม�อนอยุ$�งเพิลงประจิ��ท�มแมนเชนเตอร� ยุ3ไนเต5ดิ ท��วั$� “Glory, glory Man United… ” คำ��วั$� gory ยุ�งม�คำวั�มหม�ยุวั$� ผู้-�ท��บ�นสิ$วันปล�ยุ ม�กใช-ในร3ป adjective โดิยุเต�ม ed เช$น a gored skirt (กระโปรงบ�น)
ต-�นก�รท��แท-ง ท��ไมต-องเก��ยุวัก�บประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ� คำ��ตอบก5คำ�อ ประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ�เป1นผู้3-เสินอช��อบ�คำคำลเข-�เป1นผู้3-พิ�พิ�กษ�ศ�ลสิ3งสิ�ดิ ถู-�ม�ต��แหน$งวั$�งลง เพิ��อให-ร�ฐสิภ�เห5นชอบ พิวักน�(จิ'งหวั�งวั$� ถู-�ม�ก�รต�(งผู้3-พิ�พิ�กษ�ท��ต$อต-�นก�รท��แท-งม�กข'(น ก5จิะกล�บคำ��พิ�พิ�กษ�เดิ�มลงไดิ- (Many Pro-Life supporters would like another abortion case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because they believe a different decision might be made now.) ผู้3-วั$�ก�รบ�ช จิ�กพิรรคำ Republican หร�อ GOP
ข-อต-องจิ��อยุ$�งท��สิ�ดิถู-�จิะเดิ�นท�งไปสิหร�ฐก5คำ�อ ให-เร�ยุกคำนผู้�วัดิ��วั$� black หร�อจิะให-เป1นท�งก�รข'(นม�ก5เร�ยุกวั$� African
American ( หร�อในภ�ษ�อ�งกฤษเร�ยุกวั$� Afo - American) และห-�มคำ��วั$�น�โกรเดิ5ดิข�ดิ ถู-�พิบอ�นเดิ�ยุแดิง หร�ออเมร�ก�นอ�นเดิ�ยุน ก5ห-�มเร�ยุกวั$� Red Indian หร�อ American Indian คำ��ท�(งสิองถู3กเล�กใช-ไปน�น
แล-วั เพิร�ะกล�ยุเป1นคำ��ผู้�ดิกฎหม�ยุ คำ�อเป1น racial slur เช$นก�น จิะต-องเร�ยุกวั$� Native American หร�อห�กจิะเร�ยุกให-เป1นท�งก�รก5เร�ยุกวั$� Native American หร�ออ�จิจิะเร�ยุกให-เป1นท�งก�รก5เร�ยุกวั$� Indiganous people
(reverse แปลวั$� กล�บข-�ง, discrimination แปลวั$�ก�ดิก�น รวัมแล-วัแปลวั$� ก�รก�ดิก�นท��กล�บดิ-�น คำ�อเดิ�มคำนดิ��ถู3กก�ดิก�น ปEจิจิ�บ�นกล�ยุเป1นข�วัถู3กก�ดิก�น ) เช$น Bakke claimed that he was a victim of reverse discrimination because he,a white man,was denied entry to medical school so that the school could admit more black people. (เบคำ
Service หร�อ the NHS ซี'�งโคำรงก�รน�(จิะท��ให-ประช�ชนไดิ-ร�บประโยุชน�จิ�กก�รไม$เสิ�ยุคำ$�ร�กษ�พิยุ�บ�ลเบ�(องต-น แต$อ�จิเสิ�ยุคำ$�ยุ�ท��แพิงบ�งอยุ$�งสิ$วันในสิหร�ฐอเมร�ก�จิะม�โคำรงก�ร เร�ยุกวั$� Medicaid
คำ��วั$� voucher แปลวั$� คำ3ปอง คำ��น�(ถู-�อยุ3$ในประเทศอ�งกฤษจิะหม�ยุถู'งก�รท��บร�ษ�ทไดิ-ให-คำ3ปองแก$พิน�กง�นไปให-ซี�(ออ�ห�รก�น (Some firms give their workers luncheon
vouchers.) ในสิหร�ฐอเมร�ก�เร�ยุกคำ3ปองท��ให-คำนจินใช-ซี�(ออ�ห�รวั$� food stamp ฉะน�(นเวัล�ไปยุ�งช�มชนของคำนท��ม�ร�ยุไดิ-ต��� จิะพิบร-�นข�ยุของช��หร�อร-�นอ�ห�รซีอมซี$อ ม�ปB�ยุเข�ยุนวั$� This store
accepts food stamps. (ร-�นน�(ยุ�นดิ�ร�บบ�ตรอ�ห�ร) หร�อเวัล�ฝ่ร��งไปพิบคำนไทยุซี'�งหน-�ต�คำงเหม�อนแม-วัอพิยุพิ (Hmong) เข�ก5จิะถู�มดิ-วัยุคำวั�มเวัทน�วั$� “Are you eligible for food stamp
?” (คำ�ณม�สิ�ทธิ์�ไดิ-ร�บอ�ห�รคำ3ปองหร�อเปล$�)
คำ��วั$� voucher ยุ�งม�คำวั�มหม�ยุท�งกฎหม�ยุวั$� ต-นข�(วัท��เก5บไวั-เป1นหล�กฐ�นท�งบ�ญช� แต$คำ��วั$� voucher ของบ�ช ไม$เก��ยุวัก�บคำ3ปองอ�ห�รหร�อต-นข�(วัเอกสิ�รคำร�บ คำวั�มหม�ยุในท��น�(ก5คำ�อ voucher System หร�อ voucher plan ซี'�งเป1นก�รช$วัยุเหล�อท�งก�รศ'กษ�โดิยุให-คำ3ปอง โ รงเร�ยุนร�ฐบ�งแห$งอ�จิร�บคำ3ปองโดิยุไม$เร�ยุกเง�นเพิ��ม สิ$วันโรงเร�ยุนเอกชนท�กแห$งท��ร �บคำ3ปองจิะม�เง�นสิ$วันท��จิะเร�ยุกเพิ��มม�กบ-�งน-อยุบ-�งแล-วัแต$โรงเร�ยุน ขอสิ$งท-�ยุดิ-วัยุช�ยุชนะของผู้3-วั$�ก�รร�ฐเท5กซี�สิ น�ยุจิอร�จิ ดิ�ลเบ�ลยุ3 บ�ช ซี'�งเม��อรองประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ� อ�ล กอร� กล$�วัยุอมร�บคำวั�มพิ$�ยุแพิ- (a concession speech) ในตอนหน'�งเข�กล$�วัวั$� I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside,and may God bless his stewardship of this country. (ข-�พิเจิ-�ไดิ-พิ3ดิต$อบ�ช ผู้3-ไดิ-ร�บเล�อกเป1นประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ�วั$� สิ��งท��หลงเหล�ออยุ3$ของคำวั�มข�ดิแยุ-งท��แบ$งพิรรคำแบ$งพิวักจิะถู3กขจิ�ดิออกไป และขอพิระผู้3-เป1นเจิ-�จิงช$วัยุให-เข�บรรล�หน-�ท��ในก�รดิ3แลช�ต�บ-�นเม�องดิ-วัยุ)
คำ��กล$�วัของรองประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ�กอร� ม�ข-อน$�สินใจิหล�ยุคำ�� เช$น คำ��วั$� say to ซี'�งเป1นร3ปก�รใช-คำ��ท��ต-องใช-เวัล�คำ�ยุก�นเป1นพิ�เศษในโอก�สิอ��น คำ��วั$� partisan rancor หม�ยุคำวั�มวั$� คำวั�มร3 -สิ'กแบ$งฝ่Eกฝ่8�ยุพิรรคำพิวัก คำ��วั$� steward หม�ยุถู'งผู้3-ม�หน-�ท��ดิ3แล เช$น ดิ3แลผู้3-โดิยุสิ�รในเร�อหร�อเคำร��องบ�น ในท��น�(คำ�อผู้3-ม�หน-�ท��ดิ3แลประเทศ และคำ��วั$� president-elect คำ��วั$� elect ในท��น�( เป1นคำ�� adjective พิ�เศษท��ม�ไม$ก��คำ�� ปกต� adjective จิะอยุ3$หน-�คำ��ท��ม�นขยุ�ยุคำร�บ และบ�ชจิะเป1น president-elect Bush ไปจินถู'งวั�นท�� 20 มกร�คำม 2544 วั�นท��เข�จิะสิ�บ�นต�วัร�บต��แหน$ง (swearing in) วั�นดิ�งกล$�วัเร�ยุกวั$� the lnauguration day (the presidential lnauguration
is the ceremony in which a president is sworn into office.) ในวั�นท�� 20 มกร�คำม 2544 ผู้3-ไดิ-ร�บเล�อกเป1นประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ� น�ยุจิอร�จิ ดิ�บเบ�ลยุ3 บ�ช จิะสิ�บ�นต�วัเข-�ร�บต��แหน$งเป1นประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ�คำนท�� 43 ของสิหร�ฐอเมร�ก� (on January 20,2001, president-elect George W. Bush will be sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States. ) ในพิ�ธิ์�ร�บต��แหน$งประธิ์�น�ธิ์�บดิ�คำนใหม$จิะกล$�วัคำ��สิ�บ�น (At the inaugural ceremony, the new president recites an oath:) ดิ�งน�( “ I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will do the best of my ability, preserve,protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”