法学论文/杨日旭(13)
尽管Cox获得司法救济，无罪开释，但负责主稿判决之书之自由派大法官高柏格（Justice Goldberg）在本案中对以示威游行作为街头对抗政治（Street confrontation potitics）之范围及限制则作以上权重要之解释：
①从这些判例中可以看出若干明显而清楚之原则，言论及结社自由虽为我国民主社会之基本原则，但还不能说每一个人随时随地地对任何社团都可以发表其意见和信仰（“From these decisions certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that every one with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any place and any time.”）
②“宪法上所保障这自由权即隐摄着一个维持公共秩序的确有组织的社会之存在，如果没有它的存在，自由本身即会在过激的无政治状态中丧失”（“The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy.”）
③“控制街道交通很清楚的是政府维护必要秩序责任的题例，任何人以不遵守众所周知之红绿灯之交通规则作为社会抗议的手段则是不合理的（“The control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure this necessary order One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red light becausr this was thought to be a means of social protest.”）”
④“任何人亦不得违反交通规则，坚持于交通尖锋时间在时报广场上举街头集会，作为行使其言论自由或集会自由的方式。政府当局有义务及责任保持大街道路之交通畅行无阻。”（“Not could one, contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly. Governmental authorities have the duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.”）
总共18页
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 13
[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] 上一页 下一页