法学论文/杨日旭(16)
④ 本院认为“某种与言论混合之行为即得加以规限及禁止”（……that certain forms of conduct mixed with speech may be regulated or prohibited.），换言之，联邦最高法院在本案中反复指出“言论自由如与某种行为混合即不为宪法之必然保护”（“……that free speech is intermingled with such conduct does not bring with it constitutiilnal protection.”）在法院附近，游行非纯言论（pure speech），即系附加行动，故应受法律规限；
⑤ 本院虽将州最高法院之原判批驳，但并“非谓警察对最初系和平而后变为暴乱之集会不得予以制止”。（“Of course, this does not mean that the police cannot call a halt to a meeting which though originally peaceful, becomes violent.”）再者，“本院亦非指凡经谨审拟订及执行之法律命令均不得对集会设定合理之时间限制”（“Nor does it mean that, under properly drafted and administered statutes and ordinances, the authorities cannot set reasonable time limits for assemblies.”）而“本院仅认为本案在目前情况下，上诉人之罪状未能基于警方之解散令而成立”（We merely hold that, under circumstances such as those present in this case, appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the dispersa order.）；
⑥ “本院在本案及上案（No.24）所作有关在法院及其附近举行示威行动之裁决，概不得解释为对任何形式及示威之动乱行为加以认可，无论此种示威游行如何和平，动机如何可嘉，如其与旨在促进法治与秩序，保护社会免于动乱，管制交通规则，维护公私财产之合法利益，保障司法行政以及其他政府主要公务职责之严谨法律相抵触则本院即不认可。”（“Nothing we have said here or in No. 24, ante, is to be interpreted as sanctioning riotous conduct in any form or demonstrations, however peaceful or commendable their notives, which conflict with properly drawn statutes and ordinances designed to promtote law and order, protect the community against disorder, regulate traffic, safeguard legitimate interests in private and public property, or protect the adminlstration of justice and other essential gorernmental functions.”）。
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