摆脱思想的自由

Jane R. Bambauer
{"title":"摆脱思想的自由","authors":"Jane R. Bambauer","doi":"10.1056/nejm196202152660715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This short Essay explores when ignorance can be supported or even coerced by law, and when it cannot. In the end, although freedom from thought has much to offer to the development of privacy and dignitary rights, interests in self-ignorance are better handled through norms than through law. Like other forms of privacy, First Amendment commitments are likely to frustrate legal efforts to support or coerce self-ignorance. If a speaker wishes to disclose information, the government is unlikely to be able to interfere with that disclosure unless the speaker’s interests are demonstrably weak. However, when both the speaker and the listener prefer silence, government compulsion of information disclosure will offend privacy and First Amendment principles alike.","PeriodicalId":81162,"journal":{"name":"Emory law journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1056/nejm196202152660715","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom from Thought\",\"authors\":\"Jane R. Bambauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1056/nejm196202152660715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This short Essay explores when ignorance can be supported or even coerced by law, and when it cannot. In the end, although freedom from thought has much to offer to the development of privacy and dignitary rights, interests in self-ignorance are better handled through norms than through law. Like other forms of privacy, First Amendment commitments are likely to frustrate legal efforts to support or coerce self-ignorance. If a speaker wishes to disclose information, the government is unlikely to be able to interfere with that disclosure unless the speaker’s interests are demonstrably weak. However, when both the speaker and the listener prefer silence, government compulsion of information disclosure will offend privacy and First Amendment principles alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emory law journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1056/nejm196202152660715\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emory law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm196202152660715\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emory law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm196202152660715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇短文探讨了什么时候法律可以支持甚至强迫无知,什么时候不能。最后,尽管思想自由对隐私和尊严权利的发展大有裨益,但通过规范比通过法律更好地处理自我无知的利益。与其他形式的隐私一样,第一修正案的承诺可能会阻碍支持或强迫自我无知的法律努力。如果发言人希望披露信息,政府不太可能干涉该披露,除非发言人的利益明显薄弱。然而,当说话者和听者都倾向于沉默时,政府强制信息披露会违反隐私权和第一修正案原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Freedom from Thought
This short Essay explores when ignorance can be supported or even coerced by law, and when it cannot. In the end, although freedom from thought has much to offer to the development of privacy and dignitary rights, interests in self-ignorance are better handled through norms than through law. Like other forms of privacy, First Amendment commitments are likely to frustrate legal efforts to support or coerce self-ignorance. If a speaker wishes to disclose information, the government is unlikely to be able to interfere with that disclosure unless the speaker’s interests are demonstrably weak. However, when both the speaker and the listener prefer silence, government compulsion of information disclosure will offend privacy and First Amendment principles alike.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Suing The NRA for Damages National Personal Jurisdiction Partisan Gerrymandering and the Constitutionalization of Statistics THE CASE FOR STREAMLINING EMERGENCY DECLARATION AUTHORITIES AND ADAPTING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO EVER-CHANGING PUBLIC HEALTH THREATS. Biometric Cyberintelligence and the Posse Comitatus Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1