2009-05-17 14:19:22
来自: 死毙德
(资深JQ研究员)
Nothing But the Truth / 真相至上的评论
在1972年的“布莱兹伯格诉海斯案”中
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes,
正是本法庭 违背了
确保记者在大陪审团前拒绝透露其情报人姓名的权利
this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury,
而是赋予政府权力
监禁了所有这些不肯透露信息来源的记者
and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did.
裁决结果是以5:4的接近票数得出的
It was a five-four decision. Close.
“布莱兹伯格案”中的斯图尔特法官曾说过：
In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said,
“随着时光流逝 政府手中的权力渗透到各个角落”
"As the years pass,the power of government becomes more and more pervasive."
“这些当权者 无论何党何派”
"Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics,"
“都只想着让自己永垂不朽”
"want only to perpetuate it"
“而人民才是最终的受害者”
"and the people are the victims."
多年以后 这样的权力被愈加滥用
Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive.
阿姆斯特朗女士
Ms. Armstrong could have
本可在与政府的斗争中妥协
buckled to the demands of the government.
本可放弃她保守秘密的原则
She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality.
本可简简单单地回去同家人团聚
She could have simply gone home to her family.
但如果这么做了
But to do so
那就意味着 再不会有人 向她提供任何情报
would mean that no source would ever speak to her again,
再不会有人 向她的报社提供任何情报
and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again,
然后明天
and then tomorrow
当我们逮捕了其他的报社记者
when we lock up journalists from other newspapers,
我们让这些报社失去所有的信息来源
we'll make those publications irrelevant as well,
等同于我们在无视第一修正案的存在
and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant.
那我们又如何才能知晓 一名总统是否有掩盖罪责？
And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes?
一名军官是否有虐待囚徒？
Or if an army officer has condoned torture?
作为一个国家
We, as a nation,
当我们不再有能力约束当权者手中权力的时候
will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.
当政府不再惧怕任何责任的时候
And what then is the nature of government
它将成为何种性质的国家？
when it has no fear of accountability?
这值得我们认真思考
We should shudder at the thought.
监禁记者？那针对的是别的国家
Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries.
是那些惧怕她人民的国家
That's for countries who fear their citizens,
而不是想要珍惜和保护她人民的国家
not countries that cherish and protect them.
就在不久前
Some time ago,
我开始感受到来自瑞秋·阿姆斯特朗案中的人性压力
I began to feel the personal human pressure on Rachel Armstrong,
我曾告诉她 我只代表她个人
and I told her that I was there to represent her
而不是她的原则
and not a principle.
直到我再次见到她
And it was not until I met her
我才意识到：对真正伟大的人而言
that I realized that with great people,
个人与原则之间 根本没有区别
there's no difference between principle and the person.
Nothing But the Truth / 真相至上的评论
在1972年的“布莱兹伯格诉海斯案”中
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes,
正是本法庭 违背了
确保记者在大陪审团前拒绝透露其情报人姓名的权利
this court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury,
而是赋予政府权力
监禁了所有这些不肯透露信息来源的记者
and it gave the power to the government to imprison those reporters who did.
裁决结果是以5:4的接近票数得出的
It was a five-four decision. Close.
“布莱兹伯格案”中的斯图尔特法官曾说过：
In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said,
“随着时光流逝 政府手中的权力渗透到各个角落”
"As the years pass,the power of government becomes more and more pervasive."
“这些当权者 无论何党何派”
"Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics,"
“都只想着让自己永垂不朽”
"want only to perpetuate it"
“而人民才是最终的受害者”
"and the people are the victims."
多年以后 这样的权力被愈加滥用
Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive.
阿姆斯特朗女士
Ms. Armstrong could have
本可在与政府的斗争中妥协
buckled to the demands of the government.
本可放弃她保守秘密的原则
She could have abandoned her promise of confidentiality.
本可简简单单地回去同家人团聚
She could have simply gone home to her family.
但如果这么做了
But to do so
那就意味着 再不会有人 向她提供任何情报
would mean that no source would ever speak to her again,
再不会有人 向她的报社提供任何情报
and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again,
然后明天
and then tomorrow
当我们逮捕了其他的报社记者
when we lock up journalists from other newspapers,
我们让这些报社失去所有的信息来源
we'll make those publications irrelevant as well,
等同于我们在无视第一修正案的存在
and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant.
那我们又如何才能知晓 一名总统是否有掩盖罪责？
And then how will we know if a president has covered up crimes?
一名军官是否有虐待囚徒？
Or if an army officer has condoned torture?
作为一个国家
We, as a nation,
当我们不再有能力约束当权者手中权力的时候
will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over.
当政府不再惧怕任何责任的时候
And what then is the nature of government
它将成为何种性质的国家？
when it has no fear of accountability?
这值得我们认真思考
We should shudder at the thought.
监禁记者？那针对的是别的国家
Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries.
是那些惧怕她人民的国家
That's for countries who fear their citizens,
而不是想要珍惜和保护她人民的国家
not countries that cherish and protect them.
就在不久前
Some time ago,
我开始感受到来自瑞秋·阿姆斯特朗案中的人性压力
I began to feel the personal human pressure on Rachel Armstrong,
我曾告诉她 我只代表她个人
and I told her that I was there to represent her
而不是她的原则
and not a principle.
直到我再次见到她
And it was not until I met her
我才意识到：对真正伟大的人而言
that I realized that with great people,
个人与原则之间 根本没有区别
there's no difference between principle and the person.
本评论版权属于作者死毙德，并受法律保护。除非评论正文中另有声明，没有作者本人的书面许可任何人不得转载或使用整体或任何部分的内容。
导演: Rod Lurie
影名: Nothing But the Truth
编剧: Rod Lurie
制片国家/地区: 美国
上映日期: 2008-12-19
简体中文名: 真相至上
imdb编号: tt1073241
语言: 英语
主演: Kate Beckinsale, Matt Dillon, Angela Bassett, Alan Alda, Vera Farmiga
又名: 真相至上
2009-05-18 17:41:58 应正
一阵见血，直见本质。http://www.shiyixia.
请注册我的新网站玩一下。觉得好玩，请邀请更多朋友来玩。
2009-05-18 20:42:04 mario（桂林）
这段话应该被广泛传播.2009-05-22 01:46:29 wesley
但在第一修正案和国家安全之间，法庭裁决总是选择后者。（大法官语，虽然我现在不完全知道第一修正案是什么。。。）2009-05-23 17:36:03 clair
这段话是里面我印象最深的rights or power?
2009-05-23 17:40:14 孙一
说是政府，其实还是人，是人就怕担责任，所以悲剧就产生了2009-06-01 15:05:03 天堂的呼吸
当政府不再惧怕任何责任的时候And what then is the nature of government
它将成为何种性质的国家？
when it has no fear of accountability?
这值得我们认真思考
不用思考，看看人民日报就行了
2009-06-01 20:45:12 Agnes
艾丽卡愤怒得失控地指责：“你这个不爱国的坏女人”时我看到了永远无法达成共识的两个对立面
可是我真没法说艾丽卡完全是错的
2009-06-10 07:55:55 DARKBLUE
顶这段话~当它从一个在乎穿着的律师口中说出的时候，
就更丰富了。。。
2009-06-13 20:03:45 [已被注销]
这片子要是在中国上映，不知道这段台词会改成什么样2009-06-19 11:06:25 星游
监禁记者？那针对的是别的国家Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries.
是那些惧怕她人民的国家
That's for countries who fear their citizens,
而不是想要珍惜和保护她人民的国家
not countries that cherish and protect them.
2009-06-19 11:15:26 星游
在某些国家，直接抓起来扒光衣服往男犯人牢房一扔，然后捆着吊起来一顿打，在强迫她丈夫在离婚协议书上签字——人的精神很快就崩溃了，哪能让她撑这么久……2009-06-25 21:07:29 enmu
1972年的“布莱兹伯格诉海斯案”，可否详细说一下，我很想知道。2009-06-25 21:14:02 死毙德
http://en.wikipedia.http://www.hudong.co
2009-07-17 01:42:52 蛇弹吉他
LS，后面那个是艾尔斯伯格案，也就是五角大楼机密文件案，艾尔斯伯格最终无罪释放....“Branzburg案是四个案件合并审理的。包括Branzburg报道两个青年如何提炼大麻，受到大陪审团传讯；Branzburg报道吸毒情况而受到大陪审团传讯 ；Pappas报道黑豹党总部而受到大陪审团传讯；Caldwell报道黑豹党而受大陪审团传讯。联邦或州的大陪审团是美国政府调查与惩罚犯罪，保护无辜的重要法律制度。大陪审团有广泛的调查权与传讯证人的权利。其传讯证人所依靠的原则是：公众有权获得所有人的证据。”
摘自《法律保护下的新闻自由
——美国宪法修正案保护新闻自由的历史回顾》
http://media.people.
另资料 http://www.cqvip.com
2009-07-21 19:49:21 SHICHINI.K
这又让我看到我生活在一个什么国家里面，这里的东西简直是。。。BULLSHIT！！！！！2009-07-29 02:39:41 passionfly
——Look, I have empathy like you, I would never give up a source.But you know what? Sometimes sources have motives.说实话，我对你感同身受，我也不会走漏消息来源。但你知道，有时候他们别有用心。
——If the information they're giving is valuable and truthful like with "Watergate" or "the Pentagram Papers", and their motive don't matter. Any real journalist would be prepared to put up with discomfort jail to protect their principle.
如果他们提供了宝贵且真实的信息，如同“水门事件”案或“五角大楼文件”案，那么他们的动机就不重要了。任何一个真正的新闻记者都会随时准备着为捍卫他们的原则而忍受牢狱之苦。
I know you say "you protect your source as if you are saying they are above the grace of God go high", and you know, you'll never gotto worry about the government coming up to you.
我知道你会说我怎么能把消息来源看得好像比上帝还重要，但是你知道，其实你根本不用担心政府会找上你。
——Why?
为什么？
——Because the government really doesn't care how you find out where Paris had dinner last night.
因为这事儿如果是我怎么找到了在巴黎吃饭的地儿，那政府压根就不会这么在意。
2009-08-02 19:29:57 Echo（五月花）
that's the point of this movie2009-09-05 19:29:26 RealJojo
lss的翻译最后一句是错的。那个paris是paris hilton, 那主角是在讽刺那个主持人只会报道那些狗仔八卦
2009-09-16 13:52:24 yangdongxing
律师陈述这段 是 整部影片 最精彩的部分。2009-10-06 01:18:05 P5hngM3awY
政府希望通过各种手段来巩固自己的地位这是无可厚非的
作为民众 总是处于弱势的一方
真正的民主是什么 描述起来很简单
真的要实现却很难
或许很多人都对于社会现状充满着不满与愤慨
但是设身处地的想一想 如果你身处于利益的中心
你会怎么做
有的时候 身不由己
2009-11-25 22:16:27 changjiangyibei
不知道是美国现实社会中的确缺乏他们所需要的极大的民主，还是仅仅是为了展示他们所拥有的对民主的信仰是那么的强大，总之，在崇尚民主的国家看到如此结局，不能不让人唏嘘不已。扪心自问，我们中除了战争年代能出现这类人物，在物欲横流的今天，真的有这样的人么？或许类似于中国的许三多，很难很难～～2009-11-27 19:14:28 出逃的effy
学习> 我来回应