枪支与语音技术:携带武器的权利如何影响语音技术的版权法规

Edward Lee
{"title":"枪支与语音技术:携带武器的权利如何影响语音技术的版权法规","authors":"Edward Lee","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1156526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Essay examines the possible effect the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling in Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause. Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendment's right to bear \"arms\" and the Free Press Clause's right to the freedom of the \"press,\" meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as preexisting, natural rights to the Framing generation and were separately called the \"palladium of liberty\" during the Framing. Given this historical connection, courts should apply an approach similar to the one in Heller in interpreting the Free Press Clause. Just as the Heller Court held that banning handguns for the purpose of gun control violates the Second Amendment's core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense, courts should find that banning speech technologies for the purpose of copyright control violates the Free Press Clause's core protection of the right to speech technologies for self-expression.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations of Speech Technologies\",\"authors\":\"Edward Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1156526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Essay examines the possible effect the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling in Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause. Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendment's right to bear \\\"arms\\\" and the Free Press Clause's right to the freedom of the \\\"press,\\\" meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as preexisting, natural rights to the Framing generation and were separately called the \\\"palladium of liberty\\\" during the Framing. Given this historical connection, courts should apply an approach similar to the one in Heller in interpreting the Free Press Clause. Just as the Heller Court held that banning handguns for the purpose of gun control violates the Second Amendment's core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense, courts should find that banning speech technologies for the purpose of copyright control violates the Free Press Clause's core protection of the right to speech technologies for self-expression.\",\"PeriodicalId\":281709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intellectual Property Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1156526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1156526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了最高法院在海勒案中具有里程碑意义的第二修正案裁决可能对未来根据新闻自由条款提起的案件产生的影响。根据宪法的文本和历史,这两个条款之间的联系是不可否认的,正如海勒法院自己反复指出的那样。整个宪法中只有两条条款保护个人对一项技术的权利:第二修正案规定的携带“武器”的权利和新闻自由条款规定的“新闻”自由的权利,意思是印刷机。此外,这两项权利都被视为框架一代预先存在的自然权利,并在框架期间分别被称为“自由的守护神”。鉴于这种历史联系,法院在解释《新闻自由条款》时应采用与海勒案类似的方法。正如海勒法院认为,以枪支管制为目的禁止持有手枪违反了第二修正案对拥有武器进行自卫的权利的核心保护,法院应该发现,以版权控制为目的禁止语音技术违反了新闻自由条款对言论技术用于自我表达的权利的核心保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to Bear Arms Affects Copyright Regulations of Speech Technologies
This Essay examines the possible effect the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling in Heller will have on future cases brought under the Free Press Clause. Based on the text and history of the Constitution, the connection between the two Clauses is undeniable, as the Heller Court itself repeatedly suggested. Only two provisions in the entire Constitution protect individual rights to a technology: the Second Amendment's right to bear "arms" and the Free Press Clause's right to the freedom of the "press," meaning the printing press. Both rights were viewed, moreover, as preexisting, natural rights to the Framing generation and were separately called the "palladium of liberty" during the Framing. Given this historical connection, courts should apply an approach similar to the one in Heller in interpreting the Free Press Clause. Just as the Heller Court held that banning handguns for the purpose of gun control violates the Second Amendment's core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense, courts should find that banning speech technologies for the purpose of copyright control violates the Free Press Clause's core protection of the right to speech technologies for self-expression.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信