洪小孩 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

英美法翻譯求助,請好心人解答!!

哪位大大可以幫助我

We also find no justification for allowing awards of punitive damages against publishers and broadcasters held liable under state-defined standards of liability for defamation. In most jurisdictions jury discretion over the amounts awarded is limited only by the gentle rule that they not be excessive. Consequently, juries assess punitive damages in wholly unpredictable amounts bearing no necessary relation to the actual harm caused. And they remain free to use their discretion selectively to punish expressions of unpopular views. Like the doctrine of presumed damages, jury discretion to award punitive damages unnecessarily exacerbates the danger of media self-censorship, but, unlike the former rule, punitive damages are wholly irrelevant to the state interest that justifies a negligence standard for private defamation actions. They are not compensation for injury. Instead, they are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence. In short, the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than that stated by New York Times may recover only such damages as are sufficient to compensate him for actual injury.

1 Answer

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    我們同時認為,找不到正當理由,判那些依照國家定義的誹謗標準判定有罪的出版商及播放商要支付懲罰賠償金。在大部份的司法管轄區,陪審團對裁定金額之裁量權,僅僅受溫和規則的限制,就是不要太過度。因此,陪審團評估懲罰性賠償的金額完全無法預測,與實際造成的傷害並無必要關係。此外,他們仍然保有自由,能夠選擇性的使用自身裁量,懲罰不受歡迎的言論表示。如同推定損害法則一樣,判處懲罰性賠償金的陪審團裁量權,不必要地加重了媒體進行自我審查的危險,但是,跟上述規則不一樣的地方是,在個人誹謗訴訟中,可以引用國家利益將過失標準正當化,但是懲罰性賠償卻與國家利益毫不相關。它們不是針對傷害的賠償。取而代之的,它們是陪審團課予的私人罰金,要懲罰應受指責之行為,要遏阻未來再次發生。簡言之,私人誹謗訴訟原告建立〈被告〉責任時依據的標準,與紐約時報敘述之標準相較之下較不嚴格,因此,該原告僅得獲取足以賠償他實際傷害之損害賠償金。

    2008-12-26 10:31:25 補充:

    念英美法要看的東西太多,能夠自己看最好啦...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.