(註﹕寫了英文版本後才翻譯到中文。筆者中文差﹐翻譯未必完全達意。)
從每日一膠﹐看到練乙錚的文章--關於私隱權和美國最高法院。以下是有關想法﹕
1. 基辛格的例子是一個很差的例子。基辛格是一位公眾人物﹔在美國﹐公眾人物的私隱權保障很低--相比起非公眾人物(即普通人)。這可能是基辛格沒有提出訴訟的原因--用"私隱受侵犯提出起訴"的話﹐他當時輸的機會很大。輸了的話必然會變成反面教材。所以練乙錚用基辛格作為 "不以私隱受侵犯提出起訴，不僅放棄自身的權利...不僅害己害人，還遺害社會" 論點的例子很有問題。(見#5)
2. 美國憲法是一份非常模糊的文件﹐私隱權並沒有被寫在美國憲法裡--只可以說是存在於憲法意思裡。私隱權是由幾個案例確立的(只是大多數法官的決定﹐不是一致決定)。雖然他們的理據可以說是有些牽強﹐但筆者非常讚同牽強理據達到的結果--私隱權。
3. 因為美國憲法裡沒有例明私隱權而最高法院的法官近年變得更保守(Roberts and Alito是非常保守的新任命法官), 有些私隱權(例如﹐墮胎和不合理搜查和沒收)有很大可能在不久的將來被否決或限制。
4. 香港的私隱權法律要細緻地被列明﹔否則﹐太容易被少數的法官否決了。而且﹐法例要建基於多個國家的私隱權﹔如果只是建基於一個國家﹐當那一個國家的法院決定否定那法例﹐香港的法例豈不是失去了可信性﹖
5. 美國憲法保證的私隱權是防止政府(美國聯邦政府和各州府)侵犯人民的私隱權。很多人(即使是美國人)不明白美國憲法保證的私隱權與非政府個體(公司﹐傳媒﹐鄰居﹐等等)沒有關係。
有關為何美國警察沒有保護Paris Hilton的私隱權﹐有以下幾點﹕
A. 侵犯Paris Hilton私隱權的不是政府--美國憲法只是防止政府侵犯私隱權
B. 私隱權是公民權。侵犯公民權是透過民事訴訟。如果沒有刑事罪行﹐警方不會插手。
C. 明星和公眾人物的私隱權在美國差不多不存在。
值得看的有關書籍﹕
- The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans, by Martin Garbus
- Retained by the People: The "Silent" Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have, by Daniel Farber
From Mr. Lam's blog, I saw 練乙錚's article on the right to privacy and references to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution. Here are some thoughts.
1. The Kissinger example in the article is a bad one. In the U.S., the right to privacy for public figure (of which Kissinger was definitely one) is little protected compared to a non-public figure -- a private citizen. That may have been the reason Kissinger did not sue; even if he had sued on privacy grounds, he would likely have lost. Also, it would not have been a constitutional issue, as neither the federal nor the state government was the intruding party (see #5).
2. The right to privacy is not stated in the U.S. Constitution, a highly vague document, though this right is considered inherent in several of the amendments. As the right was established via several court cases by a majority of judges (not unanimous), some would consider this right created out of controversial legal reasoning (and I tend to agree, although I like the resulting right to privacy).
3. Since the right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, with the recent shift toward a more conservation U.S. Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito), certain privacy rights (e.g., abortion right, right against unreasonable search and seizure) may well be reversed or limited in the future.
4. Hong Kong privacy law should state the right to privacy explicitly; otherwise, it would exist only at the mercy of a few judges. Also, model the law after its counterpart in multiple nations; if it is based on country XYZ's law only (e.g., U.S.), this right would be on shaky ground if such right is reversed by the court in XYZ.
5. The right to privacy per the U.S. Constitution is a protection of the people against intrusion by the federal government, and by extension under the 14th Amendment, the protection against intrusion by state governments. To suggest that this right to privacy is protection against non-government entities is a misunderstanding or a misconstruction.
As to the question of why U.S. police did not "protect" Paris Hilton's right to privacy, there are several things to consider:
A. The government was not the intruding party - constitutional protection of the right to privacy is a protection against government intrusion only.
B. The right to privacy is a civil right. Civil right violations are addressed in litigation where the injured party sues. Unless other criminal violations occur, the police would likely not be involved.
C. The right to privacy is virtually non-existent to a celebrity or public person in the U.S.
Recommended books:
- The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans, by Martin Garbus
- Retained by the People: The "Silent" Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have, by Daniel Farber
沒有留言:
發佈留言