隐私权论文英文参考文献

of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection? IntroductionThe U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home. In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high. The future of privacy protection remains an open question. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed. The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy. 只有英文的

题目：Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect怎么翻译 people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy. 公众人物，比如说演员，政治家，运动员，应该预料到公众对他们的私生活感兴趣。当他们成为公众人物的时刻，他们就应该知道自己丧失了一部分隐私。 英文： Privacy is a magic word which reminds us many things like rights, scandals and so on. According to a white book in 1995 from “National Information Infrastructure” project in America, privacy has the following contents: 1 private property; 2 interest from names and looking; 3 rights that are not disturbed by others; 4 rights to hold secrets in an organization; 5 rights not to show up in some conditions; 6 personal information; 7 sex; 8 rights not to be monitored. In China, the Tort Liability Law of PRC of also has similar views. For example, we cannot look at others’ letters if not permitted. So these are ordinary people’s privacy rights. As to celebrities, things become a little complicated. On one hand, they should release more information about themselves to let the public know them and like them. On the other hand, these actions are dangerous since the public will focus more on their private lives. A common view is like this: information such as the age, body characters, marriage conditions, hobbies which are treated as privacies to normal people, are not privacies to public figures. And spreading or talking about famous people’s scandals is not regarded as bad things as long as the information source is legal and real. However, other privacy rights are the same to both celebrities and common folks. For instance, the “Fappening” of Hollywood was a hot buzzword in 2014 referring to an event that had released nude photos of many actors and actresses by hackers. Jenifer Lawrence was the biggest victim. But her respond was quite strong and correct. She said, “This is a sick act. This is not my choice. Though I am an actress, a famous person, I own my body. After a long time, I will not cry any more, and I am not angry any more. I am even not happy about the hackers who cause this trouble to be in prison, but happy for myself. ” I feel that her words are a real pony. It reflects the largesse of the modern age. Famous figures are more like ordinary people who can have normal emotions and live a life with proper privacies. It is a progress, but the progress should go on. When people seek a public role, they can expect not to lose important privacies and show themselves well to gain money and reputation. That is the trend. 中文： 隐私这个词好像有魔力，让我们产生对权利、丑闻等等的联想。根据1995年美国国家信息基础设施计划（也就是信息高速公路计划）中的一部白皮书，隐私包含了以下的内容： 1 私有财产； 2 姓名与形象利益； 3 自己的事不受他人干涉； 4 在组织内部保有秘密； 5 某些场合不露面的权利； 6 个人信息； 7 性生活； 8 不被他人监视。 对于名人而言，事情变得有点复杂。一方面，他们需要靠暴露自己更多的信息，让公众知道他们甚至喜欢他们。另一方面，这样的行为其实很危险，让公众会更多注重他们的私生活。 然而，其他的隐私权利，名人和普通人是一样的。举例来讲，2014年的时候有一个热词，“好莱坞艳照门”，指的是一群黑客将很多演员的裸照放到的网上传播。 詹妮弗·劳伦斯是最大的受害者。但是她的回应是很坚强很正确的。她说：“超级恶心。只是因为我是演员，就只是因为我是公众人物，但这不代表这是我要的选择，这是我的身体，应该由我作主。经过很多时间，我已经不再哭，也不再感到愤怒，我不会因为黑客被捕而觉得开心，我要为自己感到开心。” 我觉得她的话是真正的亮点。它反映了这个现代社会的慷慨馈赠。名人更像普通人了，可以拥有正常的情绪，也能保有恰当的隐私。这是一个进步，还需要继续向前的进步。当人们被选中成为公众人物的一刻，他们可以预期到不用丧失重要的隐私权利，还能通过展示去赢得金钱和名声的奖励。这是未来的趋势。

在论文的写作过程中，法学论文的参考文献引用应当实事求是、科学合理，不可以为了凑数随便引用。下文是我为大家整理的关于法学论文参考文献外文的内容，欢迎大家阅读参考! 法学论文外文参考文献(一) [1]范愉.司法制度概论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社，2003:23. [2]付子堂.法律功能论W].北京：中国政法大学出版社，1999:252. [3]罗斯.社会控制[M].北京：华夏出版社，1989，：353. [4]王利明.法治的社会需要司法公正[M].北京：法制出版社，2005. [5]程竹汝.司法改革与政治发展[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2001:5. [6]张晋藩.中国法律的传统和近代转型[M].北京：法律出版社，2006. [7]董必武.董必武政治法律文集[M]北京：法院出版社，1982. [8]罗.庞德.通过法律的社会控制、法律的任务[M]北京：商务印书馆，1984:8-9. [9]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神[M]北京：商务印书馆，1982：154. [10]庞德.通过法律的社会控制、法律的任务[M]北京:商务印书馆，1984:42. [11]孙万胜.司法权的法理之维[M]北京:法律出版社，2002:134. [12]苏力.送法下乡一中国基层司法制度研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000:200. [13]范偷.纠纷解决的理论与实践[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2007:547-555. [14]田有成.乡土社会的民间法[M].北京：法律出版社，2005:4. [15]顾培东.构建和谐社会背景下的纠纷解决之道[M].北京：中国政法大学，2004:1. 法学论文外文参考文献(二) 1.沈跃东：《乡镇人民政府环境保护职权的法规范分》，《法治研究》2012年第3期。 2.徐亚文：《口述历史与法律》，《中共青岛市委党校.青岛行政学院学报》2012年第1期。 3.陈瑞华：《从 经验 到理论的法学 方法 》，《法学研究 》2011年第6期。 4.薛以胜：《法学研究方法初探》，《科技信息》2011年第3期。 5.崔二玲：《浅析法律方法》，《法制与社会》2011年第1期。 6.罗旭南：《法学方法多样化在中国法律史教学中的适用》，《海南大学学报》(文社会科学版)2011年第4期。 7.刘颖：《法学方法与法律方法的耦合》，《中南林业科技大学学报》(社会科学版)2011年第4期。 8.李云海：《中国法学研究方法浅》，《经济研究导刊》2011年第31期。 9.谢晖：《论规范分析方法》，《中国法学》2009年第2期。 10.冀海虹：《司法过程中法学方法之解读——以价值分析法为核心》，《山东省农业管理干部学院学报》2009年第2期。 11.王丽霞：《<法学方法论>与法学方法 教育 》,《山西大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2008年第4期。 12.冯 果：《法解释学等传统法学方法——未来中国经济法学的主流研究方法》，《重庆大学学报》(社会科学版) 2008年第5期。 13.刘连泰：《分析实证主义法学方法在宪法研究中的局限性——以“分离命题”为中心》，《厦门大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2008年第1期。 14.张传新：《法律方法的普遍智力品格及其限度——从法律方法与法学方法称谓争论谈起》,《求是学刊》2008年第5期。 15.魏治勋：《“规范分析”概念的分析》，《法学论坛》2008年第5期。 法学论文外文参考文献(三) [1]王名扬:《英国行政法》，中国政法大学出版社1987年版. [2]黎宏:《不作为犯研究》，武汉大学出版社1997年版. [3]马生安：《行政行为研究—宪政下的行政行为基本理论》，山东人民出版社2008年版. [4]罗豪才主编：《中国司法审查制度》，北京大学出版社1993年版. [5]张文显：《法哲学范畴研究》，中国政法大学出版社2001年版. [6]陈新民：《公法学札记》，法律出版社2010年版. [7]陆伟明：《服务行政法论》，中国政法大学出版社2012年版. [8]周叶中：《代议制度比较研究》，武汉大学出版社2005年版. [9]袁裕来：《特别代理：民告官手记Ⅷ》，中国检察出版社2012年版. [10]张文显主编：《法理学》，高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社1999年版. [11]应松年主编：《外国行政程序法汇编》，中国法制出版社2004年版. [12]王利明：《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，中国政法大学出版社2003年版. [13]张明楷：《刑法格言的展开》，法律出版社2003年版. [14]梁津明、郭春明、郭庆珠、魏建新：《行政不作为之行政法律责任探究》，中国检察出版社2011年版. [15]王振宇：《行政诉讼制度研究》，中国人民大学出版社2012年版. 法学论文外文参考文献(四) [1]任丁秋.私人银行业与资产管理---瑞士范例[M].北京：经济科学出版社，2000. [2]邢毓静,巴曙松.经济全球化与中国金融运行[M].北京：中国金融出版社,2000. [3]倪受彬.国有商业银行资本信托运营法律问题研究[M].北京：法律出版社，2008. [4]盛学军.全球化背景下的金融监管法律问题研究[M].北京：法律出版社，2008. [5]中国人民银行金融稳定分析小组.中国金融稳定 报告 2012[M].北京：中国金融出版社，2012. [6]连建辉,孙焕民.走近私人银行[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社，2006. [7]李春满.私人银行业务[M].吉林:吉林大学出版社，2008. [8]曹彤,张秋林.中国私人银行[M].北京：中信出版社,2010. [9]李开国,张玉敏.中国民法学[M].北京：法律出版社，2002. [10]徐保满.金融信托与租赁[M].北京：科学出版社，2007. [11]孟建华.洗钱与银行机构反洗钱[M].福州：福建人民出版社，2006. [12]卓泽渊.法律价值论[M].北京：法律出版社，1999. [13][英]莫德.全球私人银行业务管理[M].刘立达译，北京：经济科学出版社，2007. [14]王征宇,于江等编著.美国的个人征信局及其服务[M].北京：中国方正出版社，2003. [15]丁邦开,何俊坤等.社会信用法律制度[M].南京：东南大学出版社，2006. 法学论文外文参考文献(五) [1]陈卫东主编《模范刑事诉讼法典》，中国人民大学出版社2005年9月第1版 [2]张月满着《刑事证人证言规则》中国检察出版社2004年第一版 [3]《法国刑事诉讼法典》译者：罗结珍，中国法制出版社2006年1月第1版 [4]孙孝福《刑事诉讼人权保障的运行机制研究》法律出版社，2001年6月版 [5]田圣斌着《刑事诉讼人权保障制度研究》法律出版社2008年1月第1版 [6]宋英辉孙长永刘新魁等着《外国刑事诉讼法》法律出版社2006年1月第1版 [7]刘根菊等着《刑事司法创新论》，北京大学出版社2006年3月版 [8]陈永生：《刑事诉讼的程序性制裁》，《现代法学》2004年第1期 [9]孙晶：《亲属作证特免权研究》，吉林大学2008年硕士学位论文 [10]张新宝《隐私权的法律保护第二版》群众出版社2004年5月版 [11][德]尧厄尼希着，周翠译，《民事诉讼法：第27版》法律出版社2003年7月第1版 [12]程海霞：《刑事诉讼中的证人作证特免权制度研究》，安徽大学2006年硕士学位论文 [13]中国抗日战争史学会、中国人民抗日战争纪念馆编着(宋金寿主编)：《抗战时期的陕甘宁边区》，北京出版社1995年版. [14]厦门大学法律系编着：《中华苏维埃共和国法律文件选编》，江西人民出版社1984年版. [15]韩延龙、常兆儒编着：《中国新民主主义革命时期根据地法制文献选编》(第3卷)，中国社会科学出版社1981年版. 猜你喜欢： 1. 法学毕业论文参考文献 2. 法学论文参考文献 3. 法学本科毕业论文参考文献 4. 法学论文的参考文献 5. 法律本科毕业论文的参考文献