stanford 的研究網站 http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/ Dr. King 的身平 http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/ 演講錄音及演講全文 http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/ 一些Dr. King 的照片 http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/liberation_curriculum/index.htm 遺憾的是 Dr. King 被暗殺身亡 http://0rz.net/fc0tc 4 April 1968, a rifle shot struck King as he stood on a balcony outside his second-floor room at the Lorraine Motel. Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) member Ralph Abernathy ran to the balcony and cradled his friend's head until the paramedics arrived and rushed him to St. Joseph's Hospital. Doctors pronounced King dead at 7:05 p.m. 但是當時 Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC） 並沒有像 LA 暴動一樣，反而選擇冷靜的發表宣言，因為Dr. King 一向主張反暴力，和平抗爭 http://0rz.net/fc0tc NAACP Executive Director Roy Wilkins countered that King would have been "outraged" by the disorders and that "millions of Negroes in this country" were opposed to the violence. Wilkins then announced a nationwide campaign against racial violence emphasizing jobs for the unemployed and better community relations. Dr. King 的貢獻還有爭取言論自由 如著名的 New York Times v. Sullivan 提出了真實惡意 （actual malice）推翻原先的 libelous per se 推定誹謗 http://0rz.net/6c0uh 376 U.S. 254 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. 39 Argued: January 6, 1964 --- Decided: March 9, 1964 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. 而這號解釋更影響國內 釋字 509 號解釋 http://nwjirs.judicial.gov.tw/Index.htm 解釋字號： 釋 字第 509 號 解釋日期： 民國 89 年 07 月 07 日 資料來源： 司法院 相關法條： 中華民國憲法 第 11、23 條 ( 36.12.25 ) 中華民國刑法 第 310、311 條 ( 88.04.21 ) 解 釋 文： 言論自由為人民之基本權利，憲法第十一條有明文保障，國家應給予 最大限度之維護，俾其實現自我、溝通意見、追求真理及監督各種政治或 社會活動之功能得以發揮。惟為兼顧對個人名譽、隱私及公共利益之保護 ，法律尚非不得對言論自由依其傳播方式為合理之限制。刑法第三百十條 第一項及第二項誹謗罪即係保護個人法益而設，為防止妨礙他人之自由權 利所必要，符合憲法第二十三條規定之意旨。至刑法同條第三項前段以對 誹謗之事，能證明其為真實者不罰，係針對言論內容與事實相符者之保障 ，並藉以限定刑罰權之範圍，非謂指摘或傳述誹謗事項之行為人，必須自 行證明其言論內容確屬真實，始能免於刑責。惟行為人雖不能證明言論內 容為真實，但依其所提證據資料，認為行為人有相當理由確信其為真實者 ，即不能以誹謗罪之刑責相繩，亦不得以此項規定而免除檢察官或自訴人 於訴訟程序中，依法應負行為人故意毀損他人名譽之舉證責任，或法院發 現其為真實之義務。就此而言，刑法第三百十條第三項與憲法保障言論自 由之旨趣並無牴觸。 我個人相當尊敬他，有誰還記得 50 年代的世界首富 但是 Dr. King 絕對會為人懷念 ---------- 講了一堆，希望對有興趣的人有幫助 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 59.121.196.48