1. 刚来美国不久，有一漂亮女生上前来，问道：“Excuse me. Where is the restroom?" 我不解地反问： ”restaurant?" 不知为何，女生表情有点怪异，我以为怀疑我不够乐于助人，解释道道 ”Sorry. I don't know where you can find a restaurant ". 女生瞪大了眼睛。。。 2. 刚来美国两天，路上有一漂亮女生（可能那时我刚来美国，看见美国女生都觉得漂亮）走过来，问能否借她几个 coin 打电话， 我很爽快地掏出所有硬币，谁知她问道，能否再给她些钱买早餐。。。。 这件事我当时真是不解。 3. 在教学楼里经常看见一长发女生，见面点个头，算是认识。有一天，我进洗手间，豁然发现她在里面，大吃一惊之余，我以为自己糊涂到搞错了男女。 女生回过头来（但没有转身啊），嫣然一笑，说：【。。。。。。。】 最后这个省略的，大家自己去猜吧。
在美国，不受宪法“言论自由”保护的言论主要有三种：“诽谤”（defamation）、“战语”（fighting words)与“下流语“（obscenity)。这里，我们着重看一下前面两者，诽谤与战语。 诽谤这个我们应该很熟悉。它是指用虚假的事实损害他人名誉。这里的关键是存在虚假的事实陈述。什么样的话可能构成诽谤？ 我举了 桑兰诉海明的例子 。海明说桑兰欠房租不交还偷了他出租房的钥匙（ Lan Sang has defaulted on her rent and stole the keys） ，联邦法官就裁决这里两个事实陈述---欠租与偷钥匙 -- 都可能构成诽谤。从这个例子可以看出，说话中涉及事实的，必须小心，如果发生扭曲事实的情况，那么就可能构成诽谤了。 什么是”战语"呢？ 美国最高法院在 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 案中给出的基本定义是：可能引起听者进行暴力回应的语言。法院写道：” insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"。父母出于保护小孩的目的，一般会教育孩子不要对人说侮辱攻击性言论而遭到暴力对待。因此， 有教养的人不会去对人说单纯侮辱性的话。美国有关“战语”的法律 似乎把是一个简单的教养问题进行了法制化。那些缺乏教养，而有朋友、家人学过美国法律的，通过二手学习美国法律应该可以改善自己的基本素质。
Yet the most chilling aspect of Jiang Dingwen’s account was his description of the reaction of the local civilian population: During this campaign, the unexpected phenomenon was that the people of the mountains in western Henan attacked our troops, taking guns, bullets, and explosives, and even high-powered mortars and radio equipment . . . They surrounded our troops and killed our officers. We heard this pretty often. The heads of the villages and baojia (village mutual-responsibility groups) just ran away. At the same time, they took away our stored grain, leaving their houses and fields empty, which meant that our officers and soldiers had no food for many days.17 Jiang grudgingly admitted that the army’s own behavior may have played a role. “There were certainly a minority of soldiers who did not keep discipline and harassed the villagers,” he conceded, “but it was the lack of civilian administration that meant that they could not compete with the military.” However, Jiang did see how damaging the breakdown of trust had been. “Actually this is truly painful for me to say: in the end the damages we suffered from the attack by the people were more serious than the losses from battles with the enemy.”18 Jiang’s account was self-serving, placing the blame on Tang, Chiang, and anyone but himself. A document submitted to the government indicting the commanders was unsparing in its accusations. The reason for the failure of the campaign in the First War Zone, they declared, was that “Jiang Dingwen and his deputy Tang Enbo paid no attention to political and military matters,” and had instead diverted their time to enriching themselves, thereby encouraging their subordinates to act in the same way. Jiang and Tang’s troops had had various advantages, for instance, Czech weapons that might actually have been superior to some of those used by the enemy, yet they were never properly used. They had taken a cut from the ordinary soldiers’ salaries, the accusation went, and had padded the official rolls with nonexistent soldiers to claim their salaries, so the divisions were actually undermanned. While Jiang Dingwen was nominally in command, most observers believed that Tang Enbo was the real authority, and his accusers aimed their fire squarely at him. Heroics at Taierzhuang six years previously now carried no weight. “Tang Enbo had the major responsibility for defeating the enemy in central China,” declared his critic, Guo Zhonghuai. “But when the enemy were crossing the Yellow River . . . he didn’t himself lead from the front, but retreated . . . relaxing and taking a dip in the hot springs.” With the lead officer taking a long soak some 400 li away (perhaps 800 kilometers) from the battlefront, the troops scattered and ran: “No wonder they didn’t fire even one bullet.” Tang’s troops, supposedly among the elite of the Nationalist forces, were used alongside civilians to carry the baggage of officials who wanted to escape the combat zone. Tang himself fled, taking with him two telegraphists and about 20–30 personal bodyguards, “running like a rat . . . and completely losing contact with his army.” The accusations sharpened: Tang, they said, had faked reports claiming that he had engaged with the enemy, or was going to attack. ... The indictment against Tang and Jiang went on. Because the soldiers lacked supplies, they had to “borrow” grain from the farmers, and they were distracted from training by the need to find the grain and mill it. Even when they had done this, the poor quality of the grain meant that they were undernourished, and “their will to fight was exhausted.”20 The relationship between the population and the military was now utterly hollow. When the northern part of Henan fell to the Japanese, the invaders seized much of the grain that had been left in the official government granaries: the million bags of flour captured could have nourished 200,000 soldiers for five months. Tang’s excuse—that the Henan peasants had been deceived by collaborators and were seizing the Nationalist army’s weapons—was dismissed by Guo Zhonghuai: “Everyone knows that the Henan people are loyal and brave, and even at a time of drought and famine they offered men and grain.” In fact, Tang was right. The locals had simply picked up the weapons that the Nationalist troops had abandoned when they fled, to defend themselves against the Japanese. “Even if there is an Allied victory which changes the war situation, it will still be very difficult to recover the northern provinces and the important area of Henan,” Guo admitted. ... Everett F. Drumright, one of the US embassy staff based in Xi’an (and a future ambassador to Chiang’s government on Taiwan), had sent an account of the battle to Gauss, who in turn forwarded it to the State Department. Some 60,000–70,000 Japanese troops had been met with only “token resistance,” and the First War Zone was now “shattered,” along with the reputations of Jiang Dingwen and Tang Enbo. “Chinese suffered heavy losses in men, material, and crops. Loss of wheat crop, best in years, most serious loss.” Shaanxi, the next province to the west, now lay open.23 Theodore White also observed all the features that had made the defeat in Henan such a rout—commanders absent from the field, officers using military facilities to evacuate their private property, and the seizure of oxen from the peasants—as well as the result: soldiers being disarmed by their fellow Chinese. “Within three weeks the Japanese had seized all their objectives; the railway to the south lay in their hands, and a Chinese army of 300,000 men had ceased to exist.”24 ....
我在 这篇文章中提到 ，加拿大的 Wenbin Yang 在我发出动议要求确认电子传票有效之后，递交了一份QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS 的动议。看罢，我不禁哑然失笑。 iMan 是强烈要求到加州跟我打官司的，他要撰写英文诽谤文（诽谤性英文标题略）， 【 进入美国法律大厦PACER，跟克伦斯·达娄这些美国历史上著名的大律师一起与世长存 。】 我有两天忙没有理他，他破口大骂之余，向我喊话到： 【 你还是尽快把诉状递上来吧。。。。本来也想顺便去加州玩玩的呢，有你资助，何乐不为 。 】（这里省去许多暴力威胁性言论）。类似的话他在各网站大量散发。 这对我而言出现了一个艰难的抉择。 我虽然不是律师，但好歹上过 ABC 全国电视； iMan不过是 新语丝被方舟子封杀流窜出来的一个痞子 ，他现在声称要来加州跟我打官司、在美国法律界扬名立万 ，我起诉他“老人家”对他的在网上追求存在感来说当然是非常有利的； 而且在美国起诉一个加拿大的人士要困难一些。 谁赢了他，也不过是赢了一个网络流痞；他就算输了，也实现了他留名美国法院的人生目标。 这么说来，起诉 iMan 相对费力而且对我没有任何正面的好处，但对于 iMan 倒可能是求之不得的好事。 但如果我不起诉他，那么他的种种基于谎言的诽谤言论就会成为被默认的事实，他可以在他的余生拿着这些谎言在网上到处散发，我只要出现在网上，他就可以跟去闹，我就是从此躲起来、消失于网络，他也可以肆无忌惮的到处散布其谎言。我如果不起诉 iMan，对我损害极大。 从社会效应来说，起诉 iMan 对普及法治观念以及网络文明是有正面效果的；而任其诽谤， 对类似 iMan 的行为是一种纵容与助长；网上不学好、易学坏的人不少 --- 湾外默默赞许其流痞言论、跟在他帖子后面起哄、成为他的粉丝、是非不分为他效忠的伪善者不一而足。 经过 这一系列得失的权衡，我最终艰难地选择了依法维权，选择了起诉。 起诉的对象是杨文彬。我的状纸中对杨文彬的背景介绍是这么写道：【 On information and belief, Yang had college education from Nanjing Chemical Engineering College, Nanjing, China (Chinese: 南京化工学院 ) . He studied as a graduate student in the 1990s at the University of Paderborn in Germany, where he graduated in 1999. No scholarly papers can be found to be authored by Defendant Yang in leading western research journals.... In September 2013, Defendant Yang registered on ZZB as "iMan". Immediately, iMan engaged in wide ranging attacks on other persons on ZZB, often using sexually explicit, violent and insulting language. Acting as the administrator of ZZB, Plaintiff repeatedly deleted iMan's offending posts, and repeatedly augmented the rules of the ZZB to prohibit various expletives, language of bodily violence, and other abuses which ZZB had not foreseen but made necessary by Yang's abusive postings.... On information and belief, prior to Defendant Yang's appearance on ZZB, he was an active poster on the website XYS.ORG ("XYS"), originally with the online identity JFF, whose real identity was later published by the operator of XYS and republished elsewhere on the internet in 2011. While at XYS, Yang gained notoriety for his indecent and obscene language, often making sexual insults on female users and others' female family members. On ZZB and other web sites, Yang's verbal abuses continued and intensified, but English translations of Yang's depraved messages would be too indecent to be included here. Because of Defendant Yang's indecent and violent postings, he was repeatedly banned by ZZB and other websites, yet he kept coming back with more offensive postings. 】（注意这里只是背景，而不是诽谤内容，网上暴力下流语言的民事责任可能是精神伤害，诽谤必须包含虚假事实）。 读者们马上会冒出一个问题，网上诽谤者是 IMAN（及其马甲）， 你起诉杨文彬并且说他是IMAN 。这个在法律上是怎么回事？ 有一个现象，翰山案的起诉书我公布了。公布之后，那些原来喜欢就翰山案大发高论的人们似乎都不再发表高论。但似乎奇怪的是，针对杨文彬诽谤的起诉书我没有公布，其诽谤的具体证据也就没有公开。GAOGAO HAN 的被公布，杨文彬的没有，这个差别是为什么呢？ 被告杨文彬在其给法院的 MOTION TO QUASH 中写道，原告起诉的实际是iMan, 但他不能确认自己是 iMan ( ” the current Defendant Wenbin Yang is unable to confirm that if he is the right and proper party to be named in this suit "）。 这些问题，我会在回应杨文彬的 QUASH 动议时解答，现在留给大家思考好了。 附件：杨文彬给法院的证词
起诉 翰山酷网侵权、诽谤的状纸 中有一个部分 “JURISDICTION”（管辖权），论述联邦法院的管辖权，其中SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ("争议管辖权”）部分写道： This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), as this action arises out of the laws of the United States of America, specifically, the claims for copyright infringement founded upon the Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq ., and the claims of false designation of origin and false advertisement founded upon the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq . This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation and state unfair competition claims as they arise out of and relate directly to Defendants' conduct in violation of federal law, as alleged herein. 大家如果仔细读读 美国宪法第三章关于司法分支的条款 ，里面列举了美国联邦法院能管的争议的各种情况，包括当案件涉及美国宪法或者美国联邦法律，以及不同州的公民之间的纠纷，等等。如果相关争议不是宪法里列举的情况，那么对不起，联邦法院没有争议管辖权，你只能去别的法院，比如说州法院。 那么美国联邦法律能管些什么事情呢？这个又被美国宪法给限制了。 读美国宪法要像读计算机手册一样 。只有那些明确写在宪法里属于联邦政府的权力，才是美国联邦政府能够施行的，其余的权力归于各州及人民。宪法第一章第八节规定美国国会有权提倡科学、艺术、鼓励创作、发明，给作者、发明家们专有权 （“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”） 。聪明的读者马上知道了，这是指版权（copyright）与专利。版权与专利这两种知识产权不是自然存在，而是法律的产物。我曾经论证到，西方文明的一个重大优势就是这个知识产权的概念，促进了发明、创造与科学的发展。因为知识产权如此重要，美国的创始人们把他们写入了宪法，由美国联邦政府统一管理。任何州法与联邦版权或者专利法冲突都是不行的。 知识产权除了版权、专利之外，还包括商标权。美国国会最初根据上面提到的宪法中赋予的管理版权的权力制订了一部商标法。结果，美国最高法院裁决该法律无效（1879年）：“A trademark is neither an invention, a discovery, nor a writing within the meaning of the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution... That legislation is void for want of constitutional authority... ” （商标既不是发明，也不是发现，也不是宪法 I.8.8 节所说的作品，国会根据改节授权制订商标法无效）。后来，美国国会根据宪法中的"Commerce Clause"重新制订了商标法。所谓 "Commerce Clause"写道：“ To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." 换言之，联邦政府有权管理美国与外国、不同州之间以及与印第安人部落之间的商务--- 但不包括完全是一个州内部的商务。以这条为依据制订的商标法就符合了美国宪法。 具体到翰山酷网案，它涉及两部联邦法律，一是 Copyright Act, 而是 Lanham Act，联邦法院就有了管辖权。而本来由州法管辖的诽谤、不公平竞争等作为附带诉求就一并加上去了。 新移民不远万里来到法治的美国，应该积极学习法律，做守法公民才是正道。 U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-03463-JCS Yue v. Han et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue representedby Dongxiao Yue 2777 Alvarado Street., Suite C San Leandro, CA 94577 PRO SE V. Defendant Gaogao Han Defendant Hanshan.Co Defendant Hanshan.Info Date Filed # Docket Text 07/28/2015 1 COMPLAINT with Demand for Jury Trial against Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info (Filing fee $ 400., Receipt Number 44611012617). Filed by Dongxiao Yue. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dongxiao Yue (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 3 Summons Issued as to Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 10/23/2015. Case Management Conference set for 10/30/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/29/2015 5 REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Copyrights Infringement. (cc: form mailed to register). (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
标签: 美国
