Mar 3, 2012
VOA Special English News 95
A federal judge in the United States says a requirement that cigarette packages have large warning signs is unconstitutional. District Judge Richard Leon said the government rule violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The warnings were to have filled about half of the label on the package. They were to include color pictures of cancerous lungs and a dead body. The judge said pictures were not designed to increase the knowledge of the risks of smoking but to cause people to react with strong emotions. He said the government has many other ways to warn people about smoking without violating the Constitution. The government can appeal the ruling.
related news・日本語のニュース
（日本語訳）
合衆国連邦地裁裁判官は、タバコの包装に大きな警告を載せることを求めるのは違憲であると判決している。ワシントン地裁のリチャードレオンは政府の規制は言論自由を規定してる「修正第1条」に違反していると言った。警告は、包装の約半分を占めており、がん化した肺や死体を含んでいた。裁判官によると写真は喫煙のリスクを知らしめるものでなく、反対に反感を買うものになっているとのことである。また裁判官は、政府には憲法違反することなく、喫煙について人々に警告する方法があると言った。政府は控訴すると思われる。
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
bikenglishさん, よろしければ、a few suggestions:
A federal judge
(The reader "swallows" the first word.)
Richard
(second "r")
First Amendment
(Amendments to the Constitution are capitalized.)
the warnings were to have filled
(This grammar sounds strange and unnecessary to me, and doesn't match the grammar in the next sentence, but I think that's what he's saying.)
half of the label
(article "the")
were not designed
(past tense)
and a dead body
(article "a")
about half of the label
(article "the")
increase the knowledge of the risks
(Article "the". 本当は that first "the" sounds strange to me.)
without violating the Constitution
(article "the". As with constitutional amendments, the Constitution itself takes an initial capital letter.)
appeal the ruling
(In legal terminology, "ruling" rather than "rule".)
面白いですね。How/whether the First Amendment right to free speech applies to corporations (such as cigarette producers) has been a "hot-button issue" here in the US since (in 2010) the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could make unlimited contributions to politcal action committees and thus (indirectly) to political candidates. Very controversial!
kinokage-san,
Thank you for good information about the ruling in the United States.
It is interest that the right to freedom of speech has been applied for corporation's activities.
Post a Comment