以前英國宮廷裡有一種小丑式的人物﹐叫作弄臣﹐專門博取君主的歡心。中國漢朝有
個東方朔詼諧滑稽﹐有點像弄臣的架勢﹐不過他常寓諷喻於滑稽之中﹐以規勸人君﹐
所以骨子裡他是一個直臣。
       
弄臣當然是個貶義詞。不幸的是﹐中國文化人中居然也有弄臣式的人物。按理說﹐
文化人有教養﹐應該珍惜自己的羽毛﹐重視自己的人格品行。但在中國﹐事實並非
如此。現代最大的弄臣就是郭沫若。他不但寫毫無水平的詩討好老毛﹐還討好江青。
而現在最顯著的弄臣恐怕要算是大導演張藝謀了。本來他表現出的品性還不差﹐拍
了幾個好電影。後來他變了﹐大概是名利心太重﹐所以變成了演藝界的弄臣﹐拍了
一個借歌頌秦始皇為名﹐為中共專制統治唱讚歌的電影﹐以蒙蔽大眾的視聽。所以
他得到的酬勞就是讓他在奧運會上出風頭﹐並且放到紐約來販賣暴君秦始皇的“親
善”人性﹐以蒙蔽美國觀眾。
       
如果科學家也是文化人之一﹐那麼科學界的弄臣非楊振寧莫屬。其得到的酬勞就是
個年輕漂亮的太太﹐並可以在北京安度晚年。其他還有什麼好處非外人能知。不說也
罷。中國文化人中的小弄臣當然還有﹐像余秋雨﹐但不能一一概述。希讀者能予以
補充。

这种人身攻击很无聊，也很下作。张艺谋怎么歌颂秦始皇了？楊振寧娶个“年輕漂亮的太太”是政府或执政党分配的吗？

再说“弄臣”本来就是一个汉语词汇，不是从英文翻译来的。见《史记·汉文帝》：使使者执节招通而谢丞相曰：“此吾弄臣，君释之。” 通指邓通，丞相指申屠嘉。


"以前英國宮廷裡有一種小丑式的人物﹐叫作弄臣﹐專門博取君主的歡心。中國漢朝有
個東方朔詼諧滑稽﹐有點像弄臣的架勢﹐不過他常寓諷喻於滑稽之中﹐以規勸人君﹐
所以骨子裡他是一個直臣。
        
弄臣當然是個貶義詞。不幸的是﹐中國文化人中居然也有弄臣式的人物..."

首先我沒說弄臣是翻譯來的。我只是外國宮廷有一種弄臣。看清再駁。

張藝謀搞了兩個秦始皇﹐為暴君涂脂抹粉﹐這已是網上共識。再把過去的網帖看一
下。楊振寧剽竊屬李政道部份的科研成果。人格卑下﹐簡直與郭沫若一樣。閣下與
他有什麼關係嗎﹖要為他辯護。這種人各個網站都在罵。

你这句话“以前英國宮廷裡有一種小丑式的人物﹐叫作弄臣﹐專門博取君主的歡心”给人的感觉“弄臣”是外来语。本土的中国词语，有必要提英国吗？真要较真，你说得出来英语的“弄臣”是什么吗？你知道是谁翻译谁吗？

骂人是最简单的下流行为，泼妇流氓都会骂人。我以为你还至于那么下作。你看过电影《英雄》吗？看过歌剧《秦始皇》吗？没看过作品，凭什么说张艺谋歌颂秦始皇？看过的话，具体说说，他用什么电影语汇或音乐或歌词来歌颂秦始皇了？退一步说，即便他有对秦始皇的正面评价，那又怎么能说是歌颂中共呢？中共除了老毛以外，有谁和秦始皇认同过？你说杨振宁“得到的酬勞就是個年輕漂亮的太太”，有什么凭据？我们都知道他结婚是个人行为，你可以不赞同年龄差异那么大的婚姻，但凭什么说那是中共给他的酬勞？

我与张艺谋和杨振宁有没有私人关系和这争论没有关系。我只知论理，还知道古人有“举贤不避亲仇”一说，批评也是同样道理。

逸士批判的是公众人物，公众人物就是给草民百姓品头论足的。西方自由世界就是
如此。

我们都是伊甸网友，观点不合很正常，为了伊甸的和谐（我们也要讲究和谐是不是）
还望讨论各方慎用任何含有个人攻击性质的语言。

逸士说杨振宁“其得到的酬勞就是個年輕漂亮的太太”，的确不妥，因为那毕竟是翁自愿的。

不过，廖康的张艺谋情结比较深，反应也过度了一点。

对公众人物评头品足也不能无中生有，在西方也有libel罪。你掌握了什么材料，能够证明小翁是中共赏赐给杨振宁的？如果没有，那不是无中生有的诽谤吗？关于张艺谋，我向很多指责他的人要求具体批评，要求反驳我的评论，但到现在为止，还没有一个人回应过。说空话和骂人很容易，但不能说服人。

"張藝謀搞了兩個秦始皇﹐為暴君涂脂抹粉﹐這已是網上共識。" 什么网上共识?有统计数字支持吗? 有理就讲理,拉大旗,说空话,不是讲理.

網上有多少文章批評張的歌頌暴君秦始皇﹐難道那時你都沒看到嗎﹖分析得很詳盡。
現在還有必要來重複嗎﹖自己上網去查找。

楊振寧的卑鄙人格網上也有文論及。你有在這裡爭吵的時間﹐到各網站去查考一下。
我就是說了獎個年輕漂亮的太太給他﹐又怎樣呢﹖叫他來告我。許多幕後交易﹐不
會有證據流出來的。但都在情理之中。像張大盜獎他導演奧運開幕式一樣。

如果有人这样骂你，还让你自己去找证据，证明骂得对，可以吗？还在情理之中呢！

本来以为你会讲理，原来只会扣大帽子。

“我就是說了獎個年輕漂亮的太太給他﹐又怎樣呢﹖叫他來告我。”这样说话就是耍无赖了。

西方法律说找证据是检方的事，廖兄怎么忘记了？
如果你要证明逸士骂错了，自然找证据的责任就是你的了。

有这样的朝廷才有这样的弄臣，哈巴狗和恶犬都是豢养出来的，怪不得狗类。张艺谋电影没看，但开幕式是看的，尽管神叨叨的我并不怎么欣赏，但也还够不上弄臣的地位。弄臣是有的，是中宣部和所有掌管意识形态的部门，他们是弄臣文化和太监文化的嫡传，是中国的毒瘤，也是中共的毒瘤。

弄臣是被君主养着, 专为寻开心的. 说张艺谋是弄臣,未免言重了.他哪怕真有点歌功颂德,也顶多是出于名利之心吧. 没看过他近期的电影,看过大红灯笼和秋菊.比较喜欢后者.

文取心搞颠倒了，是逸士说张艺谋是弄臣，说杨振宁得到赏赐，举证的责任当然是逸士。他如果拿不出证据，就是诽谤。我和逸士并没有官司。

问题是张，杨没有出来否认啊，倒是你口水横飞地和逸士打嘴仗。‘诽谤’也是从你的帖子里读出来的，你指责说逸士‘诽谤’，你就得举证为什么张不是弄臣，杨从未得过赏赐。如果你官司赢了，我们叫逸士劳动改造几年。

搅混水就无聊了。

我寫短文為了表達自己的看法想法﹐以及判斷分析推測﹐包括推測。網上發言無需證
據﹐信不信由大家。你橫挑鼻子豎挑眼的﹐是存心跟我過不去。我貼文就是準備有
人來跟我吵架的。我寫已寫了﹐你看著怎麼辦吧。老夫可不在乎你這種後輩說什麼。

哇，老先生气量可观，只喜欢别人信你，不喜欢别人疑你，说你不是就急了。要是有人无缘无故，无需证明地用“弄臣”一类的词来说你，还不得拼命？我有时喜欢争论，但从来不跟人吵架，童叟无欺。

我退休了沒事﹐專喜歡跟人吵架。你有吵架的興趣﹐就放馬過來。

不善于吵架，也没有时间，晚生甘拜下风。

这个嘛，最好先读一下翁帆的日记，免得总是自己揣测别人的心思。自己失去爱的能力，并不说明别人也失去。

最近逸士在伊甸园闹老寿星，把我们所有人都给震住了。

多谢为力，老糊涂了。
我已删了询问贴。添麻烦了，抱歉。

逸士是老顽童，古诗太深奥大家无法接嘴，这些杂文让大家起起哄热闹热闹也挺好。
廖兄是否有点爱屋及乌，张艺谋我不清楚，杨振宁嘛，廖兄应该知道有口碑这个东西，口碑虽然不能在法庭上当作证据，但却可以臧否一个人，网上有不少关于杨振宁为人的文字（不关老少配），想来也不会全是假的吧。

廖君可有本事找出一个美国名人打赢 libel 罪的官司来？我打赌你不能。

根据美国的 Media Law，普通老百姓有，但公众人物（public figure）没有隐私权、
名誉保护权。试举两例：

（１）大明星 Tom Cruise 一直被“谣言”中伤为同性恋，他是没有办法依靠法律为
自己洗清名誉的。他若为此上法庭控告个人或媒体，官司百分之百地输。他自然不会去
破费钱财自取其辱。在美国名人八卦也是满天飞，你们有谁听说过哪个名人打“诽谤”
官司的？

（２）共和党一年来视官方证据于不顾，大肆“造谣”说奥巴马出生于非洲，因而没有
资格当选为美国总统。奥巴马贵为堂堂美国总统，即使利己的铁证如山，也没有办法通
过法律为自己讨回公道。

所以，你指责遗士的“诽谤罪”，在美国完全不成立，因为他的针对个体是公众人物，
而不是草民百姓。

好嘛，还挺光荣。请你自己google "libel case won",有576000条呢！

有关杨振宁，我没说别的，只为所谓“赏赐”鸣不平。

你还是没有搞清这里的不同，我说的是“名人诽谤“，而不是“平民诽谤”。

google "libel case won" 的几十万里面有几个属于“public figure libel case won"?

In the eyes of the law, public figures are usually politicians or celebrities, who have limited rights to claim that they've been libeled or defamed, thanks to a 1964 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.


New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages.

The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

女演员Cameron Diaz可算名人吧，可算公众人物吧？查一下celebrity libel case won吧，有333000条呢。

廖君，nice try，可惜却是一个伪例。我查了一下，这大嘴美人的诽谤案是伦敦法院
受理的，被告是一家英国媒体。眼下我们在讨论美国的新闻法，所以还请你继续努力。
既然可以狗到几十万条，查到一两个“铁案”应该不是很困难吧。然后我们继续探讨。
既然你是这场伊甸虚拟法庭中的原告律师，根据新闻法，举证和援引 common law
的担子完全在你

这么严格啊？也是，英国不能跟美国比。

第一页就有美国名人在美国打官司，胜诉。但你又会说他们不算名人，你严格嘛。

To support your points, you need to offer us some details. No jury and judge will accept the words "go to google". Please don't think it's easy to challenge US Supreme Court's rulings. Study please:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Dustin Hoffman won $3 million from a Los Angeles fashion magazine for a Tootsie takeoff.

Nice try again. Is this a libel or defamation involved case? Is free speech one of the key elements in the lawsuit? What is the court ruling on this specific case? Lack of these details, it provides little evidence to support your argument that public figures’ privacy or fame can prevail one of the fundamentals of the United States, the freedom of speech.

I knew you would be distinguishing libel from defamation. you are really rigid. You can thus define everything in your favor. You won.

抄段定义来：

libel and slander

libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today, however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.

The term libel is also often used if a wide audience for the defamation is possible. Courts have split over which category radio and television are in; today's statutes generally categorize defamation occurring in those media as slander. The offenses are alike in several respects. The defamation—essentially exposure to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss—must directly affect the reputation of a living person.

廖君，

我们在讨论一个重要的美国法律问题，不是争什么个人输赢。在公众人物的隐私、
名誉权和公众媒体的自由表达权相互冲突时，法律绝对站在后者方面，为的就是维
护美国宪法第一修正案的言论自由权。高等法院１９６４的判决已经明确表达了它
的立场。这是没有什么好争论的。见我上面的＃２８、＃３３帖。

回到这次伊甸事件的起源，你可以指责逸士对老谋子、杨振宁不厚道，但是却没有
足够的法律依据断定他犯了诽谤罪。如果真的上法庭打官司，你必输无疑。

我可没想打官司。你让我找美国的公众人物诽谤罪胜诉案例，我找到Dustin Hoffman。你说defamation不是libel，我找来法律定义说libel是defamation的一种。仅此而已。

针对这个案例，法庭判决可曾用过“诽谤”等字眼？我粗粗看了看，觉得这应该是
一个肖像权案件，而不是“诽谤”或者“名誉”。你如果有新的发现，不妨拿上来
继续讨论。

你怎么翻译defamation？

Hoffman 最后并没有赢得这个官司嘛，不但三百万没到手，律师费也打了水漂。

况且，这个案例和我们这次讨论的“诽谤与言论自由”问题无关，因为没有涉及任何
“诽谤”内容。这基本上是一个“商业肖像权与言论自由”案件。

Dustin Hoffman Loses Appeals Court Case

A federal appeals court has reversed a $3 million award to Dustin Hoffman levied against Los Angeles magazine, ruling that a computer-altered image of the actor was protected speech.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said on Friday that the image, published in 1997, did not unlawfully use Mr. Hoffman's name and likeness. The panel said the photo was not an ''exploitative commercial'' use as Mr. Hoffman contended and a federal judge ruled two years ago.

The court said the photo, which was displayed with other captions and altered images of different actors, was editorial speech protected under the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/09/business/mediatalk-dustin-hoffman-loses-appeals-court-case.html