On April 3rd a handful of supporters greeted Josh Wolf as he came out of prison in Dublin, California. He had spent more than seven months in jail for refusing to testify and turn over to federal prosecutors a videotape of a 2005 street demonstration in San Francisco. The prosecutors were investigating injury to a policeman and minor damage to a police car. It is apparently the longest an American journalist has served for protecting his sources and materials.

   What makes the case odder is that Mr Wolf, who is 24, is a video-blogger as much as a freelance journalist. Moreover, the material was from a public setting and the sources have scant claim to confidentiality. He could have been protected by California's generous “shield law” for journalists, but the federal government became involved on the thinnest of pretexts: namely, that it partly finances the San Francisco Police Department. This made Mr Wolf feel that though the evidential value of his videotape was low, the federal prosecutors meant to force him to identify the masked protesters before a grand jury. This, he said, would have transformed him into an investigator for the government. So he chose jail instead.

   The case raises hard issues. What are the rights of bloggers in an era when almost anyone may claim to qualify for a journalist's protection? What legal privilege do reporters enjoy to keep source material from government's prying eyes? And did federal prosecutors abuse their authority by bringing charges for small municipal offences, thereby deliberately bypassing the state's law shielding journalists?

   Mr Wolf's case underscores the reality that journalists—or simply those who behave as if they were journalists, when formally they are not—have few rights to shield themselves from revealing their sources or reportorial material. Although 49 states offer certain rights (Wyomin is the exception), only the barest protection exists at national level. Potential federal legislation, which has bipartisan support, would require prosecutors to show that the information is necessary and cannot be otherwise obtained. The debate is over how broad the shield should be. Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer. In 1972 the Supreme Court, in the Branzburg case, said that reporters had no shield. But a concurring opinion contained the remark that the government should show the “necessity” of forcing reporters to testify. Prosecutors have largely accepted this legal gloss, until the recent cases when they have attacked on the press—or on “citizen journalists” like Mr Wolf.

   “The whole issue of whether or not I am a journalist is irrelevant: the first amendment was written to protect pamphleteers,” says Mr Wolf. He did not have time to get a card-carrying reporter's job, since he was imprisoned two months after graduating from university. “This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”

   注（1）：本文選自Economist, 04/12/2007

   注（2）：本文習題命題模仿對象為2003年真題Text 4。

   1． What is implied in the first two paragraphs?

    [A] The case was not supposed to have lasted for such a long time.

    [B] “Shield law” is meant to protect journlist’s privileges.

    [C] It is a case about jounalist’s right of protection.

    [D] Journalists usually refuse to become government’s investigator.

   2． The author quotes Floyd Abrams’s explanation to show that _______.

    [A] it is difficult to define a proper “shield” that journalists should be entitled to

    [B] the protection should enable journalists to safeguard most resources

    [C] the federal legislation is still undergoing the debate on journalists’ right

    [D] the protection should be strictly limited to a certain degree

   3． Josh Wolf’s attitude towards his case is _______.

    [A] indifferent

    [B] outrageous

    [C] sad

    [D] considerate

   4． Journalists’ protection rights exist _______.

    [A] only at the national level

    [B] only at the sate level

    [C] clearly at both the national and state level

    [D] clearly at the national level and vaguely at the state level

   5． The text intends to express the idea that _______.

    [A] people should be more concerned about whether they can enjoy jounlists’ protection

    [B] the first amendment should be given a clearer explanation on journalists’ rights

    [C] the legislation for journalists’ privilege of protecting resources has a long way to go

    [D] more campaigns should be launched to protest federal prosecutors’ abusing authority

   篇章剖析

   本文討論的是在美國，記者是否應該具有合法保護特權這個問題。第一、二段簡要介紹了約什·沃爾夫一案；第三段提出了與話題有關的幾個主要問題；第四段從法律上討論了記者是否享受保護、以及如何享受保護等；第五段是沃爾夫先生對整個事件的評論。

   詞匯注釋

   testify [`testifai] v. 證明, 作證               pry [prai] v. 探查

   prosecutor [`prCsikju:tE] n. 起訴人；檢舉人   bypass [`baipB:s] vt. 設旁路, 迂回

   freelance n. 自由作家；自由記者            underscore [9QndE5skC:] vt. 劃線于...下, 強調(diào)

   scant [skAnt] adj. 缺乏的,不足的            bipartisan [bai9pB:ti`zAn] adj. 兩黨連立的

   confidentiality [kCnfi9denFE`Aliti]n. 機密性   dilute [dai`lju:t] v. 沖淡, 變淡, 變?nèi)?/p>

   shield [Fi:ld] n. 防護物, 護罩                eligible [`elidVEbl] adj. 符合條件的, 合格的

   pretext [`pri:tekst] n. 借口, 托辭              amendment [E`mendmEnt] n. 修正案

   transform [trAns`fC:m] vt. 轉(zhuǎn)換, 改變, 改造   pamphleteer [9pAmfli`tiE] n. 小冊子作者

   難句突破

   Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

   主體句式  … explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

   結構分析  這是一個倒裝的句子結構，其正常的結構應該為Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer explains that，前面的內(nèi)容都是explain的賓語，是間接引語。賓語由兩個并列結構組成，中間以分號分隔。其中第二個分句是一個省略句，完整的句子應該為apply it too narrowly and …。

   句子譯文  第一修正案律師弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會使得應受到保護的人得不到保護。

   題目分析

   1．C. 推理題。選項A、B、D都屬于細節(jié)問題，在文中都可以找到對應的信息。選項C歸納了前兩段的內(nèi)容。

   2．A. 推理題。弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯的話的意思是，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會使得應受到保護的人得不到保護�？梢娨�確定記者保護權的范圍還是非常困難的。

   3．B. 態(tài)度題。文章對應信息為比較后一句“This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”，從“hell”這個詞看出來沃爾夫是非常生氣的。

   4．D. 推理題。原文對應信息為“Although 49 states offer certain rights (Wyomin is the exception), only the barest protection exists at national level”，比較明確的立法只是停留在美國整個聯(lián)邦的程度，但是還沒有明確地具體到各個州。

   5．C. 主旨題。要縱觀全文，不要受到一些細節(jié)方面的干擾。

   參考譯文

   4月3日，一群支持者向剛剛從加州的都柏林監(jiān)獄被釋放約什·沃爾夫表示祝賀。他已經(jīng)被關了七個多月，原因是他拒絕作證以及拒絕向聯(lián)邦檢察官交出關于2005年發(fā)生在舊金山一場示威游行的錄象帶。當時，那些檢察官們正在調(diào)查一起傷害警察及破壞警車案。在所有因為保護消息來源和資料而被關押的記者中，顯然沃爾夫是關押時間比較長的一個。

   這件案子的特別之處在于，24歲的沃爾夫既是一個播客作者也是一個自由撰稿人。此外，他所掌握的資料是從公共設施上拍下來，其消息來源也沒有聲明其保密性。他本可得到加州慷慨的“新聞保障法”對于記者的保護，但是聯(lián)邦政府卻找出了一個非常牽強的借口：從名義上來說，洛衫機警署的資金部分來自政府。這就使得沃爾夫先生覺得，盡管他的錄象帶沒有很高的證據(jù)價值，但是聯(lián)邦檢察官故意強迫他在大培審團面前確認那些帶面具的反對者。他認為這會使得他變成政府的探子。所以他寧愿選擇進監(jiān)獄。

    這個案子引起了人們對一些棘手問題的關注。在一個幾乎所有人都可以聲稱自己具備得到記者保護的條件的時代，博客作者們到底都有哪些權利呢？為了保護消息來源不被政府的眼線查到，記者們享有什么樣的合法特權呢？當聯(lián)邦檢察官們?yōu)榱斯室獗荛_州級記者保護法律而對小型市級違法行為提起訴訟時，他們是否濫用了自己的權力呢？

   沃爾夫案突顯了一個現(xiàn)實，那就是記者——或者只是那些以記者自居但嚴格說不是記者的人——在保護消息來源和報道材料方面幾乎沒有任何的權利。盡管有49個州提供一些權利（除了懷俄明州），但比較明確的相關規(guī)定只是停留在全國的層面上。一項得到兩黨支持的可能即將生效的法律中規(guī)定，檢察官要證明需要得到信息是必需的且不能從其它途徑獲得。爭議的內(nèi)容主要在于對記者權利保護的范圍大小。第一修正案律師弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會使得應受到保護的人得不到保護。1972年，比較高法院在布蘭斯堡訴海斯案件中聲稱，記者無權享受保護。但同時還出現(xiàn)了一些其他觀點，如政府在強迫記者作證時需證明“必要性”。檢察官普遍都已經(jīng)接受了這一法律解釋，直到比較近他們又重新開始攻擊媒體——或者是像沃爾夫這樣的“民間記者”的案子。

   “整件事情跟我是不是記者沒有關系：第一修證案本來意在保護所有的作者，甚至包括小冊子撰寫人，” 沃爾夫說。他還沒來得及得到得到一份攜帶記者證的工作，因為他剛從大學畢業(yè)就被關進監(jiān)獄兩個月�！斑@是我進入記者世界的開始，”他說，“一個極度糟糕的開始�！�