英语翻译Obscenity and child pornography are not the only forms o

英语翻译
Obscenity and child pornography are not the only forms of speech that lie outside the protections of the First Amendment.Speech that creates a clear and present danger certainly is not protected by the First Amendment,but the danger must be “present” rather than “probable” (United States v.Dennis,1905).What this means was clarified by the Supreme Court when it observed that “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance of expression” did not constitute a clear and present danger (Thinker V.Des Moines,1969,p.508).In deciding if there is a “clear and present danger” the courts look at the context in which the speech is made.The Supreme Court observed that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic” (Schenck v.United States,1919,p.52).On one campus,however,the president-elect of the student government association was disciplined for arousing a crowd which,subsequently,made it “costly” for the university to fence off a space previously used by students.Students subsequently confronted police and violence ensued in which one person died and several others were injured.The president-elect was disciplined for the exercise of his free speech in violation of his Constitutional rights.The court,however,pointed out that
Utterance in the context of violence,involving a clear and present danger,can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and becomes part of an instrument of force and as such is unprotected by the Constitution.(Siegel v.Regents of the University of California,1970,p,838)

哥们给的分有点少啊,这种看得很头疼的,申请加分：）,翻译如下：

并不仅仅是猥亵的话和儿童色情文学这些语言表达方式在第一修正案的保护范围之外（意思是说言论自由不包括猥亵的话和儿童色情）.如果这种语言方式造成了明确的而且发生的伤害,自然也在第一修正案里的保护范围之外.只是,这种造成的伤害必须是“发生的”,而不是“可能潜在的”（美国v. 丹尼斯,1905）.这句话表达的意思由高等法院澄清过,其观察到“表达的骚扰导致的无差别恐惧或惊惧”并不能构成一个清晰而且发生存在的伤害（Thinker V. Des Moines, 1969, p.508）.在判定是否有“清晰明确而且发生存在的伤害”时,法庭追溯了在何种情况下该言论被做出.高等法院观察到“最保守严格的言论自由是无法保护一个在戏院不实地呼喊‘失火’并导致混乱的人”（(Schenck v. United States, 1919, p.52）.然而,在一个校园里,一个学生会的主席受到惩罚,因为他鼓动人群,导致学校花费“高昂”代价将该区域包围.学生们随后面对警察,冲突随后爆发,致使1人死亡,多人受伤.该主席由于其行使了违反了他的宪法权利的自由言论而受到严惩.但是,法庭指出,在暴力的背景下,如有涉及清晰明确的和存在发生的伤害,那么言论就会失去其应有的理智效果而成为暴力的一部分,也因此才不受宪法保护.(Siegel v. Regents of the University of California, 1970, p, 838)