1 . LONDON—England will join the growing list of places that don’t allow smoking in public buildings, taxis and other places that includes even Buckingham Palace with a strong law.
Pubs, clubs and restaurants will all be smoke-free places. Taxi drivers have been warned that they could be fined(罚款) 50 pounds, or about $100, if they are caught lighting up inside work taxis.
Experts say the bans have become unchangeable because of increasing health costs and public worry over second-hand smoke. Some of the strictest smoking bans are in some of the United States’ states, such as New York and Florida, which include bars and restaurants as smoke-free places.
Spain, Italy, Iran, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, Uruguay and New Zealand have made laws to limit smoking. France banned smoking in many public places in February and cafes and restaurants will become non-smoking places next year. Finland will introduce a ban, too.
Bans are spreading among countries, and the World Health Organization supports them, but it said that by 2030 there will be “at least another two billion smokers in the world” and an expected decrease in male smokers “will be offset(抵消) by an increase in female smoking rates, especially in developing countries.”
In advance of the English ban, anti-smoking ads have coated bus stops and the government prepares to pay some money to help people give up smoking. The rest of Britain—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—already have smoking bans ready.
1. England does the following to ban smoking EXCEPT________.| A．introduce a ban | B．pay some money |
| C．reduce the health costs | D．put up anti-smoking ads |
| A．More places in Britain forbid smoking. |
| B．Taxis are smoking-free places in England. |
| C．People will be fined for smoking in public places. |
| D．A smoking ban must be put into use in England. |
| A．the smoking situation is still serious around the world |
| B．the number of smokers in Finland is not large at all |
| C．ads didn’t appear in England until the ban was started |
| D．Scotland will be one of the strictest anti-smoking places |
| A．doubtful | B．supportive |
| C．negative | D．indifferent (漠不关心的) |
2 . They hide in trees, hang from helicopters, even follow people down on motorcycles—all so that they can snap a shot of a celebrity. They are paparazzi—photographers who make a living by taking pictures of the rich and famous.
This September, California, a state with plenty of celebrities, passed a law aimed at taking action against paparazzi. The law forbids photographers from entering private property to take pictures, from using high-tech devices to take pictures of people on private property, and from “persistently following in order to take a picture.” Violators can be fined or spend time in prison. The United State Congress is considering passing a similar law.
Supporters of the California law say it will protect the privacy of celebrities, whom paparazzi have been bothering for years. Opponents (反对者) say the law restricts photojournalists from doing their job.
Most celebrities seem to like having their pictures taken when they are in public at award shows or other events. After all, it’s free publicity. But when they’re not in public, they say, photographers should leave them alone. Yet paparazzi have been known to secretly look in windows and worse. Actor Michael J. Fox said that paparazzi have even “tried to pretend to be medical personnel at the hospital where my wife was giving birth to our son.”
Celebrities have as much right to their privacy as anyone else, supporters of the law state. Supporters further argue that the California law is a fair way to keep the press at bay, because the law still allows photographers to do their job. It only punishes them, supporters say, when they violate celebrities’ privacy.
Opponents of the law say it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (美国宪法第一修正案), which guarantees that no laws will be made to limit “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”Although some people might not consider paparazzi a part of the legal press, the California law does not single out paparazzi. It applies to photographers working for any publication.
Opponents of the law are also concerned about its wording. “Does ‘persistently’ mean following someone for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?” asked lawyer Douglas Mirell. The wording of the law is too vague, critics complain, and could be used to punish almost any news photographer.
The United States needs a free press to keep the public informed about important news, paparazzi law opponents say. Limiting the press in any way, they argue, limits the freedom of all.
1. Which of the following will be considered illegal by the new California law?| A．Paparazzi slipping into the house of a famous person to take a shot. |
| B．Paparazzi taking photos of famous people with high-tech cameras. |
| C．Paparazzi hiring helicopters as a fast means of transportation. |
| D．Paparazzi rushing towards filming sites on motorcycles. |
| A．it prevents the media from getting worse |
| B．it gives photographers a fair way to compete |
| C．punishment forces paparazzi to quit their job |
| D．privacy of famous people needs special protection |
| A．it will violate paparazzi’s privacy |
| B．the First Amendment will be changed |
| C．some photographers will be wrongly accused |
| D．people will not be informed of important news |
| A．Critical. | B．Neutral. | C．Approving. | D．Skeptical. |
3 . Good afternoon, and welcome to England. We hope that your visit here will be a pleasant one. Today, I would like to draw your attention to a few of our laws.
The first one is about drinking. Now, you may not buy alcohol in this country if you are under 18 years of age, nor may your friends buy it for you.
Secondly, noise, Enjoy yourselves by all means, but please don't make unnecessary noise, particularly at night. We ask you to respect other people who may wish to be quiet.
Thirdly, crossing the road. Be careful. The traffic moves on the left side of the road in this country. Use pedestrian crossings and do not take any risk when crossing the road.
My next point is about litter（throwing away wasted material in a public place）. It is an offence to drop litter in the street. When you have something to throw away, please put it in your pocket and take it home, or put it in a litter bin.
Finally, as regards smoking, it is against the law to buy cigarettes or tobacco if you are under 16 years of age.
I'd like to finish by saying that if you requires any sort of help or assistance, you should get in touch with your local police station, who will be pleased to help you.
Now, are there any questions?
1. The main purpose of this speech would be to ________.| A．prepare people for international travel |
| B．declare the laws of different countries |
| C．give advice to travelers to the county |
| D．inform people of the punishment for breaking laws |
| A．in this country, if you are under 18 years of age, you may not buy alcohol, but your friend can buy it for you. |
| B．you may not buy cigarettes or tobacco unless you are above 16 years of age |
| C．because the traffic moves on the right side of the road, you must use pedestrian crossings when crossing the road. |
| D．you can't make noise except at night. |
| A．A policeman | B．A lawmaker |
| C．A teacher | D．A lawyer |
4 . Hold your smartphone, smile at the front camera, and click! You get a selfie. There is no doubt that this photo is yours. But if a monkey takes a selfie, does the camera owner have the right to decide how to use it?
Recently, this question has caused a problem between Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, and British wildlife photographer David J. Slater.
In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a macaque(猕猴) got hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite naughty, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told The Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of monkey selfies. The best of images was a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens.
This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia refused Slater’s request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, a website that is run by the organization and offers free images. 5
According to Wikimedia, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy and use any works here freely as long as they follow what the author says.” The question that arose here was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter(快门) button, could be considered the photographer of the monkey selfie. Wikimedia’s position on this was clear: as the work of a non-human animal, this photo has no human author who owns the copyright.”
Only authors of creative works, like a piece of writing or a song, own copyrights. In terms of photos, US copyright law says whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you to take a photo of them, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Justin Bieber, a Canadian singer, made faces behind them. You, as the photographer, would have the photo’s copyright and sell it. The tourists, who own the camera on which the photo was taken and asked you to take the photo don’t get the right to use it without you allowing them to. All this has been complicated by the appearance of surveillance cameras(监控摄像头), smart phones, and large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button to produce works whose copyrights belong to their boss.
Slater seems to be thinking along these lines. He says that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and allowing the monkeys to “steal” his cameras makes him the author of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” Show. “I believe in this case, the monkey was my assistant.”
If that seems unfair, think about this. If a person left her laptop in a café, and a poet picked it up, opened up a word-processing program, and typed out a poem which turned out to be the best poem of this generation, could she ask for much more than her laptop back?
1. Why did Wikidmedia refuse to take down the monkey selfie?| A．According to Wikidmedia, David J. Slater is not the author and thus has no copyright of the selfie. |
| B．Wikidmedia believes any human owns the copyright of the monkey copyright. |
| C．It aims to make profits by posting the selfie on the site. |
| D．Wikidmedia had got Slater’s permission in advance. |
| A．To raise an example of exception against the US copyright law |
| B．To prove that the owner of the camera has the copyright |
| C．To explain what the US copyright between different parties |
| D．To reveal the argument of the copyright between different parties. |
| A．supportive |
| B．doubtful |
| C．approving |
| D．indifferent |
| A．Wikidmedia’s position on copyrights |
| B．Who owns the copyright of a Monkey Selfie? |
| C．A female macaque grinning toothily |
| D．On the copyrights of selfies |
