含有〈言论自由〉标签的文章(3)

[译文]美国的言论自由危机

Censorship in America
美国的言论审查

作者:John Stossel @2015-10-14
翻译:Drunkplane
校对:小册子
来源:CREATORS.COMhttps://reason.com/archives/2015/10/14/censorship-in-america

Free speech matters
言论自由很重要

Support for the idea that it’s good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against “hate speech.”

“所有意见都听听是有好处的,哪怕是让人感到被冒犯的意见”——支持这种观点的声音已变得羸弱。如今大多数美国人支持立法针对“仇恨言论”。

Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of “tolerance.”

保守派曾经试图禁止《花花公子》杂志、狂暴的说唱音乐和对耶稣的不敬描写。左派当时站出来与此等禁令作斗争是正确的,但如今他们却以“宽容”之名鼓励言论审查。

Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of(more...)

标签: |
6352
Censorship in America 美国的言论审查 作者:John Stossel @2015-10-14 翻译:Drunkplane 校对:小册子 来源:CREATORS.COMhttps://reason.com/archives/2015/10/14/censorship-in-america Free speech matters 言论自由很重要 Support for the idea that it's good to hear all opinions, even offensive ones, is thin. A plurality of Americans now support laws against "hate speech." “所有意见都听听是有好处的,哪怕是让人感到被冒犯的意见”——支持这种观点的声音已变得羸弱。如今大多数美国人支持立法针对“仇恨言论”。 Conservatives once wanted to ban Playboy magazine, violent rap lyrics and offensive depictions of Jesus. Leftists then were right to fight such bans, but today leftists encourage censorship in the name of "tolerance." 保守派曾经试图禁止《花花公子》杂志、狂暴的说唱音乐和对耶稣的不敬描写。左派当时站出来与此等禁令作斗争是正确的,但如今他们却以“宽容”之名鼓励言论审查。 Scientist Matt Taylor helped land a probe on a comet for the first time in history. But because he explained his achievement while wearing a T-shirt that had cartoons of sexy women on it (designed by a female friend of his), writer Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic tweeted that Taylor "ruined" the comet landing. The public outcry against him was so great that he cried at an apologetic press conference. 科学家Matt Taylor曾为史上首次探测器降落彗星表面做出贡献,但因为在解释该项成就时,他穿了一件印有性感卡通女郎的T恤(由Taylor的一位女性朋友所设计),《大西洋》杂志的评论员Rose Eveleth发推说Taylor“毁了”这一着陆计划。大众指责的声浪淹没了Taylor,让他在后来的致歉新闻发布会上一度落泪。 #134 Silicon Valley entrepreneur Brendan Eich created JavaScript and helped start Mozilla Firefox. But when activists discovered that he'd once donated $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, they attacked him as "a hater." A year and a half later, Eich still can't find a job. 硅谷企业家Brendan Eich发明了JavaScriptScript语言并协助创建火狐浏览器。但是当活动家们发现他曾为禁止同性婚姻的加州8号提案捐献过1000美元后,他们便攻击他是“仇恨者”。之后一年半的时间里Eich都无法找到工作。 When Eich donated the money, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so "unacceptable" that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry. Eich捐这笔钱的时候,奥巴马和希拉里同样反对同性婚姻。而仅仅过了五年,这样的反对声音便已如此“不可接受”,以至于一个技术天才竟被自己所在的行业所排斥。 As long as the leftist mobs don't use law or violence, they're still engaged in free speech. Private employers can impose most any speech rule they choose. The First Amendment applies only to government. But now some government officials are as eager to censor as the leftist mobs. 只要左派的暴民们不使用法律和暴力,他们的声讨也算是在行使言论自由。在自己的企业里,私人雇主大可以为言论立下各种规矩。第一修正案仅仅适用于政府,但现在一些政府官员却同左翼暴民一样渴望言论审查。 After the owners of Chick-fil-A said they oppose gay marriage, the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston said Chick-fil-A is "not welcome" in their cities. San Francisco's mayor said, "The closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer." 当Chick-fil-A【译注:美国的一家快餐连锁店】的老板们表示他们反对同性婚姻后,芝加哥、旧金山和波士顿的市长均表示他们的城市不欢迎Chick-fil-A。旧金山市长说“Chick-fil-A最近的分店离这儿有40英里远,我强烈建议他们不要再靠近了。” Since mayors may influence permits and zoning, their threats aren't idle. And no new Chick-fil-A outlets have opened in those cities. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, although the politicians seem oblivious to that. 市长们能左右土地规划和经营许可的发放,因此他们的威胁并不仅仅是装腔作势。上述城市后来没有新开一家Chick-fil-A。这是对宪法第一修正案的明显违背,然而政客们却好像意识不到这一点。 Of course, much worse than today's left are those who censor through violence. Al Qaeda's magazine names people who should be killed, chirping, "A bullet a day keeps the infidel away." Writers and artists heed the threats. CNN, NBC and The New York Times will no longer show Mohammed cartoons. 当然,比起今日的左派,那些通过暴力实施“审查”的人要坏得多。基地组织的杂志聒噪着“一天一颗子弹,让异教徒滚蛋”,点出他们认为该杀者的名字。作家和艺术家忌惮这些威胁,CNN、NBC和《纽约时报》都不再刊登穆罕默德的画像了。 I was surprised that liberal commentators were so eager to cave in to the terrorists' threats. Chris Matthews said, "Wanting to pick a fight with Islam is insane." 自由派评论员如此轻易就屈服于恐怖分子的威胁,让我感到惊讶。Chris Matthews【译注:美国著名时事评论员】说,“试图挑起同伊斯兰世界的斗争是疯狂的。” Such cowardice just invites more censorship. 正是这种怯弱导致了更严格的审查。 When the TV series South Park was censored by its own network for depicting Mohammed, a fan of the show, liberal cartoonist Molly Norris, showed her support by drawing her own cartoons of Mohammed. For doing so, she received death threats. Fearing for her safety, she went into hiding. 当电视剧《南方公园》因为描写穆罕默德而遭受自家的有线电视网审查时,该剧的一位影迷——自由主义卡通作者Molly Norris——自行创作穆罕默德卡通形象,以示对该剧的支持,结果她收到死亡威胁。由于担心自己的安全,她躲了起来。 Columnist Mark Steyn was appalled that "Her liberal newspaper—the way they put it in announcing that she'd gone, ceased to exist, was: 'There is no more Molly.'" She hasn't been heard from in five years. 专栏作家Mark Steyn对Molly所在报社的反应感到惊骇。“她那自由派的报社在宣布她离开和人间消失的消息时,说的竟然是‘这里不再有Molly’”,之后五年都没有Molly的消息。 "The only way we're going to move to a real sense of freedom is if every time somebody puts a bullet in a cartoonist for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed," says Steyn, "every newspaper ... displays that picture." Steyn说,“要达到真正的自由只有一条路,那就是每当一个作家因为创作穆罕默德的卡通形象而吃到一颗子弹,每一家报社都刊登这幅作品。” Steyn argues that societies that censor create more violence by driving hate speech underground. "You can have a society with free speech where I call you names, and you do rude drawings of me, and I say you're a hater, and we hatey-hatey-hate each other," said Steyn on my TV special, "Censorship in America," but "the alternative is the Muslim world where there's no open debate, and so there's nothing left to do but kill and bomb and shoot." Steyn认为,一个压制仇恨言论的社会只会制造更多的暴力。“你可以选择一个言论自由的社会,我对你直呼其名,你画漫画丑化我,我骂你是个讨厌鬼,我们就这样嚷嚷着厌恶对方;”Steyn在我的电视特别节目“美国社会里的审查”里说,“你也可以选择穆斯林世界,那里没有公开的辩论,所以只剩下谋杀、爆炸和枪击可干。” Free speech matters. If we give in to those who would shut us up, the censors will push and push until we have no freedom left. If we're going to sort out which ideas are good and which are bad, everyone must be allowed to speak. 言论自由很重要。如果我们屈服于那些想让我们闭嘴的人,那言论审查终将把我们逼向自由丧尽的境地。如果我们要分辨哪些观点是好的,哪些是坏的,我们应该让每个人都可以发声。 作者John Stossel是 福克斯商业在线 的一位主持人。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

饭文#W7:韩寒的名誉侵权案难以成立

韩寒的名誉侵权案难以成立
辉格
2012年1月30日

“打假斗士”方舟子近来真可谓越战越勇,方罗之战硝烟尚未散尽,方韩之战便已鸣锣开炮;在此之前,他的战斗多半像是单方面远距离挑战,对方少有回应,即便回应也是选择自己的时机和节奏,而现在不同了,或许是因为微博的作用,而交战双方又都是拥有海量粉丝的网络名人,微博所创造的即时互动特性已将战斗变成了近身肉搏。

但凡近身肉搏,场面总是会比较难看,情急之下,是很难顾及风度的,而像韩寒这样较为介意或倚重于风度、气质、性情等人格魅力,并且其地位和影响力也很大程度上建立于此的明星作家,肉搏的代价便尤其惨重,他的许多读者和粉丝,恐怕都已经在这短短几天中,或隐约或恍然的发现了一个与此前印象颇为不同的韩寒。

就这场战斗而言,几个特别难看的场面,都与当事人不善于面对质疑有关,而这一弱点在国人中间似乎很普遍;许多针对质疑所做出的激烈反应,包括力挺韩寒的一些名人,都混淆了质疑、判决和基于判决而实施的惩罚,这三件截然不同的事情,如此混淆才会让他们将麦田和方舟子的质疑类比于秦桧的莫须有加罪,甚至文革中的大批斗;尽管在之前的类似纷争中,早已有头脑清醒人士多次辨析和澄清这三者的区别,但遗憾的是,介入这次争议的许多人并未表现出他们在这方面有多少长进。

司法判决可能会导致人身强制,甚至沉重的刑罚,因而被要求遵循无罪推定原则,甚至需要排除一切合理怀疑,但普通人之间的相互质疑却不必遵循同样的原则,并没有什么规范阻止质疑者使用可靠或不可靠的传闻做出自己的推断和猜测,他们依据的事实无须满足证据法的要求,而他们的推理方式也不必遵循司法标准或逻辑教科书的要求,若非如此,除(more...)

标签: | | | |
3252
韩寒的名誉侵权案难以成立 辉格 2012年1月30日 “打假斗士”方舟子近来真可谓越战越勇,方罗之战硝烟尚未散尽,方韩之战便已鸣锣开炮;在此之前,他的战斗多半像是单方面远距离挑战,对方少有回应,即便回应也是选择自己的时机和节奏,而现在不同了,或许是因为微博的作用,而交战双方又都是拥有海量粉丝的网络名人,微博所创造的即时互动特性已将战斗变成了近身肉搏。 但凡近身肉搏,场面总是会比较难看,情急之下,是很难顾及风度的,而像韩寒这样较为介意或倚重于风度、气质、性情等人格魅力,并且其地位和影响力也很大程度上建立于此的明星作家,肉搏的代价便尤其惨重,他的许多读者和粉丝,恐怕都已经在这短短几天中,或隐约或恍然的发现了一个与此前印象颇为不同的韩寒。 就这场战斗而言,几个特别难看的场面,都与当事人不善于面对质疑有关,而这一弱点在国人中间似乎很普遍;许多针对质疑所做出的激烈反应,包括力挺韩寒的一些名人,都混淆了{*quote(批评与批斗的区别)质疑、判决和基于判决而实施的惩罚,这三件截然不同的事情,如此混淆才会让他们将麦田和方舟子的质疑类比于秦桧的莫须有加罪,甚至文革中的大批斗/quote*};尽管在之前的类似纷争中,早已有头脑清醒人士多次辨析和澄清这三者的区别,但遗憾的是,介入这次争议的许多人并未表现出他们在这方面有多少长进。 {*quote(批评与批斗的区别)司法判决可能会导致人身强制,甚至沉重的刑罚,因而被要求遵循无罪推定原则,甚至需要排除一切合理怀疑,但普通人之间的相互质疑却不必遵循同样的原则,并没有什么规范阻止质疑者使用可靠或不可靠的传闻做出自己的推断和猜测,他们依据的事实无须满足证据法的要求,而他们的推理方式也不必遵循司法标准或逻辑教科书的要求,若非如此,除非在律师和逻辑专家的指导下,普通人就很难发出质疑声音了,这样的限制与一个自由开放社会显然是不相容的。/quote*} 当然,有权利这么做不等于这么做就是无可指责的,假如质疑者草率而片面的使用不可靠的传闻,忽视相反的证据,进行不合逻辑或置信度很低的推断,并据此轻易怀疑他人的诚实,那么别人自然也有权指责他草率鲁莽或信口雌黄,他也会因此而承担名誉损失,而对于方舟子这样的职业打假者,这样的损失也将是沉重的。 实际上,假如韩寒果真认为方舟子的质疑属于这种水平,就大可不必为此而暴跳如雷,除非他觉得自己的读者和粉丝群分辨是非的能力远低于正常水平;奇怪的是,一方面,多位挺韩者指出,代笔质疑是很难证实或推翻的,因而是很无谓很无聊的,但同时,他们却又认为此类质疑是需要严肃对待和做出激烈反应的,在我看来,这两种姿态点实在难以协调起来。 不可否认,在某些传统社会,曾流行过一种对他人诚信的质疑施加了更严格的审慎要求的规范,在那种规范下,假如某人认为遭受了对其诚信或人品不恰当的质疑,可以向质疑者提出决斗来捍卫自己的名誉,而后者为了捍卫自己的名誉,也很难拒绝挑战;然而,随着社会变得更庞杂更具流动性,言论空间变得更开放更宽松,这种规范早已消亡了。 在当前所流行的规范下,质疑者享有充分的言论自由,除非其言论构成诽谤,而{*quote(诽谤.认定条件)对诽谤的认定是有着严格条件的:首先,需要认定被告捏造了事实,其次,听众可能相信这些事实,第三,相信这些事实会导致对原告的负面评价;可是,直到韩寒在宣布提起名誉侵权案诉讼时,他并未曾指出过方舟子捏造了什么事实,而仅仅指出后者所采用的证据是片面的,从证据得出结论的推理过程是不合逻辑甚至荒谬的。 对于诽谤要件的如此限定是合理的,因为在言论开放的条件下,只要不捏造事实,取证片面性可以被对方的相反证据所平衡,而推导过程的谬误与不合理也容易被听众凭自己的判断力或评论者的分析而加以纠正。/quote*} 事实上,在这次纷争中,方舟子从未宣称自己掌握了听众之前所不了解的隐秘事实,他的所有推测都基于可公开获取的材料,你可以说他的推导逻辑很荒谬,那没关系,在相同的事实面前,你可以做自己的判断,毕竟,一个人无论懂不懂因果分析和逻辑推理,都有权按自己的方式进行推断和猜测,并将此过程和结果公开表达。 所以,由于缺少捏造事实这一认定诽谤的核心要件,韩寒的名誉侵权案根本无法成立,连立案的条件都满足不了;和此前远超出其财力的悬赏一样,这一诉讼行动(假如真的发生)是他在这场肉搏战中的又一项不负责任的举动,只会让场面变得更加难看。
假如剑桥学生公布的是研究对象的隐私

看到一则有趣的新闻,剑桥学生Omar Choudary在其硕士论文中提到了Chip-and-PIN支付系统的一个安全漏洞,尽管该漏洞在专业领域已广为人知,但Omar将论文上传到剑桥网站的行为还是引起了英国银行业的担忧,于是UK Cards Association主席Melanie Johnson给Omar所在的剑桥计算机实验室写信要求从网站撤下文章,结果,他得到的是实验室Ross J. Anderson教授牛逼哄哄的答复

Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student’s thesis, which is lawful and al(more...)

标签:
1478
看到一则有趣的新闻,剑桥学生Omar Choudary在其硕士论文中提到了[[Chip-and-PIN]]支付系统的一个安全漏洞,尽管该漏洞在专业领域已广为人知,但Omar将论文上传到剑桥网站的行为还是引起了英国银行业的担忧,于是UK Cards Association主席[[Melanie Johnson]]给Omar所在的剑桥计算机实验室写信要求从网站撤下文章,结果,他得到的是实验室[[Ross J. Anderson]]教授牛逼哄哄的答复

Second, you seem to think that we might censor a student's thesis, which is lawful and already in the public domain, simply because a powerful interest finds it inconvenient. This shows a deep misconception of what universities are and how we work. Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values. Thus even though the decision to put the thesis online was Omar's, we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material! Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent....

......

You complain that our work may undermine public confidence in the payments system. What will support public confidence in the payments system is evidence that the banks are frank and honest in admitting its weaknesses when they are exposed, and diligent in effecting the necessary remedies. Your letter shows that, instead, your member banks do their lamentable best to deprecate the work of those outside their cosy club, and indeed to censor it.

不难想象,这一举动会被许多人视为剑桥言论自由和学术独立精神的一次响亮展示而获得欢呼和羡慕(中文报道在Google Reader上获得了25个喜欢),不过,我怎么看都觉得这位Anderson的火气有点莫名其妙。 我甚至没弄明白他究竟要表达什么意思,剑桥对其学生/学者公布任何研究内容都没有限制?即便不予限制,连指导意见或准则都没有?而一旦他们公布了就no choice but to back him?否则便辱没了Newton和Darwin? 举个例子,假如这个Omar研究的是性生理学,而他公布了临床志愿者的姓名和临床资料,剑桥管理部门真的没意见?或者他是人类学家,不小心泄露了田野调查对象的敏感隐私,人家来投诉要求做匿名化处理,你也会这么火大? 我不信剑桥在此类问题上完全没有准则,当然Omar的行为可能没有逾越这些准则,但在信用卡安全这么敏感的事情上,外人指望一下存在相关准则,也不为过吧?犯得着为此发飙? 我猜,答案或许隐藏在“a powerful interest finds it inconvenient”这句话里,假如finds it inconvenient的不是银行业协会,而是妇女保护组织,儿童关怀组织,绿色环保组织,回答大概会温柔的多,果若如此,那到底是谁更powerful呢?……