02暴力

我们既不以武力威胁他人,也不接受武力恐吓。

底线划在哪里?

《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第二十条规定:“任何鼓吹民族、种族或宗教仇恨的主张,构成煽动歧视、敌视或强暴者,应以法律加以禁止。”这里有很大的解释空间。美国对煽动暴力的标准订得很严格。遵循所谓的“布兰登伯格标准”(源自美国最高法院的“布兰登伯格诉俄亥俄州案”),所宣传的暴力必须是有针对性的、可能发生的并且是迫在眉睫的。其他成熟的自由民主国家制定的一标准更宽泛,更加抽象的武力威胁和各种仇恨、敌视的言论都是非法的。

然而就像其他和言论自由相关的问题一样,语境和语调在这里是十分重要的。英国自由主义思想家约翰·穆勒曾经举例指出,报纸批评玉米商人囤积粮食造成穷人饥饿,这属于言论自由,然而如果对一群包围了玉米商人住所的愤怒饥民做同样的宣传,就不属于言论自由了(今天的例子可以换成投资银行家)。当英国《卫报》的读者在头版读到《查理·布鲁克:枪毙西蒙·考威尔,再给大家免费发羊角面包》的标题时,都明白这不过是个笑话,并非真的在煽动谋杀(注:查理·布鲁克是《卫报》专栏作家,西蒙·考威尔是著名选秀节目《美国偶像》的评委之一)。然而当利比亚的大独裁者奥马尔·卡扎菲威胁要“扫荡班加西的大街小巷,绝不留情”时,大家都知道这可不是在说笑话。

煽动暴力的一个极端例子是卢旺达的千丘自由广播电台(Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines)。他们不断地鼓吹胡图族武装发动“大决战”,意在消灭图西族“蟑螂”,最终酿成80万图西族和温和的胡图族居民遭屠杀的惨剧。即使按照《美国宪法第一条修正案》的精神,在原则上允许用“蟑螂”这样的词汇形容其他种族(参见“原则五”),但上述的暴力宣传也应该被制止。其宣扬的暴力是有针对的、可能发生的并且是迫在眉睫的。

语境的作用同时提醒我们:“原则四”所讲的开放、多元的媒体是否存在?其他有影响的媒体可以用更多更好的言论来挫败那些具有煽动性和鼓吹暴力的言论。一位评论家在解释塞尔维亚在独裁者米洛舍维奇治下出现的暴力时指出:“想象一下如果美国所有的主流电台在最近三年都被三k党控制了会怎样?”苏珊·本尼其(Susan Benesch)正展开一项为期五年的研究计划,探讨“仇恨言论”是如何演变成导致暴力的“危险言论”的。

不过我们这里讲的主要是个人或者群体的暴力,还未涉及国家。尽管《公约》“第二十条”明确规定“任何鼓吹战争的宣传,应以法律加以禁止。”但实际上,很少有国家立法禁止其领导人做战争宣传(也有国家对如何宣传战争做了一些规定)。

对抗“刺客否决”

正如其他几条原则一样,本原则只是一个我们自己行为的指导方针,并不在于明确地规定法律应该禁止什么,允许什么。它有两个组成部分:首先,我们不以武力威胁他人;其次,我们不允许、不接受、也不屈从于他人的武力恐吓。这是同一个硬币的正反面。如果我们屈从了一种威胁,就是在鼓励其他威胁。其他人会用这个例证来为自己辩护:“看,某某用武力威胁就让某某屈服了,我们也应该这么做。”

言论自由的文献资料里经常提到一个现在看来有些老套的概念:起哄者否决,即如果在会议中起哄的人声音太大、起哄时间太久,那么就实际上剥夺了发言者演讲的权利。现在我们常常遇到的是“刺客否决”,即威胁者会放出消息:“如果你发表这样这样的言论,我就要干掉你”,而有时他们确实是这么做的。全世界有成百上千的人——调查黑社会的作家、批评嘲讽宗教或者政权的批评家、异见人士、讽刺漫画家、出版家、小说家还有调查记者,他们仅仅是因为自己的言论就丢了性命。更多的人则生活在各式各样的“刺客否决”的恐惧中。

恐吓与姑息

本原则的两个组成部分同样重要:我既有义务抵制他人武力威胁,同时也要避免武力威胁他人。在这方面,许多所谓的“自由国家”近年来都做得很差。他们通常是打着“尊重”宗教(见“原则六”)、社会团结、公共秩序和文化多元的旗号一再地姑息各种直接或间接的武力威胁,而不是以社会与法律之威全力打击这些威胁。

一个经典的姑息暴力的错误例子就发生在我的美国出版商——耶鲁大学出版社身上。不久前耶鲁大学准备出版容特·克劳森教授(Jytte Klausen)关于丹麦默罕默德漫画的学术著作《震惊世界的漫画》。为了给读者更全面、历史的了解,其中的一系列插图重印了丹麦《日德兰邮报》刊登默罕默德漫画的整版版面,以及过往西方和伊斯兰艺术中对默罕默德的描绘。然而就在出版前夕(此处插入克劳森教授访谈),耶鲁大学和其下属的出版社决定撤掉这一系列插图,其结果就是读者在题为《震惊世界的漫画》的书中却看不到那副震惊世界的漫画。

出版社在声明中表示:“情报、安全、执法和外交部门的专家以及伊斯兰和中东研究的顶尖学者”都告诫出版社发表这些漫画“极有可能会引发暴力冲突”。耶鲁大学出版社社长约翰·多纳提克说他从来不畏惧争议,不过“是这样(即不发表漫画),还是让我的手沾满鲜血,我毫无选择。”

问题是这个理由不但模糊不清,更是黑白颠倒。要“引发”暴力的不是耶鲁大学出版社,而是那些对出版社完全正当的举动加以暴力恐吓的人。即使出现了暴力,那手上沾满鲜血的不是多纳提克先生,而是那些使用暴力的人。受害者和施暴者不能颠倒。如果连一个知名的大学出版社都不能在学术著作中发表这样的内容,那么暴力恐吓就胜利了。令人叹息的是在世界最自由的那些国家里尚且有许多这样的例子,更不用说那些不那么自由和不自由的国家了。

1882年英国的一个案例很能说明这个问题:一个救世军(Salvation Army)团体因为组织游行而被警察逮捕,理由是前几次的游行都被一个名为骷髅军(Skeleton Army)的反对组织暴力打断。英国法庭后来判决警察应该制止以武力恐吓他人的骷髅军,而不是暴力的受害者救世军。这条判决同样试用于当代的世界:制止你们那里的骷髅军,而不是救世军!

勇气与社会支持

抵制武力恐吓需要法律的威慑力,也要求警方保护那些受威胁的人,而不是让他们闭嘴。同时还有赖于当事人的勇气,他们为了言论自由而冒着生命危险,有时甚至付出生命的代价。比如俄国记者安娜·波利特科夫斯卡娅(Anna Politkovskaya)、巴基斯坦旁遮普省省督萨尔曼·塔西尔(Salmaan Taseer)、土耳其的亚美尼亚裔记者赫兰特·丁克(Hrant Dink)、巴西的环境问题活动家齐格·曼提斯(Chico Mendes)。这样的名单我们不可能全部列出,请在这里添加您的提名并告诉我们提名人应名列荣誉榜的理由。

然而这些勇敢的当事人甚至国家都不可能完全靠自己的力量取胜。一个至关重要的因素是社会和公众的支持。敢于承担武力恐吓的人越多,每个人承担的威吓就越小。沙特阿拉伯公民乔哈尼(Khaled al-Johani)独自一人站出来发表看法,旋即被警察逮捕并入狱。而当50万人一起出现在开罗的塔里尔广场时,被推翻的则是制造暴力的胡赛尼·穆巴拉克(Hosni Mubarak)。

这种社会支持不要求你同意当事人的观点,因为异议人士都持有强烈的信念,而不同人的信念往往互相冲突,从逻辑上讲就不可能同意他们所有人的看法。比如前苏联的著名异议人士亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴和安德鲁·萨哈罗夫,这两人对俄罗斯的未来就各持己见,完全无法达成一致。不过我们可以从道义上寄予他们同样的支持。据说伏尔泰有一句名言这样说:“我不同意你所说的,但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利。”伏尔泰从来没这么说过——此句乃是20世纪早期传记作家的杜撰——不过这杜撰名言的精神却是完全正确的。我们现在比以往任何时代都更需要这种精神。

尽管在不同语境和案例中对此有一定解释的空间,但本原则是我们所有原则中最简明扼要的,也是最难付诸施行的。你可能会为此付出生命的代价。


评论 (10)

读者须知:自动翻译由Google翻译提供,虽然可以反映作者大意,但不一定能提供精准的译意。

  1. Hello All,
    I don’t know a great deal about all this and I’m sort of rushing through with a speed read and a quick reply. I think there are different varieties of violence, and sometimes a mixture of those varieties. I am of the strong belief that some people are inherently more violent than others, for medical reasons. Their childhood can be a big part of things. What I would call social leisure violence, such as football hooliganism, is a particular type that has spread out with the advance of media technology. War is another type of violence which is state organised, which tends to be re labeled and glorified as much as possible. Where government are involved, there many fine speeches made and many new words for violence used. Guantánamo Bay for example was an act of pure highly organised violence and false information that inhibited free speech. This together with the tenure of President Trump has set new values; or the lack of them. The global population has always been about the have and have not. Technology has taken us a long way, but greed and violence will increase across the world. Drugs and alcohol are certainly a major factor in the Streets of the UK where I live and no doubt across much of the world.

  2. “Many states, mainly for political reasons, and companies, mainly for commercial ones, have already eroded the original dream.”
    When dreaming, we are prepared to accept the most preposterous and nonsensical of ‘experiences’ as reality. Possibly because, until we wake, there is nothing against which to compare the encounter occurring inside an hermetically sealed enclosure. Similarly the interweb has, at the very minimum, proffered an alternate. One that although not necessarily without error, might at least indicate when it is being interfered with. Since where contrast should be found, there will only be uniformity of opinion.

    “If you find a site is blocked”
    it is a sure and certain sign that an ‘understanding’ is being artificially protected and maintained. Because unlike self supporting truth, it cannot stand up to even elementary enquiry? Such as: Please share with the rest of us, that infallible procedure you utilised to confirm your elected ideology’s validity. That we might embrace that evaluation peacefully, without the need for duress.

    “they may imprison people for exchanging information or speaking their minds.”
    Given that their ‘comprehension’ constitutes a perfect representation of reality. Surely allowing others to test it, and thus affirm that actuality, would be the ideal means for disseminating it around the planet. Anything else would be an open admission of doubt, or downright certainty concerning its lack of legitimacy.

    “Western democratic governments denounce these practices.”
    Yet refuse to submit their own ideologies to intimate examination? Which may explain, why those they are in conflict with cannot see a reason they should offer their notions up for objective evaluation either.

    “Google itself has enormous potential power to limit or distort free speech.”
    But also an Achilles’ heel, in the form of a vulnerability to mass boycott?

    “we can lobby our governments to change their laws”
    Some say that if voting had any effect it would be prevented. Might they be drawing that conclusion from examples such as ‘EU referendums’?

    What we appear to be attempting, is analogous to collectively assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Which might prove easier, were we to first identify and agree on the scene we are jointly endeavouring to recreate.

  3. The internet is an amazing innovation with no precedent and any limitations upon it would be a shame. To limit it slightly would be to set in action a cascade of fetters that would shatter everything the Internet could have been.

  4. If we think of what the idea of the internet was in the beginning, the vastest storage of information shared among the whole world, of course it is normal to assume that it would become a vastest opportunity for innumerate crimes. But the basic idea, the true meaning of the whole invention is so valuable and must be absolutely preserved.
    Between the concept of abuse and freedom of speech there’s sometimes a very thin line, but it is always more important to say it all than to oppress ideas.
    Liberty that has been given to some of the big, like Google, and their “privacy respect” is always questionable, like it happened these days in GB, with admitting that Google car has been collecting (and selling) more info than actually needed for “filming the streets”.
    Any clerk with access to information, can always be willing to sell them for a good offer (remember the Swiss bank account holders’ information scandal…). It is just something that can not be stopped. But it must be fought and punished.
    We all deserve to see/read/hear everything that might (or even that might not) interest us, and judge ourselves upon it. Let’s try to keep it that way.

  5. I share the importance of preventing the abuse of the content , however like in the comment above the dilemma of what should be considered as an abuse and who should define it is a big deal. And I think there is division in term of the priorities around that world. In the developed countries where there is a reasonable freedom of speech the abuse from the private side is more of an issue than in those countries where there is a constant state repression of the freedom of expression online. Moreover, this type of control does not guarantee protection of the other forms of abuse like child pornography. Thus I believe we the netizens should aim for liberating the online space to allow as much freedom of opinion expression as possible, even if it is at the cost of the abuse.

    • I agree with you that we have to consider different countries and their cultures. It is very hard to generalise the principles, because it may be that some parts of the world have a completely different view than other parts. So it is quite a challenge to agree on ten principles globally and it is also interesting. I also agree that we have to try to have media which are as open as possible, but I disagree with you that it is even at the cost of the abuse. We have to differentiate between the freedom of speech and abuse. Therefore we have to define principles globally in order to be able decide globally whether this “speech” is accetable or an abuse.

      Ich stimme Dir zu, dass wir verschiedene Länder und deren Kulturen berücksichtigen müssen. Es ist sehr schwer, die Prinzipien zu verallgemeinern, weil es sein kann, dass einige Teile der Welt eine ganz andere Meinung als andere Teile haben. So ist es durchaus eine Herausforderung, auf zehn Prinzipien global zustimmen und es ist auch interessant. Ich stimme auch zu, dass wir versuchen, die Medien so offen wie möglich halten müssen, aber ich stimme Dir nicht zu, dass es auch um den Preis des Missbrauchs ist. Wir müssen zwischen der Freiheit der Rede und Missbrauch unterscheiden. Deshalb müssen wir Prinzipien global definieren, um in der Lage zu sein zu entscheiden, ob diese global “Rede” annehmbare oder ein Missbrauch ist.

  6. The question of legitimacy is indeed very tricky.
    Public powers should indeed have the power to ‘legitimately’ restrict certain information. Taking an extremely libertarian approach claiming that all information should be ‘free’ is far from the pragmatic reality.
    I would even argue that as the question of legitimacy is such a delicate question that it is virtually impossible to define it in a general principle. When using a phrase like ‘for the greater good of the public’ to define the legitimacy of restricted information, executive powers might however be prone to exploit this principle.

  7. In Italy, two days ago, a lawyer denounced the President of the Republic, the Head of Government, all Ministers and all the Members for:

    – Attack on the integrity, independence and unity of the State;
    – Subversive associations;
    – Attack on the Constitution of the State;
    – Usurpation of political power;
    – Attack on the constitutional bodies;
    – Attack on the political rights of citizens;
    – Political conspiracy by agreement;
    – Political conspiracy by association;

    but … only one independent newspaper broke the news!
    Must be spoken.

  8. I’m here to tell the denied freedom of the press in Italy. This is a real problem.
    The censorship has reached unbearable levels! After the Treaty of Lisbon and the approval of the ACTA treaty, by the European Union, the only resource we have left to procure a real informaizoni is the net…but it also wants to censor the web!
    The project began long ago and came to the public through the bills SOPA and PIPA at the U.S. Congress. In Italy two politicians have already tried to censor the web through the fight pro-copyright.
    It’s necessary that we speak.

    I await the debate, thank you

    Bobo

  9. A quick glance through raises a couple of issues for WJR …

    This explanation appears a particularly net-centric view for a principle that includes “all other forms of communication” ?

    And, why the overly complicated language regarding corruption – “illegitimate encroachments” – why not just corruption. In seeking to define, a principle should not be limited by complexity.

以任何语言评论

你同意本条原则吗?

同意 反对


“言论自由大讨论”是牛津大学圣安东尼学院达伦多夫自由研究计划下属的学术项目。

牛津大学