依然充满禁忌的世界
知识的讨论与传播无禁区，这话看似理所当然，但实际上无论是公权力还是私人势力都在不断地设立禁区。其中最大的一个限制就是认为只有宗教信仰揭示的才是唯一的真理，比科学证明的定律或者由实证的理论都更加正确。最有名的一个例子大概来自天主教罗马教廷：他们强迫意大利科学家伽利略承认日心说是错误的。
在我们这个时代，英国的一位阿訇奥萨马·哈山（Usama Hasan）曾在自己的清真寺里提出伊斯兰教和进化论可以互相兼容，结果就接到了死亡恐吓。一个批评者讽刺说，这位阿訇不应该在拥挤的清真寺里大喊“进化论”（这里引用了一个典故：美国著名的法律学家奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯（Oliver Wendell Holmes）曾说，你不应该在一个拥挤的戏院里大喊“失火了”。）穆斯林世界里的大部分地区都不教授进化论，这就是一个禁区（参见“原则六”）。
公司、卡特尔和专业协会也常常封锁那些威胁到它们的观点。对巨额投资的药物测试所得出的负面结果，制药厂要么封锁消息，要么无视。英国科普作家赛门·辛（Simon Singh）被英国指压治疗协会（British Chiropractic Association）控告，因为他声称该协会推广的是“没有任何根据”的“虚假疗法”。诽谤条例（参见“原则七”）被用来阻碍认真的科学讨论。
很多政府也设立了言论的禁区。有时候是为了保护公民的隐私（参见（“原则七”），或者是官方机密，比如和国家安全有关的信息（“原则八”）。我们原则上可以接受某些限制，不过如果划的禁区过大，问题就出现了。这些禁区往往是关于公共活动或过去的人物，没有充分理由把这些话题变成禁忌的。
控制过去
最臭名昭著的例子莫过于那些极权政府，它们系统地否认或者曲解历史上那些从意识形态或国家的角度看来让人尴尬的历史。苏联多年来一直否认1939年和纳粹德国订立过互不侵犯条约，其中包括由苏联和纳粹德国瓜分波兰的决议（我还清楚地记得有个苏联历史学家亲口向我否认过）。而且，波兰军官1940年被苏联警备队杀害的事情也一直被说成是纳粹德国在1941年干的。如果不承认他们的说法，非要说真话的话，你就得坐牢。
在当今的中国你也不能自由地讨论或者传播关于1989年在天安门广场发生的事情。如果你在中国的搜索引擎“百度”上搜索“天安门屠杀”，会得到这样的信息：“搜索结果可能不符合相关法律法规和政策，未予显示。”在伊朗这个伊斯兰国家，则是不能发表批评共和国缔造者阿亚图拉·霍梅尼（Ayatollah Khomeini）的传记。
不仅仅是极权和威权政府会做这样的事情。在土耳其，记者如果批评国父凯末尔·阿塔蒂尔克（Kemal Ataturk），有可能被起诉。在印度的古吉拉特邦，有一本关于甘地的严肃传记被禁，因为当局认为该书提到甘地可能是双性恋（尽管作者否认他有这么写过）。
否认纳粹大屠杀
对历史讨论的法律限制在欧洲最自由、法治最健全的国家也是存在的。如果你否认纳粹德国在第二次世界大战时期屠杀了数以百万计的欧洲犹太人（现在一般称作纳粹大屠杀），你可能会被关起来。对否认大屠杀的禁止最早是1945年之后不久在德国和奥地利推行的，当时害怕纳粹会死灰复燃。现在否认大屠杀至少在十个欧洲国家都是触犯法律的。
让我把话说的更明白吧：对大屠杀的记忆是非常重要的。对于我个人来说，它甚至是神圣的（我用的是“神圣”一词的世俗含义）。在我看来， 1945年以来我们在欧洲所做的，以及我们建构自由国际秩序的更高目标都是为了从根本上确保这样的事情不再发生。然而，用法律禁止人们否认大屠杀的发生是完全不能达成这个理想的。
要推翻对欧洲犹太人大屠杀的否认，是有很多历史证据的。如果有人不相信这些证据，他也不会因为有相关的法律条文就信服。他们顶多不敢在公共场合说出他们私下的想法而已。当奥地利政府在2006年把历史学者大卫·欧文（David Irving）以大屠杀否认罪监禁起来时，效果只是让他能够摆出言论自由烈士的姿态而已。
言论禁区的棘轮和双重标准
和其他的“仇恨言论”一样，一种负面的棘轮效应同样存在。其他群体会说：“如果他们的牺牲要提升到一个神圣的禁忌这个地步，我们的也应该这样。” 在欧洲就发生了这种情况。
1995年，研究奥斯曼帝国的专家伯纳德·路易斯（Bernard Lewis）因为提出亚美尼亚人所受的奥斯曼残暴统治不能算“种族清洗”，被法国法庭立案起诉。2007年，土耳其政治家、记者多古•派伦克（Dogu Perincek）在瑞士被判刑，因为当地有法例禁止否认亚美尼亚人曾受到种族清洗。不过在土耳其本国，诺贝尔奖得主、作家奥尔罕·帕慕克（Orhan Pamuk）却因为在一本瑞士杂志上的访问里指出亚美尼亚人受过种族清洗而被起诉。在阿尔卑斯山这边是国家承认的事实，在安纳托利亚那边却是官方规定不能认可的谎言。
当一位德国司法部长怀着良好的愿望，希望推动一个欧盟框架协定，规定所有成员国都要把否认历史上的屠杀行为定为刑事犯罪时，她遇到的一个难题是东欧国家提出，否认共产极权政权的祸害也应该算作刑事犯罪。匈牙利国会在2010年通过法案，把否认纳粹的屠杀定为刑事罪行。而在同一年，国会中的大多数把法案的规定扩展为 “惩罚那些否认国家社会主义或共产主义所实行的种族清洗的人”。以后还会一直这样下去。
还有一种更宽泛的指控，认为这是双重标准。很多穆斯林会说：“你们这些欧洲人、基督徒、犹太人和受启蒙运动影响的自由主义者立法保护那些对你们重要的东西——对大屠杀的记忆，却坚持要允许人们对我们最珍而重之的东西——对先知穆罕默德的记忆和他的形象——进行讽刺和侮辱。” 历史事实和宗教信仰并不是完全可比的，但他们的说法确实有道理。在这个混杂的世界里，我们对两边的态度要一致。如果把世界上的言论禁区加在一起，就没有什么剩下可供讨论的了。
这种立场也是权威的联合国人权理事会对“第十九条”的解释：“那些惩罚对历史事实发表意见的法律条文是和《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》给各国赋予的义务相抵触的。”
没有禁区不代表“什么都行”
这样说绝对不是赞同我们可以接受对历史或其他知识范畴的歪曲。相反地，它们应该在开放和自由的气氛下得到健康的讨论。从一个世纪的极权主义谎言醒来以后，我们或许不再能感受十七世纪英国诗人约翰·弥尔顿对真理的赞美之辞了：“让她和虚假战斗吧！只有在自由和开放的对抗中获胜的，才能被视为真理。”不过目前还没有和虚假战斗更好的方法。
这样说也不代表公立学校应该讲授不实的内容。这条原则不意味着应该在公立学校讲授神创论，也不意味着认同日本教科书对日军在二次大战中行为所做的洗白。媒体应该明辨它们在传播什么知识。报纸不应该在头版刊登教人如何造炸弹或如何自杀的内容，这种观点有很有力的论证。（谷歌的工程师其实对搜索引擎的自动完成功能有所改动以达到这个效果）这是由私人势力做出的编辑决定。
一条要求严格的原则
这条原则草案的用字很谨慎。它认为禁区不应该存在——这里“禁区”的意思是权力强制施加的一种没有选择余地的绝对禁制。上一稿所用字眼是，在“追寻知识”时不应该有禁区。我们的专家顾问指出，学术研究确实是有禁区的，而人类文明可能恰恰是依靠这些禁区而存在的。例如，我们不允许像纳粹那样用人体做实验。所以我们把这一条中的说法改成了“知识的讨论与传播”。
虽然字眼用得很谨慎，但原则五的要求是严格的。就像与人类差异共存一样，要达到知识的自由讨论与传播是不容易的。
这里有一个可供思考的例子。2005年，作为一所世界顶尖大学的校长，劳伦斯·萨默斯（Larry Summers）在一次学术会议上很直接地说出了在他看来理科和工科的学术领袖总是男多女少的原因。他的话说得很没技巧，不过也不是完全没有道理，而且他多次提到自己的假说可能是错的。但后来这仍然引起了很大争议，以致他被迫从哈佛大学校长的位置上辞职。发生这件事情的原因肯定不只是一次学术会议的发言那么简单，不过如果去读萨默斯的原话，我倒觉得那恰恰是一种自由、开放、无畏的对实证知识的讨论，是不应该导致任何人辞职。请你也看看然后告诉我们你是怎么想的。
和“言论自由大讨论”所有其他内容一样，这条原则和我的解释都是可以找反证来挑战，辩驳和修正的。否则，原则本身就是自相矛盾的了。
reply report Report comment
“We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.”
Reading threw the explanation and the discussion sparked by it, I have several considerations.
Firstly, we could consider if the right of free speech should entail a right to mislead or not. Should I be free to try and convince others with arguments that I know are bias or false? If not, should the right of free speech go hand in hand with the duty to inform oneself about the topic and the arguments being used? (Do keep in mind, that this would limit free speech to people with specific intellectual capabilities, an academic background and time.)
Secondly, we should consider if ‘the media’ have different duties and rights then the individual? Just as confidentiality is inherently a part of professions in the law or medical sector, should the search and presentation of non-bias, objective facts (if there is such a thing) be a part of journalism? If so, where do we draw the line between an individual and a ‘member of the media’?
Thirdly, what are the rights and duties of people receiving information? Who is responsible for filtering out bias information, the media or the people that choose to use that medium? Does this go hand in hand with a right of education and a right to learn how to think critically? As mentioned earlier, some people in China don’t see the benefit of free media, have their rights been violated? To what extent would we be pushing a ‘western’ education on different cultures?
reply report Report comment
I particularly like number 3, because, despite the huge variety of corporate media organizations, they often follow a very particular kind of narrative which defeats the whole purpose of diversity.
reply report Report comment
We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.
Similar to acellidiaz I agree with the statement that I feel like this hasn’t been phrased correctly. This would be the ideal situation, yet unfortunately there is a difference in the ideal and the realistic.
The recent election of Francois Hollande in France; The “Président Normale”, however in my opinion he’s “Président irréaliste” was a clear sign of society not making a well informed decision eventhough information was widely available. I am of the opinion that the vote was more an anti-Sarkozy vote, rather then a vote based on a political agenda. Policies attempting to make France the only country in the EU to decrease its pension age and where on earth are you going to get 60000 ‘good ‘teachers from to help substandard schools are simply unrealistic and only takes common sense to realize that this will not be obtainable without causing further problems.
I don’t think we will ever be able to make well informed decisions as a whole society. Simply as educational boundaries exist and interest levels with politics vary. This is an ideal that we can strive to achieve but will never be exactly the case.
reply report Report comment
I, personally agree with the principle, however after a semester in China I came across a view where people do not find it necessary to have the right o participate in political life. Moreover, they believe that free media is harmful for their reality. I wonder what could said in response to that?
reply report Report comment
Yes I agree with this. In China people are not subjected to the same degree of freedom of media or democracy and as a result the general public do not feel the necessity of it. However, China has limited certain restraints such as allowing more people to use the internet. Of course, the information is highly censored but even still there are approximately 500 million people online and this is the first generation to experience this extent of social freedom; there exists a freedom of expression that you don’t get in other forms of media. This leads to higher expectations and even exposes corruption, putting a lot of pressure on the government. Moreover, it forces me to raise the question: is it harmful or not? Will it ruin or benefit the state of China?
report Report comment
Also even though the public may not believe in free media to the fullest extent it is crucial to mention this point: in my opinion it is not so much the government people are dissatisfied with, rather the corruption and the inability to actually reach vital information. Moreover, the more China develops, the more these problems will surface and the government will be forced to deal with them. There is hence a paradox: people may not feel the necessity of complete freedom, yet they want a system without corruption and without censorship. Is this possible?
reply report Report comment
We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.
I personally do not disagree with the essence of this principle but with the way how it has been stated. I could be able to stand against a principle that in execution will be ideal for the development of a representative democracy. It is within a democratic context how I understood it.
Nevertheless, I have my doubts in how we are actually able to create new diverse media and how we are able to “fully” participate in political life. When creating new diverse media, I believe it is important to take into account the eminent relationship that exists between power and knowledge. Although we live in a highly complex and globalized world, in which billions of persons are interconnected through different kinds of media, I am very sceptic in the power that independent media has. And with this term I refer to all type of media that is not predominant: social networks, blogs, and home-made videos, among others. Some people may say that great and recent movements of change, such as the Arab Spring, emerged thanks to the immediateness and spread-capacity of social networks like Twitter or Facebook. However, the final international image of the revolutions, the words that mostly ignited global debate about what was going on in the Middle East, was lastly framed by big TV Networks such as Al-Jazeera, BBC and CNN. These three mainstream media giants, with their own independent interests, certainly chose what images and what comments to broadcast. Together with others, they constitute some kind of oligopoly when we talk about accessing to information about what is going on in the world. It is very hard for me to completely trust in their intentions of delivering the Truth –if there’s actually one.
I believe that there is actually little possibility for an independent or rising media network to win a space in the media scene. Taking an example of my home country, Venezuela, where there is a clear polarisation of the media, the chances for a more “plural”, “balanced” or “impartial” media network for winning the attention of the public are minimal. For instance, I can compare the success of two relatively new websites. The first one is called redigital.tv and was founded by the family of a former independent candidate for Mayor of Caracas, the capital. The second one is lapatilla.com which was founded by the former director of now the biggest TV channels that opposes to the current government, Globovision. Both were founded around 2008 and 2010. Today, lapatilla.com counts with one million followers in Twitter: a figure that cannot be compared to the amount of followers of redigital.tv. When speaking to my friends, lapatilla.com belongs already to the common word: everybody reads their sometimes vain and superficial articles about sex, celebrities or astrology, together with the usual portion of politics. This is different from redigital.tv, that not only does not count with the same amount of attention –for not a lot of people know about it-, but it still lacks clients for advertisement in their website. Obviously, the founder of lapatilla.com, Alberto Federico Ravell, counts with a wider range of contacts in the business because of its former role in Globovision. At the end, the media works like the market. Only the top dogs survive.
Regarding the last part of the principle and possibility for citizens to make well-informed decisions and fully participate in political life; I find it difficult to not relate it with the principles that define a democracy. For what do we mean by “full” participation in political life? Is the principle referring to a direct democracy, where active citizens that dedicate their lives to comprehend the characteristics of their society or nation in order to give a strongly based argument or vote? Or does it refer to a representative democracy, where the citizen, among many of his lifetime activities, dedicates a portion of his time to think about politics and about the best way to live together in society? When I read the principle, I understood it under the principles of a direct democracy. Which in modern times, when we have states of millions of people, I believe it is impossible.
But if it actually referred to the second interpretation, how is it possible to “fully” participate in political life if this is not the priority of all the citizens? What are the limits that contain the meaning of this adverb? Is it “fully participating” just watching the news and vote for a representative that takes care of making political decisions? If this is the case, then yes. I would agree. Otherwise, I believe the principle needs clarification. I would put it this way:
“We require and attempt to create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate as much as it is possible in political life”