“五一”小长假，你学习了吗？—— 为了消解莘莘学子过去三天虚掷光阴的悔恨，本期我们奉上一剂知识满满的强心针，助你满格回血，秒启学霸模式。
严肃辩论：言论自由的边界
译者：徐嘉茵 & 邵海灵
校对：王津雨
策划：
邹世昌
本文选自
The Economist
| 取经号原创翻译
关注 取经号，
回复关键词“外刊”
获取《经济学人》等原版外刊获得方法
Debate是经济学人近年新增的辩论版块，将经典的牛津学联辩论模式搬到了网络论坛上，每周围绕一个极具争议的辩题，邀请三位知名人士担任双方辩手和司仪，在七天里轮番陈词，来回交锋，同时也邀请一些持中间立场的嘉宾来点评辩手的表现。读者可以根据进展，随时发表评论、参与投票。如果反悔，也可随时重投，次数不限，看最后哪一方的得票率更高。
我们选取了4月16至22日的辩题
“大学校园的言论自由”
，翻译了双方辩手第三轮（也是最后一轮）的精彩发言和司仪的总结陈词。大学讲台应该容忍攻击性的言论吗？网站上的投票结果并不是正确的答案。兼听则明，偏听则暗。而兼听还只是追寻答案的开始。我们相信，接触了正反两种观点后，你才有慎思明辨的基础，从而在漫漫人生旅程中，对无数类似的问题展开推敲、独立思考，最终得到属于自己的答案。
辩题
Debate
: This house believes that universities should not host speakers who propound offensive ideas
辩题
：持攻击性观点的演讲者，不应被请到大学来
正方
Yes side
: Evan Smith, Flinders University, writing a book on
no-platforming
正方
：埃文·史密斯，来自弗林德斯大学，正在写一本关于
言论封杀
的书
No Platform
, sometimes deplatforming, is a policy of the National Union of Students (NUS) of the United Kingdom. Like other no platform policies, it asserts that no proscribed person or organisation should be given a platform to speak, nor should a union officer share a platform with them. The policy traditionally applies to entities that the NUS considers racist or fascist, most notably the British National Party.
言论封杀
，字面直译即“禁上讲台”，是英国全国学生联合会的一项方针。就像其他地方的封杀政策一样，该禁令规定，所有被正式列入黑名单的危险个人或组织，都不能被赋予登上讲台、发表演讲的权利，也没有任何协会可以跟他们一同站在台上演讲。这项禁令历来用于那些被学生会定性为种族主义或法西斯主义的个人或团体，其中最有名的是英国国家党。
Evan Smith is a research fellow in history in the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Flinders University, in Adelaide, South Australia. He is currently writing a book on the history of no platforming. He previously held research positions at the Australian Institute of Criminology, the South Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research and the Australian Taxation Office. He has written widely on the British Left, anti-racist activism and political extremism. He blogs at Hatful of History.
埃文·史密斯是南澳阿德莱德市弗林德斯大学人文、艺术和社科学院的一名历史研究员。他最近正在撰写一本关于言论封杀史的书。他曾在澳大利亚犯罪学研究所、南澳大利亚犯罪统计与研究办公室以及澳大利亚税务局从事研究工作，写过很多关于英国左派、反种族主义激进主义和政治极端主义的文章，在 Hatful of History的网站上有自己的博客。
Many who have joined this robust, informative debate have taken my opponent’s side. In my closing statement, I would like to address a few recurrent questions.
在这次信息量巨大的激烈辩论中，许多参与者都选择支持反方的论点。我会在总结陈词中回答几个反复出现的问题。
First, many commenters have asked how we define offensiveness, and worried that offensive speech sets too wide a parameter. But the tactic of no platform is not about shutting down offensive speech, but resisting racist, violent or explicitly anti-democratic speech—what is often
colloquially
known as “
hate speech
”. In most cases, controversial speakers are not actually no-platformed, but subject to criticism and protest, which may of course be adversarial—all sides have free-speech rights. America notwithstanding, legislation in many Western countries protects people from hate speech (although, of course, free-speech absolutists sometimes condemn such legislation as stifling).
首先，许多评论者问道：我们应如何定义“攻击性”？他们担心攻击性言论的定义过于宽泛。但是，言论封杀的策略并不在于禁止攻击性言论，而在于抵制种族主义、暴力或明确反对民主的言论——也就是我们
平常
所说的“
仇恨言论
”。在大多数情况下，备受争议的演讲者实际上并没有被封杀，只是受到了批评和抗议，这当然会产生对抗性——各方都拥有言论自由。美国和许多西方国家的法律都保护人们免受仇恨言论的影响（尽管如此，言论自由绝对论者有时候会谴责这种法律，认为它太压抑了）。
colloquially
：[kə'lokwɪəli] adv. 口语地、通俗的来说
hate speech
：仇恨言论，是一个人或群体在性别、种族、宗教、残疾或性取向等特性的基础上，攻击另外一个人或群体的言论。
Second, many of the comments conflate university administrators preventing an individual or group from speaking on campus with the application of the no-platform tactic from below by students (through student unions or other activist groups). As I mentioned in my previous statement, universities in many countries—including America, Britain and Australia—have sought to close down discussion of ideas believed to be offensive. That often casts a wider net than student actions to prevent racist or fascist speakers from university campuses. The power dynamic of the university officially preventing someone from speaking is very different from the pressure applied by students.
其次，很多评论将高校管理者阻止个人或群体在校园演讲的行为跟学生自下而上（通过学生会或其他激进组织）采取言论封杀的做法混为一谈了。正如我在先前的陈述中提到的，许多国家的大学——包括美国、英国和澳大利亚——都已经在设法取缔一切具有攻击性的思想讨论。官方的举措通常会比学生的行动产生更广泛的约束力，从而防止种族主义分子或法西斯主义言论者进入大学校园。大学采用官方手段阻止某些人发表言论，跟学生行动所产生的压力效果是截然不同的。
No-platform opponents often portray the tactic as tyranny of a vocal minority. But it can only be successful where it is applied democratically and a significant portion of the student body expresses support for it, either through direct action or via elected student organs.
言论封杀的反对者往往把该策略描述成叫嚣吵闹的少数派施行的暴政。但是，这种策略只有采用民主的方式执行，并且有相当数量的学生对此表示支持时，才能取得成功，无论这些学生是通过直接行动还是通过自发选出的学生组织来表达支持的。
Third, both my opponent and his supporters in the comments section ask why students in particular deserve protection from racist, violent or anti-democratic speech. This mischaracterises the no-platform tactic and its place within anti-racist and anti-fascist activism. The principle of no-platform was partly developed because of the popular notion that the university is a “marketplace of ideas” in which everyone respects the rules of engagement. No-platform challenged the idea that racist or fascist speakers and groups could be reasonably debated in such an environment, because they have no respect for democratic debate.
再者，反方及其支持者在评论区提问说：为何学生尤其需要受到保护，免遭种族主义、暴力或者反民主言论的影响？这是对言论封杀策略及其在反对种族主义和反法西斯主义过程中所起作用的误解。该原则之所以能形成，部分是因为一个众所周知的概念：大学是一个“思想的自由市场”，所有人都遵循参与买卖的法则。那也就是说，种族主义或法西斯主义的讲员和团体也可以在这样的环境下理性地辩论，但封杀原则挑战了这样的观点，因为持有这些观点的人并不尊敬民主辩论。
But the tactic was not intended to be used in isolation from other forms of activism. Activists, including students, sought to prevent racists and fascists from congregating in public venues, marching on the streets and using the media to propagate their message. No platform developed from the anti-fascist campaigns of the 1930s and 1940s, in which fascists were confronted on the streets, and only in the 1970s was it specifically brought into the universities.
但我们并不是要脱离激进主义的其他形式，单单只用这一种策略。包括学生在内的激进分子，都在想方设法阻止种族主义分子和法西斯主义者在公众场所聚集、在大街上游行以及运用媒体宣传言论。言论封杀的做法兴起于二十世纪三四十年代的反法西斯主义运动，在那时候，法西斯主义者只是在街上遭到对峙，直到七十年代才被带到大学里面。
One of the voices seemingly absent from this debate is that of the students themselves. It is very well for those in academia and university administration to argue whether offensive speakers should be banned from universities or whether no-platforming violates academic freedom. But we need to listen to students when they vocally oppose certain speakers or groups from appearing on campus. The student body is, of course, widely varied and does not speak with one voice, but student concerns about potentially harmful or hateful speakers should be taken into consideration. Whether the tactic of no platform is used is a matter of democratic debate within the student organs and the broader student body.
而在本场辩论中，有一个声音似乎缺席了，那就是学生自己的意见。大学校园是否应该禁止攻击性言论，言论封杀是否是对学术自由的侵犯，学术界和高校管理层来讨论这些当然好。但当学生开口反对特定的讲员或团体出现在校园内时，我们就需要倾听他们的意见了。当然，不同的学生有不同的看法，不可能众口一词，但他们都会担心讲员散播仇恨或伤害言论所具有的潜在危害，我们需要考虑到这一点。是否应该采取言论封杀的策略，这是在更大的学生群体和学生组织的范围内应该进行的民主辩论。
In closing, universities should allow students to be confronted by controversial ideas and concepts, but respectfully, and within an environment that does not assume that students need to be offended in order to gain their critical faculties. At the same time, it should be recognised that students have the right to vocally criticise or reject these ideas. And specifically in the case where speakers promote racist, violent or explicitly anti-democratic ideas, the tactic of no platform can be used to shut them down.
最后，大学应该允许学生直面那些受争议的意见和观念，但是要保证在此过程中他们会受到尊重，而且在这样一个环境里，我们不会假设学生需要为了获得判断力而被攻击和冒犯。同时，我们也要认识到：学生有权利开口批判或否决这些意见。特别是在讲员宣扬种族主义、暴力或者明确的反民主思想的情况下，言论封杀的策略可以让他们停下来。
反方
No side
: Lawrence Summers, Harvard University, and former US Treasury Secretary
反方
：劳伦斯·萨默斯，来自哈佛大学，美国前任财政部长
Lawrence Summers is a professor of economics at Harvard University and served as the university's president from 2001 to 2006. He was the US Treasury Secretary in 1999-2001 under President Bill Clinton and served as the director of the White House National Economic Council for President Barack Obama in 2009-10. Earlier he was the Chief Economist of the World Bank. He chairs the boards of Citizen Schools and the Center for Global Development, and is a board director of Teach for America and ONE.
劳伦斯·萨默斯是哈佛大学的经济学教授，并在2001至2006年间担任哈佛校长。他于1999至2001年间在比尔·克林顿总统手下担任美国财政部长，于2009至2010年间在巴拉克·奥巴马总统手下担任白宫国家经济委员会主任。早年他曾是世界银行的首席经济学家。目前他是公民学校与全球发展中心的理事长，也是美国知名教育组织Teach for America和英国反贫困组织ONE的董事会成员。
That those wishing to invite speakers they want to hear should be permitted to do so seems natural. For this not to be the case a strong argument has to be made. My opponent has failed both to make the case that there are
substantial
benefits from banning speakers. He
has yet to
adduce a single instance when the world would be better off if a speaker had been banned. And he has not responded to my claims regarding the harms of limiting speech. Therefore, there is no basis for supporting the motion before the house.
如果有人想要听到某些人士的演讲，那就应该得到邀请讲员的许可，这是很自然的一件事。假如要推翻这一点，就得拿出强而有力的理由。而对方辩手一方面没有充足的论据来证明禁邀讲员能有任何
实质或显著的
好处。他
尚未
举出一条例证来说明：一个讲员被禁会让世界变得更美好。另一方面，对于我提出的限制言论的害处，他也没有做出回应。由此可见，对方辩手没有任何依据来让全体观众支持上述辩题。
substantial
/səbˈstænʃəl/ adj. large in amount or degree; having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary显著的；重大的；实质的
have yet to
: have not done something 尚未，有待于
In his rebuttal advocating for the denial of free speech rights on campus, my opponent professes to be the true defender of democracy. I am struggling to make sense of his claims. How can the banning of speakers represent “democratic” values, when doing so tramples on minority views
in deference to
the loudest arbiters of truth at any particular moment? That simple majority rule is not a principle of self-evident wisdom is shown in the existence of the Bill of Rights, which celebrates speech as among the first of ten things that the majority may not infringe. Nor is this an American peculiarity; Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
在最后的辩驳陈词中，对方辩手称自己是民主的真正捍卫者，并鼓吹在大学禁止言论自由的必要性。这种说法逻辑何在，我纠结至今仍不太明白。禁止他人发表演讲，怎么就能代表“民主”的价值观了呢？这分明就是践踏少数群体的观点，去
遵从
那些为“真理”叫得最响的权威，无论何时都是如此。少数服从多数并非一条理所当然的法则，人权法案的存在即可证明这一点：它把言论自由列于十条修正案之首，这十条权利都是多数人不得侵犯的。尊重言论自由也不是只在美国有，联合国人权宣言第19条就声明：“每个人都有持有观点和表达思想的自由。”
in deference to
: considering, obey 考虑到，鉴于；遵从
My opponent is right to favor “constant democratic debate at the grassroots and local level”. But his advocacy should take the form of encouraging students to protest, organise counter-events, mock, boycott or demonstrate against speakers they disagree with or find offensive, rather than encouraging them to become censors. Why shouldn’t constant democratic debate be about ideas rather than about who should be banned from expressing them?
对方辩手支持“在草根阶级和当地学生的层面不断进行的民主辩论”，这一点是正确的。但他辩论的立足点，应该是鼓励学生去抗议、去组织相应的反对活动、去吐槽、去发起罢工或罢课、去进行游行示威，以反对那些与他们观点相左或持攻击性观点的讲员，而非怂恿他们去监管和审查。不断进行的民主辩论难道不该是围绕不同的观念展开吗？为什么却要变成“禁止谁来表达观点”的辩论呢？
Professor Smith's arguments are also premised upon the misleading claim that students are being “subjected” to offensive speakers. Certainly, if students were compelled to attend a speaker event as part of an academic requirement, it would be appropriate for university officials to exercise additional discretion and I would agree that universities should in these cases avoid the most “noxious” speakers. But that is not at issue in this debate. No one is required to listen to these speakers invited to appear on college campuses. Why should anyone be given the right to stop others in their community from hearing those they want to hear?
史密斯教授的论据也建立在一个有误导性的声明上，即学生正“被迫屈服于”持攻击性观点的演讲者。诚然，如果学生是迫于学业规定不得已去听演讲的，那校方理当更为慎重地对待，我也同意在这种情况下，学校应该避免邀请那些“臭名昭著”的讲员。但在本场辩论中，这并非我们需要讨论的问题。没有谁要求学生必须去听这些特邀讲员在大学校园的演讲。为什么要授予任何人这样的权力，不让同社群的其他人去听他们自己想听的东西呢？
My opponent's view that universities systematically underrepresent leftist perspectives came as a surprise to me. It also fuels suspicion that those currently worried about the “dangers” of free speech have a political agenda. Perhaps matters are different outside the United States. But in this country, I would argue that perspectives critical of entrenched establishments, capitalism, and majority groups are at least adequately represented at our great universities. Take as an example the field of American Studies. Typical articles in the field’s flagship journal are entitled “Through an Anticolonial Looking Glass”, “The Queer Roots of Rock n' Roll”, and “Erotic Labor and the Black Ecstatic ‘Beyond’.” I was the first president of an Ivy League school to attend an ROTC commissioning ceremony in three decades – I find that to be equally revealing of our contemporary academic culture.
对方辩手认为当今的大学体系存在弊病，压缩了左派学生表达观点的空间，这一看法令我吃惊不小。这是在为一种怀疑的论调煽风点火，认为现在那些担心言论自由之“危害”的人是在政治层面有所企图。也许美国以外的其他国家不是这样，但是在这里，我会反驳说：那些对顽固当权派、资本主义和多数群体持批评意见的观点，在我们的大学校园里至少有充分的机会去发声。以美国研究领域为例，在该领域的权威刊物上，最典型的文章标题是“从反殖民视角看美国”、“摇滚的同性恋根源”、“色情工作与黑人的性欲”。我是过去三十年里第一个参加后备军官训练队委任典礼的常春藤大学校长 —— 我想这也同样说明了当代大学的学术文化是如何。
Hearing a leading advocate of the “no platform” movement assert that the truly oppressed at universities are postcolonial scholars magnifies my concern that the power to ban speakers might not be used wisely. Who will get to determine who is “offensive”, “racist”, or “fascist”? Depending on who makes the decisions, proposed standards could be used to ban almost everyone, from proponents of sharia law to advocates for the Chinese government to Winston Churchill to Hillary Clinton. Recall that efforts to “no platform” speakers have extended as far Germaine Greer, the Australian writer and feminist.
听到一个带头支持“封杀”运动的人断言后殖民时期的学者才是大学里真正受压迫的人，放大了我对禁邀讲员之权力被滥用的担忧。谁持有“攻击性观点”，谁是“种族主义者”或“法西斯主义者”，这又该由谁决定呢？决策制定者不同，提出的标准也不同，也许这些标准可以用来禁止几乎所有人，从伊斯兰教法的倡导者，到中国政府的支持者，再到温斯顿·丘吉尔、乃至希拉里·克林顿的拥护者。回想一下那些被“封杀”的讲员吧，就连杰曼·格里尔这位澳大利亚著名作家和女权运动者，都被列进黑名单里了。
A campus speaker once challenged his audience: “If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire, make them defend their positions. If somebody’s got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it, debate it, stand up for what you believe in... Don’t feel like you got to shut your ears because you’re too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities... Use your logic and reason and words, and by doing so you’ll strengthen your own position.” It was President Obama speaking at Rutgers University’s Commencement in 2016. His advice was the right advice for individuals.
一位大学校园的演讲嘉宾曾对听众发出过挑战：“如果你不同意某人的观点，就把他们带到这里来，问他们尖锐的问题，让他们如履薄冰，如坐针毡，让他们为自己的立场辩护。如果有人提出一个负面或冒犯的观点，那就证明这观点是错的。去讨论，去辩论，去捍卫你所相信的…… 不要觉得你得把耳朵给捂上，因为你太玻璃心，别人可能会冒犯你，让你觉得不自在…… 用你的逻辑、理性和话语去对抗他，这样你就会更坚定自己的立场。”这是奥巴马总统2016年在罗格斯大学的毕业典礼上发表的讲话。他的建议是每一个人都应当采纳的。
As for institutions, let us not mince words. To endorse the motion holding that “Universities should not host speakers who propound offensive ideas” is to endorse censorship. To “no platform” is to censor. Censorship has impeded human and social progress. It has obstructed the spread of empirical science, been used to promoted slavery and the oppression of women, and silenced valuable voices on both the right and the left. It has done vastly more damage than good. Of all human institutions, universities, whose very purpose is leading humanity’s search for truth, should be the last to censor and the first to stand up for the right of all perspectives to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
至于学术机构，我们就别在言词用语上拐弯抹角了。如果你认同“大学讲台应该禁止攻击性观点和言论”，那就等于在支持审查。所谓“言论封杀”，其实就是审查。审查制度是人类进步和社会发展的阻碍。它阻碍了实证科学的传播，它被用来宣扬奴隶制和对妇女的压制，也扼杀了来自左右两派极具价值的声音。它所带来的危害已经远远超过了好处。所有以领导人类追寻真理为宗旨的大学和学术机构，都绝不能向审查低头，反而应该首当其冲，挺身捍卫一切持不同立场者在意见的自由市场里公平竞争的权利。
总结
Moderator
: Jon Fasman, Washington correspondent
主持人
：乔恩·法斯曼，驻华盛顿记者
Jon Fasman is The Economist's Washington Correspondent and previously its South-East Asia bureau chief and Atlanta correspondent. He is the author of two novels published by The Penguin Press: “The Geographer’s Library”, a New York Times bestseller in 2005 which was translated into more than a dozen languages; and “The Unpossessed City” in 2008, which was a finalist for the New York Public Library’s Young Lions Fiction Award.
乔恩·法斯曼现为《经济学人》杂志驻华盛顿记者，以前曾任东南亚分社社长和驻亚特兰大记者。他著有两部小说，均已由企鹅出版社出版：一部为《地理学家的藏书室》，位列2005年纽约时报畅销书排行榜，已被翻译成十多种语言；另一部为《无主的城市》，于2008年出版，已入围纽约公共图书馆“幼狮小说奖”决赛名单。
After five days of lively debate, the house still overwhelmingly opposes the motion. Just 15% are in favour—this fraction has not wavered since the opening days of the debate.
在历时5天激动人心的辩论之后，全体观众对本次辩题仍持有压倒性的反对意见。仅有15%的人表示支持——且自辩论开始以来，该比例一直未被动摇。
“I think freedom of speech wins out here,” comments Centerdweller, who incisively notes that censorship can be counterproductive by drawing followers to supposedly forbidden knowledge. Others, more favourable to the motion, have contested the terminology of this debate. Disinvitation of offensive speakers is being treated as “
