TA的每日心情 | 慵懒
2020-7-26 05:11 |
|---|
签到天数: 1017 天 [LV.10]大乘
|
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2015-1-24 13:31 编辑
/ R7 O/ F! e( N' `" I* Z- h. t7 s
. ^' h& p9 A9 ?: t8 _! [% Y' T9 M在美国的话，你提到的关于犹太人的漫画受第一宪法修正案保护。公众舆论会对其一致谴责，但是政府无权将其禁止。最高法院的判例，美国纳粹党在犹太人社区游行（National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie），3K党烧十字架（R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul）都受宪法保护。6 i- R1 |( b( t" p" ^; |
, ]; q4 t5 L/ |穆罕默德有13个妻子，他的性欲历来就是基督教攻击的对象之一，并不是始于现在。
: f+ R# L% \4 c7 [9 p; k" @3 R, w J- A
按照伊斯兰极端主义者的逻辑，任何对宗教批判性的讨论都应该被视为言论的禁区，包括马克思的宗教是鸦片，尼采的基督教是奴隶道德等论述。不知道爱坛里有多少愿意把界划到这里。
1 W9 O6 S G, C% \& S( l; ^0 k
" }- E6 N. p) R# ]' Z/ P, J- K下面是最新一期Economist上对这个问题的一篇评论文章。
& f. {8 r0 s. a9 ?* a! o
" ]3 O0 o& x" z7 p! m! E5 c# m/ g M3 NFreedom of speech* h) x% X7 P4 D7 r. a( t) [
First—and last—do no harm
0 o3 p k+ k. j* ]8 w
* B$ t* l+ C! n( `+ e4 u; [Speech should be freer than it is in many Western countries
0 P( N# s, m/ o" X8 n/ b" z) V+ B; A0 S( ~8 q$ X) E+ h
Jan 24th 2015 | From the print edition
. n$ O+ l5 {, P: ?" n( T( q4 U9 ]! n4 L2 l, ~( e
THE march in Paris after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo was supposed to display international solidarity over the right of free expression. In retrospect, it was a pageant more of hypocrisy than of principle. The Russian foreign minister’s attendance did not stop two of his countrymen being prosecuted in Moscow for holding Je Suis Charlie placards. His Saudi Arabian counterpart apparently saw no contradiction between the parade and the public flogging of a blogger in Jeddah two days before. Turkey is a champion locker-up of journalists, but its shameless prime minister turned up all the same. Meanwhile, somewhat misconstruing the point, in the name of modesty an Israeli ultra-Orthodox publication photoshopped the female leaders from its coverage.! E6 V A, l* w6 F
$ R7 m8 k" w. `$ K/ ^5 o
Terrorism was the main issue in the Paris attacks, which targeted a kosher shop as well as a magazine. But the subsidiary row they ignited—about the parameters of free speech—has been stoked rather than soothed by their aftermath, and continues to roil the world (see article). The Economist believes the right to free speech should be almost absolute.
- _# P3 n0 v/ o9 v- H `$ }, T$ H
! f6 i+ r5 e1 B; a7 e" P1 b1 O0 W0 yBegin with the obvious controversy: blasphemy. The pope last week sympathised with those who feel compelled to react to perceived slights against Islam. Disparage another’s faith, he said, and you “can expect to get punched”. Not only were his comments a little unChristian, they were also deeply mistaken. Few subjects demand scrutiny as urgently as does religion—which, erroneously or otherwise, is invoked in conflicts and disputes around the globe. Muslims themselves forcefully, sometimes lethally, debate interpretations of their creed. Any censorship regime that exempts Islam or other religions from searching commentary is perverse.( z! k+ A9 J. t; t
8 q* E4 ]( N3 D* r$ d6 f2 V* v
Still, many Muslims see the safeguards afforded to ethnic groups in some countries by hate-speech laws and ask why their faith, which some consider more essential than their skin colour, should be denied such respect. In fact, religious faith is different, in that unlike race it is, or ought to be, a question of choice rather than biology. Nevertheless, the solution to this perceived double standard is not to carve out more exceptions to free speech, but to remove some of the existing ones.
0 M+ b$ g) t( c1 {- j
$ o. ^- H; D3 h7 fNo fire in the theatre; I |+ R3 L0 w0 K
- u$ F, `. M P
It is, for example, understandable that denying the Holocaust is an offence in several European countries, but it is also anachronistic: the evidence requires no help from the law to overwhelm the deniers. Geert Wilders, a disreputable far-right politician, should not face prosecution, as he now does, for pledging to reduce the number of Moroccans in the Netherlands. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian, should not have been arrested for flippantly associating himself with one of the Paris killers. Likewise, Islamist zealots are entitled to exploit the West’s freedoms to decry its decadence. Free societies are strong enough to absorb and discredit these idiocies.
9 H( F3 {6 \. P9 U4 i- H3 S; p& ]0 I& R, x# Q: Q: j! f
That does not mean they should impose no restrictions at all. Even in America, with its admirable constitutional protections, free speech has limits. Child pornographers are rightly regarded as having committed a crime. Advocacy or incitement of violence is banned. Those caveats offer a sound precept: speech should be curtailed only when it is likely to cause serious harm—not including the emotional kind. The likelihood of harm will vary by time and place: in ethnically combustible parts of Africa, officials are entitled to be more stringent with rabble-rousing génocidaires than might be defensible elsewhere. But everywhere the rules should be as light as public order requires. The greater the leeway for suppression, the more likely rulers are to abuse it—witness the different cases of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Thailand.7 v" r+ @% R1 [" G; _- q% y
! ?0 Q' f- Q$ XA common objection to this liberal stance is that, in the internet age, a book or caricature published in Europe can lead to deaths in Japan or Nigeria, as during the furores over Salman Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses”, the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark in 2005 and Charlie Hebdo. Such butterfly-wing effects, this argument runs, mean all governments should be stricter. On the contrary: the globalisation of outrage is further evidence that striving to pre-empt offence leads to a spiral of censorship. Take into account every fragile sensibility or unintended consequence on the other side of the world, and public discourse will shrink to vanishing.
: z5 U# d) [$ O, f1 P& `: j$ x7 [9 |0 s/ q8 V. c' x
The proviso—a vital one—is that not everything that is permitted is compulsory or desirable. Many words and images should be allowed that are neither prudent nor tasteful. Editors, broadcasters, politicians and citizens should be mindful of those values, too. But they should be matters of conscience, not for the law.
1 c% k; Z O1 i( r5 q. e% G: K/ Z( p* ^7 D, v, R% Q
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
雷达卡
发表于 2015-1-23 11:41:14
收藏
分享
淘帖
支持
反对
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2015-1-23 12:53:10
楼主
发表于 2015-1-28 11:13:30
