尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
Freedom of speech is one of the core principles of America’s First Amendment. It is often defined as a person’s right to say whatever they like, as long as such speech does not endanger someone else’s personal safety. This goes to the heart of a crucial idea, which is that speech — even speech that we find repugnant — is different from conduct.
言論自由是美國憲法第一修正案的核心原則之一。它通常被定義爲一個人想說什麼就說什麼，只要這種言論不危及他人的人身安全。這涉及到一個關鍵思想的核心，即言論——甚至是我們覺得令人厭惡的言論——不同於行爲。
The boundaries of that idea have been tested in recent years in many ways. They were tested again last week when three presidents of elite US universities — the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT — appeared before a House committee examining antisemitism on campuses in the wake of the Israeli war in Gaza. A wave of pro-Palestinian protests have hit campuses all over the US, where university politics lean heavily to the left.
近年來，這一思想的界限已經在許多方面受到了考驗。上週，賓州大學、哈佛大學和麻省理工學院三所美國精英大學的校長出席衆議院委員會會議，調查以色列發動加沙戰爭後校園裏的反猶主義時，這一界限再次受到考驗。支援巴勒斯坦的抗議浪潮席捲了美國各地的校園。美國的大學政治嚴重偏向左翼。
Such schools have in recent years tended to err on the side of condemning those who champion impolitic views, often conservative ones, or criticise leftwing ideas such as critical race theory. Now, that tendency has left them straddling an uncomfortable line between protecting individuals and protecting free speech.
近年來，這些學校傾向於譴責那些擁護非政治觀點（通常是保守派觀點）或批評左翼思想（如批判性種族理論）的人。現在，這種趨勢使他們在保護個人和保護言論自由之間跨越了一條令人不安的界限。
Pro-Palestinian protesters on campuses chant slogans like “Intifada now,” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free,” which some interpret as a call for genocide against Jews. There have also been increasing episodes of harassment of Jewish students on campuses. In many cases, perpetrators have not been cancelled or fired as they might have had they criticised, say, affirmative action or used hateful language against minority students. This has provoked outrage among many (including some powerful donors) who feel universities are turning a blind eye to antisemitism.
支援巴勒斯坦抗議者在校園裏高呼「現在就起義」或「從河流到海洋，巴勒斯坦必須自由」等口號，一些人認爲這是在呼籲對猶太人進行種族滅絕。校園裏騷擾猶太學生的事件也越來越多。在許多情況下，犯罪者並沒有像批評平權行動或對少數族裔學生使用仇恨語言那樣被取消學籍或開除。這引起了許多人的憤怒(包括一些有權勢的捐助者)，他們認爲大學對反猶主義視而不見。
The issue has now reached a tipping point. When asked if it would be against university bullying and harassment policies if someone on campus called for a genocide of Jews, none of the presidents could come up with a clear answer. Penn’s Liz Magill, who had labelled such calls “hateful” but claimed they were protected by the school’s commitment to free speech, backtracked the next day and resigned, calling the attacks on Jewish students unacceptable. In an ever more hateful world, she said, university speech “policies need to be clarified and evaluated”.
這個問題現在已經達到了臨界點。當被問及如果有人在校園裏呼籲對猶太人進行種族滅絕，是否會違反大學的欺凌和騷擾政策時，沒有一位校長能給出明確的答案。賓州大學的利茲•馬吉爾(Liz Magill)曾將這種呼籲稱爲「仇恨」，但聲稱這些言論受到學校對言論自由承諾的保護。她表示，在一個日益充滿仇恨的世界裏，大學的言論「政策需要明確和評估」。
Indeed. There are several thorny issues in play here, from changing generational views about Israel, to the parsing of individuals into ever smaller interest groups, to the challenge of balancing free speech and safety. Speech codes at private universities don’t have to follow constitutional law. These institutions could, if they chose, explicitly prohibit calls for genocide.
的確如此。這裏有幾個棘手的問題，從一代人對以色列看法的變化，到將個人劃分爲越來越小的利益羣體，再到平衡言論自由與安全之間的挑戰。私立大學的言論規範不必遵循憲法。如果這些機構願意，它們可以明確禁止種族滅絕的呼籲。
Here, though, we should go back to the differences between words and actions. If there is a clear and present danger to someone’s safety, then speech that provokes that danger should be prohibited. That would include attacks on individual students during rallies. Direct calls for genocide should also fall under this rubric. But slogans that are merely hateful (or perceived as such) may not. Universities are places where people go to be exposed to different views: if speech is constrained with more and more specific rules designed to fit the politics of the day, the truth is likely to become harder to find. Too many institutions have drifted towards legalistic self-protection rather than truth seeking.
但在這裏，我們應該回到言語和行動之間的區別。如果某人的安全面臨明顯而現實的危險，那麼引發這種危險的言論就應該被禁止。這包括在集會期間對個別學生的攻擊。直接呼籲種族滅絕也應屬於這一範疇。但僅僅是仇恨（或被認爲具有仇恨性）口號可能不屬於此列。大學是人們接觸不同觀點的地方：如果言論受到越來越多的具體規則來的限制，以適應當時的政治，那麼真相可能會變得更加難以發現。太多的機構已經偏向於法律上的自我保護，而不是尋求真理。
But to the extent that there are rules, they must be applied equally. Faculty and students cannot be penalised for hate speech against one group, and not another. The fact that the heads of America’s most elite universities do not have a clear understanding of their own speech codes and how to enforce them is cause for grave concern.
但只要有規則，就必須一視同仁。教師和學生髮錶針對某一羣體的仇恨言論會受到懲罰，而針對另一羣體的言論卻不會受到懲罰，這是不合理的。美國最精英大學的負責人對自己的言論準則以及如何執行這些準則沒有清楚的認識，這一事實令人嚴重擔憂。