作者：祝正明 编辑：李晶 校对：孔祥庆翻译：戈冰

（一）言论自由

言论自由是指人民有自由讲话、自由发表自己的意见和观点的权利。言论自由并不是指人们在日常生活中讲话的自由。它是指人们对政治问题、意识形态，社会制度发表看法，就自己认为有缺陷的方面提出批评、建议的权利。实际上，许多生活在专制制度下的老百姓从未感到过自己讲话受到限制，这是由于他们没有对统治者提出批评，没有想去改变它们。也许，他们根本就没有设想过自己能够改变它们。

发表言论是民众在自己的权利遭到侵犯时的文明表现方式，是民众在发现社会问题时有责任感的表现。言论自由是批评的自由、反对的自由，是发表与公众利益有关的事实和见解时不受惩罚的自由。

社会之所以必须保障言论自由，不仅是因为发表言论是公民的基本权利，而且因为保护批评与反对的言论能自由发表出来，同保护建议性的言论能自由发表一样，对完善社会的法律、调整决策、改善弊端大有裨益。不听取反对者的意见，就不能集思广益，也就不能对问题的实质进行明智的剖析。反对意见的存在有助于避免不成熟的决策出笼，使决策受到严格审查，使它们的缺点充分暴露。事实上，真正有益于社会的政策，都是那些最能经受得住论战考验的政策。

建议的自由和反对自由合在一起，才能构成民主所需的言论自由。言论自由并非只限于口头上，而且包括一切能发表言论的形式和渠道，如广播、电视、书籍、报纸、杂志、传单、小册子等。因此，言论自由包括出版自由。新闻与出版是表达言论的具体形式，是言论的传载媒体。没有新闻出版自由，也就无所谓言论自由。新闻出版自由之所以极其重要，是因为口头言论只能影响到极少数人，经过广播、电视、报纸、杂志、书籍等传播媒介，才能使言论影响到社会的各个角落。与全社会有关的政治见解，也只有全社会都知道才有意义。因此，新闻出版自由是言论自由的重要支柱。专制统治者限制言论自由的主要办法就是限制新闻出版自由，审查媒体的报道内容，控制其政治倾向，掌管其人事安排。使有影响、有见地的批评性论点根本无法与公众见面。

要使言论和新闻出版有充分的自由，政府就不得对新闻出版界的言论内容进行事先检查和限制。不得对新闻机构发号施令。其经营管理、内容制作、人事安排均应能够自主决定。政府不得干涉。实际上从民主政治的性质来说，政府也无权干涉新闻出版自由，如果它干涉该项自由，就可以认定它绝非是民主政府。民主政体下，对付新闻出版界发表有损他人权利的言论的方法，是让被侵权人能方便地通过司法诉讼程序保护自己的利益。而不是限制言论的发表。

（二） 言论自由的阻力

在人类社会历史上，专制统治者有压制言论自由的共同恶习。按照他们的说法，如果某些人的观点不加以制止，传播至整个社会，国家与政府即会处于危险之中。在这种貌似合理的借口之下，他们堂而皇之地打着维护社会稳定的幌子，压制言论出版自由。物色几个愿意为其歌功颂德的小文人，对他们自身的无能造成的社会问题，找出一些不堪一驳的借口，在他们一手控制的媒体上，进行瞒天过海式的诡辩，实行愚民政策。实则以全民族的利益为代价，维护着极少数人剥削性质的荣华富贵。

在集权专制社会，同其它许多关键性的生产资料一样，传播媒体完全被政府控制，有关社会真实情况的信息无法自由传播。只有身居社会最高层的几个人，才能得到一些反映社会问题的内部资料。信息的流动是单向性的，即由各个基层权力组织逐级传向最高层，经过筛选，加工、修改后，再以完全不同的面目，从最高层逐级向基层传播。普通百姓只能接触到经过审查人员恩准的、用于教育民众的内容，以免百姓因思想觉悟不高而遭受“危害”。

即便这种信息流通方式，也并不总能保持畅通无阻，各级官员或许出于对上司工作的照顾，或许担心上司会认为自己工作不力而出现了问题，对已发生的问题，常会卡住不报，而对于成绩，则会夸大其词，胡编乱造。使得最上层的官员也并不总是能了解到社会的真实情况。而实际上，对于这些一举一动都有部下安排好，甚至连他们的大脑在想什么也都由部下给考虑到，习惯于养尊处优的达官贵人，就算他们能全面了解社会的真实状况，也绝对不可能酝酿出创造性的思维、提出远大的抱负，来促进整个社会的福祉。

终身制本身就会使国家的统治权由一些七老八十、老态龙钟的顽固愚朽之辈来掌管，这些人根本没有能力分析处理大量的情况资料，只会给出笼统的、过时的指令，结果，必然使得社会的新闻媒体死气沉沉，空洞无物，充满说教色彩，除了会议报道和对英雄人物的赞美，民众很难得到有价值的内容。

政府设立新闻出版审查制度，限制言论出版自由做法，唯一有效的解释无疑就是认定人民是愚蠢的，没有正确的判断力，容易上当受骗。然而，另一方面，他们却还要口口声声颂扬人民的伟大，处处不忘打“人民”的牌子，把自己誉为人民的代表，将自己的统治封为是“人民的”、“民主的”、“无产阶级的”，做法极其荒唐，却也极富欺骗性。

压制言论自由的另一个恶果就是会败坏社会风气。敢讲真话的人被关进监狱，阳奉阴违的阴谋家却官运亨通。民众生活在谎言之中，听到的是空虚的高调，看到的是官僚们霸道的行径和伪善的表演，这些无疑都会对百姓产生很大的感染，久而久之，他们也会学会说的是一套，做的是另一套，因为这样做很奏效，很管用。在言论恐怖的极端状况下，人们甚至在日常讲话中也要小心谨慎。讲真话被认为是一种冒失行为，正直的品性被认为是一种不开窍的愚蠢表现。结果，窒息了公民的正义感，必将导致整个社会公共道德逐渐堕落。最可悲的社会制度莫过于让人过着一种在最熟悉的人之间讲话，也需要互相提防的日子。

迫害并不能使人成为真诚的信仰者，只能使人成伪君子。政府以强权剥夺人民表达思想，发表意见的权利，禁止人们吐露心声，禁止在公共场合集会、结社，是人类社会最残酷、最不人道，最让人厌恶的做法。

对社会性问题能够提出批评意见的人，往往是一些受过良好教育，有高尚道德情操，有理智头脑的人。正是他们能首先意识到并总结出政治意识与社会结构上的缺陷，敢于坚持自己的观点，敢于提出有价值的建议，也最容易触动当权者的要害与利益。因此，集权统治者压制言论自由，遭受迫害的往往是那些仗义直言的社会优秀分子。也正是他们，最忠于自己的见解，最能感受到独裁者控制舆论的罪恶用心和残酷无情。那些不关心社会进步，随遇而安、麻木不仁的人，则很少能感受到政府压制言论自由对自己有什么影响；那些见机行事、唯利是图、毫无原则的人，则在任何时候，都不会感到政府在压制言论自由。压制言论自由，受打击的是少数人，受益的也是少数人，受害的却是整个社会。

压制自由言论，不允许人们自由地探讨某种意识形态和政治模式，不让批评、反对的声音出台，并不等于这种政治模式就完美无缺。尽管它可以被颂赞为完美的、放之四海而皆准的真理。谁能保证它不是骗人的谎言呢？谎言变成真理并不困难，一个人将谎言重复一百遍，就可以在他的脑袋里变成真理。

一种为许多人所赞成和拥护的真理，在同谬论对阵时竟然不是对手，显然是一件可悲的事。凡是经得起考验的事物，都不需要借助惩罚条例的支持，这是不言而喻的。一种观点，是否有道理，就要允许它讲出来，让广大的民众自己去判断。公正社会的实质就要用见解对抗见解，用论点对抗论点。用暴力压服不能说服的对手，用强权武力叫对手闭嘴，无论能找出什么借口，动机多么良好，都是一种卑鄙可耻的怯懦行为。

禁止叫喊一座快倒塌的房子要倒塌，禁止人们研究倒塌的原因，禁止人们对其倒塌做好准备，并不能阻止它倒塌。其结果，在它倒塌时，只会造成人员、财产的更大损失。尽管那些年迈的房屋建造者愿意和它同归于尽，但是，并非其他人都应该做其殉葬品。一座房子的倒塌并不等于世界的毁灭，人民有能力处理掉建筑垃圾，在原来的地方构造新的建筑。

Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

Author: Zhu Zhengming Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing

(I) Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech refers to the people’s right to speak freely and to express their opinions and views. Freedom of speech does not refer to the freedom to speak in everyday life. It refers to the right of people to express their views on political issues, ideologies, and social systems, and to offer criticism and suggestions regarding aspects they believe to be flawed. In reality, many ordinary people living under authoritarian regimes have never felt that their speech was restricted. This is because they have not criticized the rulers nor sought to change them. Perhaps they have never even imagined that they could change them.

Expressing one’s views is a civilized way for the public to respond when their rights are violated, and it is an expression of their sense of responsibility when they discover social problems. Freedom of speech is the freedom to criticize and to oppose; it is the freedom to express facts and opinions related to the public interest without fear of punishment.

Society must safeguard freedom of speech not only because the right to speak is a fundamental right of citizens, but also because protecting the free expression of critical and dissenting views—just as protecting the free expression of constructive suggestions—is highly beneficial for refining social laws, adjusting policy decisions, and rectifying shortcomings. Without listening to the views of opponents, it is impossible to gather a wide range of opinions, nor is it possible to conduct a wise analysis of the essence of the problem. The existence of opposing views helps prevent ill-conceived decisions from being implemented, subjects decisions to rigorous scrutiny, and fully exposes their shortcomings. In fact, policies that are truly beneficial to society are those that best withstand the test of debate.

Only when the freedom to propose and the freedom to oppose are combined can they constitute the freedom of speech required by democracy. Freedom of speech is not limited to verbal expression but encompasses all forms and channels through which speech can be expressed, such as radio, television, books, newspapers, magazines, leaflets, and pamphlets. Therefore, freedom of speech includes freedom of the press. Journalism and publishing are the concrete forms of expression and the media through which speech is conveyed. Without freedom of the press, there can be no freedom of speech. Freedom of the press is of paramount importance because verbal speech can influence only a very small number of people; it is only through media such as radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and books that speech can reach every corner of society. Political views that concern the whole of society are meaningful only when the whole of society is aware of them. Therefore, freedom of the press is a vital pillar of freedom of speech. The primary method by which authoritarian rulers restrict freedom of speech is to restrict freedom of the press, censor media content, control its political orientation, and dictate its personnel appointments. This ensures that influential and insightful critical viewpoints are prevented from reaching the public.

To ensure full freedom of speech and the press, the government must not subject the content of the press to prior censorship or restrictions. It must not issue orders to news organizations. They must be able to make autonomous decisions regarding their management, content production, and personnel appointments. The government must not interfere. In fact, given the nature of democratic politics, the government has no right to interfere with freedom of the press; if it does so, it can be deemed to be anything but a democratic government. Under a democratic system, the method for addressing statements published by the press that infringe upon the rights of others is to ensure that the aggrieved party can conveniently protect their interests through judicial proceedings—not by restricting the publication of such statements.

(2) Obstacles to Freedom of Speech

Throughout human history, authoritarian rulers have shared a common tendency to suppress freedom of speech. According to their reasoning, if certain individuals’ views are not curbed and allowed to spread throughout society, the nation and the government will be placed in danger. Under this seemingly reasonable pretext, they openly suppress freedom of speech and the press under the guise of maintaining social stability. They handpick a few minor literati willing to sing their praises, fabricate flimsy excuses for the social problems caused by their own incompetence, and engage in deceptive sophistry through media they control, thereby implementing a policy of keeping the people in the dark. In reality, they are sacrificing the interests of the entire nation to preserve the exploitative wealth and luxury of a tiny minority.

In an authoritarian society, just like many other critical means of production, the media is entirely controlled by the government, and information regarding the true state of society cannot circulate freely. Only a handful of individuals at the very top of the social hierarchy have access to internal documents reflecting social issues. The flow of information is one-way: it is transmitted step by step from grassroots power organizations to the highest echelons, where it is screened, processed, and modified before being disseminated back down to the grassroots in a completely different form. Ordinary citizens have access only to content approved by censors and intended to “educate” the public, to prevent them from suffering “harm” due to their “low ideological awareness.”

Even this method of information flow is not always unimpeded. Officials at all levels—perhaps out of deference to their superiors or fear that their superiors might deem them incompetent if problems arise—often withhold reports of actual issues while exaggerating or fabricating achievements. As a result, even the highest-ranking officials do not always have a clear understanding of the true state of society. In reality, for these high-ranking officials—whose every move is arranged by subordinates, and whose very thoughts are anticipated by them—and who are accustomed to a life of luxury and privilege, even if they were able to fully grasp the true state of society, they would absolutely be incapable of developing creative thinking or proposing far-reaching aspirations to promote the welfare of society as a whole.

The system of lifelong tenure itself ensures that state power is held by a group of septuagenarians and octogenarians—senile, stubborn, and decrepit—who are utterly incapable of analyzing and processing vast amounts of information. They can only issue vague, outdated directives. Consequently, the nation’s news media inevitably becomes lifeless, hollow, and preachy; aside from reports on meetings and praise for heroic figures, the public finds it difficult to access any content of real value.

The government’s establishment of a press and publication censorship system to restrict freedom of speech and the press can only be effectively explained by the assumption that the people are foolish, lack sound judgment, and are easily deceived. Yet, on the other hand, they continue to pay lip service to the greatness of the people, constantly brandishing the “people” as a slogan, proclaiming themselves as the people’s representatives, and labeling their rule as “of the people,” “democratic,” and “proletarian.” This approach is utterly absurd, yet highly deceptive.

Another harmful consequence of suppressing freedom of speech is the corruption of social morals. Those who dare to speak the truth are thrown into prison, while schemers who pay lip service to the authorities while acting contrary to their principles rise through the ranks. The public lives amidst lies, hearing only empty rhetoric while witnessing the bullying behavior and hypocritical performances of bureaucrats. This undoubtedly exerts a profound influence on the people; over time, they too will learn to say one thing and do another, because this approach proves effective and practical. Under the extreme conditions of a climate of fear surrounding free speech, people must even tread carefully in their everyday conversations. Speaking the truth is regarded as reckless, and integrity is seen as a sign of obtuse foolishness. Consequently, the suffocation of citizens’ sense of justice will inevitably lead to the gradual decline of public morality throughout society. There is no more tragic social system than one in which people must live in constant suspicion even when speaking among those they know best.

Persecution does not produce sincere believers; it only breeds hypocrites. When the government uses its power to deprive the people of their right to express their thoughts and opinions, to speak their minds, and to assemble or form associations in public, it engages in the cruelest, most inhumane, and most repugnant practices known to human society.

Those capable of offering critical perspectives on social issues are often well-educated individuals with noble moral character and rational minds. It is precisely these people who are first to recognize and articulate the flaws in political consciousness and social structures; they dare to stand by their convictions and propose valuable suggestions, yet they are also the most likely to touch upon the vital interests and vulnerabilities of those in power. Consequently, when authoritarian rulers suppress freedom of speech, it is often the principled and outspoken members of society who suffer persecution. It is precisely these individuals who remain most loyal to their convictions and are best able to perceive the sinister motives and ruthless cruelty behind a dictator’s control of public discourse. Those who are indifferent to social progress, complacent, and apathetic rarely perceive how government suppression of free speech affects them; those who are opportunistic, profit-driven, and unprincipled will never feel the government’s suppression of free speech at any time. When free speech is suppressed, only a minority is targeted and only a minority benefits, yet the entire society suffers.

Suppressing free speech, forbidding people from freely discussing certain ideologies and political systems, and silencing critical or dissenting voices does not mean that such a political system is flawless. Even if it is hailed as a perfect, universal truth, who can guarantee that it is not a deceptive lie? It is not difficult for a lie to become truth; if a person repeats a lie a hundred times, it can become truth in their own mind.

It is clearly a tragic thing when a truth endorsed and championed by many proves no match for fallacy when they clash. It goes without saying that anything that stands the test of time does not need the support of punitive regulations. Whether a viewpoint is valid must be determined by allowing it to be expressed, so that the general public can judge for themselves. The essence of a just society lies in pitting one perspective against another, and one argument against another. To subdue an unconvinced opponent through violence, to silence an opponent by force—no matter what excuse is offered or how noble the motive—is a despicable and shameful act of cowardice.

Prohibiting people from warning that a crumbling house is about to collapse, prohibiting them from investigating the causes of its collapse, and prohibiting them from preparing for it will not prevent its collapse. The result is that when it does collapse, it will only cause greater loss of life and property. Although those elderly builders may be willing to perish with it, that does not mean everyone else should be forced to become their sacrificial offerings. The collapse of a single building does not equate to the destruction of the world; people have the ability to clear away the rubble and construct new buildings in its place.