美国人看美国:美国的言论自由及其后果

作者:丹奇  于 2011-1-10 23:56 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

作者分类:时事评论|通用分类:热点杂谈|已有152评论


(前言:新年伊始,亚利桑那州图桑市发生了枪击事件,40岁的女国会议员成为枪击目标被近距离击中头部,一名联邦法官和一个年仅9岁的小姑娘失去了生命。更有20多名无辜的人受伤。这是美国历史上第二个国会议员被枪杀,其严重性无须多言。在举国震惊,全民哀悼无辜死伤者的时候,美国媒体似乎又有了新的令人兴奋的话题可以喋喋不休。但是,有多少人会透过这起恶劣事件吸取教训呢。本人的先生愤怒了,他奋笔疾书,从一个美国人的角度对美国的言论自由进行了以下的批判与反思。本人匆匆翻译成中文,为向更多的同胞朋友传递一个信息:要言论自由,但更要负责任。因为信息泛滥的时代,言论的威力越来越大。如何善用言论自由,便是我们这个社会,美国或其他国家,都必须面对的问题。水可以载舟,也可以覆舟。今天的教训可谓深刻!)

 

美国白人看美国:美国的言论自由及其后果

----------国会议员枪击案的反思

 

/ 罗杰   翻译/丹奇

201119

 

一月八日发生在亚利桑那州图桑市的枪击事件荡起了不负责任的言论自由所导致的政治和社会余波。这次的枪击打死了至少5个人(包括一名联邦法官和一个9岁的女孩)并严重伤及其他众人-包括枪击目标美国女国会议员盖布丽尔吉佛德。女国会议员在一个公共场所,被枪手距离2英尺处击中头部。

枪手的动机仍然不明,但是他曾经发帖抱怨政府的某些政策。

作为美国人,我们珍惜宪法保护的言论自由权利。

政治评论家们每天晚上通过电视,每天白天通过电台煽动的高度党派之争等毒害性言论现在笼罩着美国。

 一个典型的例子便是萨拉佩林(前副总统候选人)。她的政治行动委员会把那些他们在2010年中期选举中要击败的民主党官员作为靶子。她的营销广告赤裸裸地用来福枪瞄准镜里的十字线对准这些官员,显而易见的表明了“干掉他们”……的射击意义(否则,为什么要使用枪械图像?)。现在,我当然不认为佩林信奉或将永远容忍这种行为或行动,但它确实毫无疑问地煽动了她的追随者并增加了此刻的紧张气氛。

或者以竞选取代内华达参议员哈里雷德的莎伦安格尔为例如何?她在接受采访时暗示,如果她竞选失败,她那些不喜欢竞选结果的追随者已经为此准备了第二修正案补救办法。其含义是不满的选民可以打着“宪法第二修正案”的幌子(即有权持有和携带武器)来影响并改变由选举产生的领导人,这实际上就是武装叛乱,试图推翻民选政府。

再举一例如何?大批人士仍然认为奥巴马总统是穆斯林和伊斯兰教的追随者。然而,另一个反对总统的团体却因为他参拜一个由好战的非裔美国人(牧师赖特)领导的基督教会达20多年而自鸣得意。你不能两者兼得- 他要么是基督徒要么是穆斯林。但问题是,这两个强烈反对总统的团体将这种如硫酸般的毒素已经侵蚀了自己的团体,无非是有目的的误传并蓄意闹事。其目的是诋毁总统奥巴马,即使两个集团持有的反对意见互相冲突和相互抵消也不在乎。诸如此类,这么多的信息被媒体渲染,事实真相已经不足为重,重要的是他们搅乱,煽动并激起人们对政治对手们的政治观点的仇恨。他们广播的“真相”其实仅是谎言也无关紧要。他们用最阴险的方式利用了言论自由- 他们播出谎言,导致人民分裂,使朋友变成敌人,最后总会有人使用暴力来强求政治观点,尽管他们的行动是基于一个的真相--一个谎言。

言论自由,被高度珍惜和保护的同时,必须与责任共存,这也是一种社会价值。当然大多数人永远不会并从来没有采取过暴力行为,可问题是,只需一个持枪的人就能震惊整个政治体系------并毁掉许多人的生命。

政治和媒体语言现存的毒害水平不止在国内并且在国际上伤害着我们。华盛顿DC目前的敌意已经造就了另一个无法带领国家前进的国会并且继续分裂着人民。一个结党的人口和分裂的国家是不堪一击的。

 美国一直以来作为自由,富庶,公平,正义,文明,守法的典范广受世界各地人民世代景仰。目前政治党派之间的交流水平已经侵蚀了这些原则,并伤害了我们的国家。

 我谴责那些热衷误导信息和媒体的政客们(比如Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Glen Beck, 等等)他们散布传播消息,利用电波和印刷文字传播这个国家感染的病毒,使公民之间翻脸,使政治团体人员之间成为敌人,

 也许图桑枪击案和失去的生命有助于引导大家更加关注目前政治话语状况。也许分化的政客们以及极端的媒体会降低从他们的麦克风和报纸喷涌的仇恨水平。也许我们都退后一步,思考一下什么是言论自由,如何负责任地用好它,这样才可以激励政治交流的成长,而不是公民之间的暴力。

长远来说,我怀疑以上任何愿望实际上会实现。因为分裂人民让他们互相为敌实在是太有趣并且有利于政治需要,更是媒体维持现状的利益所在。

 

附英语原文:

FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA

AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

A POLITICAL VIEW

 

By Roger Dean (January 9th, 2011)

 

The shooting on Saturday January 8th in Tucson, Arizona highlights the potential political and societal fallout from irresponsible free speech. The shooting killed at least 5 persons ( including a Federal Judge and a 9 year old child ) and critically wounded many others – including the intended target U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The Congresswomana was shot in the head from less than 2 feet away, in a public place.

 

While the motive of the gunman is still unknown it is known that he has written and posted views and complained about the government and certain policies.

 

While we as Americans value our Constitutionally protected rights to free speech that right also implies a certain responsibility in its use. The misuse of free speech can come very close to going over the line and in effect incite violence or public mayhem.

 

The political pundits who come through out televisions every night or through our radio’s during the day incite much of this as well as the highly partisan and toxic political discourse that now envelopes the nation.

 

A case in point is Sarah Palin ( former Vice Presidential candidate ). Her Political Action Committee made “targets” of those Democrats they wished to defeat in the 2010 mid term elections. Her marketing literally showed those officials with “cross hairs” of a rifle scope over them to “take them out”… the implication of shooting them ( otherwise, why use the gun imagery ) is there. Now, of course I certainly don’t think Sarah Palin espoused or would ever condone such behavior or actions but it did, without a doubt, incite her followers and increase the tension of the moment.

 

Or how about Sharron Angle who was campaigning to replace U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. During an interview she implied if she lost the election and her followers didn’t like the result that there were “second amendment remedies” for that. The implication is that disgruntled voters could hide behind the second amendment to the Constitution ( which is the right to keep and bear arms ) to effect change on elected leaders, essentially an armed rebellion to overthrow the elected government.

What about the large group of people who continue to believe that President Obama is a Muslim and follower of Islam? But, another group opposed to the President takes delight that he went to a Christian church for over 20 years led by a militant African American ( Rev. Wright )? You can’t have it both ways – he’s either Christian or a Muslim. But, the point is that both groups are vehemently opposed to the President and spread vicious vitriol to their groups that is nothing more than misinformation and intended to “stir the pot”. The goal is discredit the President even though the two groups against Obama hold views that conflict and cancel each other out. Like so much of the information encouraged by these media types truth is not the point, stirring the pot and inciting and exciting and building hatred and a political viewpoint against the political opposition is the point. It doesn’t matter to them if the “truth” they broadcast is actually just a lie. They have used free speech in its most insidious manner – they broadcast lies that lead to dividing the people and make friends become enemies and eventually someone will use violence to pursue political views even though their actions are based on a “false” truth – a lie.

Free speech, while highly valued and protected, has to come with responsibilities that are considered a value to the society as well. While the vast majority of people will never and would never act out in a violent manner the problem is that it only takes one person with a gun to shock the political system – and destroy the lives of many.

 

The existing level of toxicity in political and media language hurts us not only domestically but internationally as well. Our current animosity in Washington D.C. has brought us another Congress that will be unable to move the country forward and continues to divide the people. A fractious population and divided country is weaker for it.

 

The United States has been admired and looked to by generations of people here and all around the world as a model for freedom and prosperity, fairness and justice, civility and adherence to the law. The current level of communication between the political parties has eroded these tenets and hurt our nation.

 

I lay the blame for this erosion squarely at the feet and doorsteps of those political officials who encourage misinformation and the media types ( Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Glen Beck , etc ) who spread and disseminate the information and turn citizen against citizen, make enemies of the population between the political groups and use the airwaves and printed word to spread the virus that now infects this country.

 

Perhaps the shooting in Tucson and the loss of life can help bring about a more focused look on the current state of political discourse. Perhaps the partisan politicians and the extreme media shows will tone down the level of hatred they spew from their micophones and newspapers. Perhaps we’ll all just step back for a moment and reflect on what free speech is and how to use it in a responsible manner that encourages growth in political communication rather than violence amongst the citizenry.

 

I doubt that any of the above will actually happen in the long run. It’s just too much fun and politically valuable to separate the people and make them enemies of each other and much to profitable for the media to maintain the status quo.

 

 

(后记:本人水平有限,翻译若有不妥之处,恭请乡亲及时拍砖指正!) 


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖
5

支持
23

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (28 人)

发表评论 评论 (152 个评论)

1 回复 xinsheng 2011-1-11 00:36
"要言论自由,但更要负责任。"!
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 00:42
xinsheng: "要言论自由,但更要负责任。"!
就是这个理!
1 回复 xqw63 2011-1-11 01:04
民主自由是双刃剑
6 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 01:06
xqw63: 民主自由是双刃剑
就看怎么用了。
1 回复 xqw63 2011-1-11 01:09
丹奇: 就看怎么用了。
没错,需要一个度
3 回复 homepeace 2011-1-11 01:12
还要反对枪支泛滥!
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 01:18
homepeace: 还要反对枪支泛滥!
关于这个问题,我让他爹再发表一下他的看法。
11 回复 homepeace 2011-1-11 01:25
丹奇: 关于这个问题,我让他爹再发表一下他的看法。
期待。
管制枪枝泛滥,就可以拯救成百上千的生命。
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 01:36
homepeace: 期待。
管制枪枝泛滥,就可以拯救成百上千的生命。
是的。这是滥用和自保之间的几率问题。值得深思。
1 回复 饱暖思自由 2011-1-11 01:51
言论自由没有错,错的显然是个别人的做法。这个枪手获得的信息,与我们获得的信息有什么不同吗?大家得到的信息是一样的,但采取行动的方式却有天壤之别,说明什么?以一个个人的行动来试图说明言论自由的错,叫什么来着?以偏概全?以点盖面?
只要不是造谣的信息,不应该有任何控制,否则,你们何以在此顺畅地表达你们文中的观点?
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 02:01
饱暖思自由: 言论自由没有错,错的显然是个别人的做法。这个枪手获得的信息,与我们获得的信息有什么不同吗?大家得到的信息是一样的,但采取行动的方式却有天壤之别,说明什 ...
没有说言论自由错了啊,请看懂文章再发言好吗?
1 回复 饱暖思自由 2011-1-11 02:09
丹奇: 没有说言论自由错了啊,请看懂文章再发言好吗?
对不起,看另一篇文章,却把评论写在这了。
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 02:12
饱暖思自由: 对不起,看另一篇文章,却把评论写在这了。
呵呵,没关系。
回复 在美一方 2011-1-11 02:27
简称:美白  
2 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 02:41
在美一方: 简称:美白   
为了强调才如此区分。见谅哈。
2 回复 饱暖思自由 2011-1-11 02:45
这就是言论自由,这就是人类社会,是那么纷繁复杂,但也条理清楚。越来越多的美国人由于厌恶而远离政治,这本身就是错误的。你可以选择远离政治,但政治不会远离你,这个世界没有世外桃源,每个人必须亲自参与才行。是美国公众的沉默导致了象佩林这样的所谓政治家可以呼风唤雨,实际上,她的选民所占比例小的可怜,试想,如果多数有正义感的美国人选择站在正义的立场上,多数人的优势就可以轻易地击败她们的那些谎言,并以多数人的强大优势震慑住那些想铤而走险的个别人。
所以,我认为,负责任的言论当然重要,但最重要的还是有正义感的美国人要全面参与到政治当中。现在危险的信号已频繁出现,能拯救美国和自己的只有更多的美国人的参与。
所以,不要奢求什么负责任的言论,而应该呼唤不参与美国政治游戏的那部分美国人心里的良知与正义感。
1 回复 在美一方 2011-1-11 02:48
丹奇: 为了强调才如此区分。见谅哈。
谅啥啊,瞎逗呢
2 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 02:54
饱暖思自由: 这就是言论自由,这就是人类社会,是那么纷繁复杂,但也条理清楚。越来越多的美国人由于厌恶而远离政治,这本身就是错误的。你可以选择远离政治,但政治不会远离 ...
同意你的观点。这篇文章页也只是抛砖引玉之举,要是谈及参与更多的政治,恐怕还得另外撰文。谢谢分享你的观点!
1 回复 丹奇 2011-1-11 03:05
在美一方: 谅啥啊,瞎逗呢
呵呵,知道呢。
回复 cartoonyang 2011-1-11 03:31
可惜!
需要和平!!!
123... 8下一页

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2019-6-6 01:51

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部