How to foster productive and responsible debate | Ishan Bhabha

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Camille Martínez

翻译人员: Joseph Geni 校对人员: Yip Yan Yeung

假如你拥有一个酒店，

而你们企业宗旨中一条最重要的原则

是承诺平等对待所有员工和客户，

包括性别和宗教信仰。

What if you own a hotel,

and one of the key principles in your mission statement

然后有一群人要 在你的酒店预定活动。

is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally,

你查看这个预定时， 发现这是个宗教组织，

including on the basis of gender and religion?

而他们最重要的原则之一 是女人永远不许出家门，

And then a large group books an event at your space,

也不该有其他职业发展机会。

and when you look at the booking, you realize it's a religious group,

你该怎么做？

and one of their key principles is that women should never leave the home

你会继续举办这个活动， 被一些人指责，

and should have no opportunities for professional development outside of it.

还是拒绝举办这个活动， 并被另外一些人指责？

在我的工作中，我会指导 组织机构如何建立规则，

What do you do?

Do you host the event and get criticized by some,

去解决意识形态方面的争执 和有争议的言论，

or refuse and get criticized by others?

也会在我的客户行为被挑战时，

In my work, I counsel organizations on how to create rules

无论在法庭还是从政府角度上

去维护他们。

to navigate ideological disagreement and controversial speech,

我推荐的方案

可以注意到那些 由某些言语带来的伤害，

and I defend my clients,

whether in court or from the government,

但同时试图促进而非阻止对话。

when their actions are challenged.

The structures I recommend

recognize the real harms that can come from certain types of speech,

原因是我们需要争执。

创造力和人类进步

but at the same time, seek to promote dialogue rather than shut it down.

都依靠它。

虽然与观点一致的人

交流会比较容易，

The reason is that we need disagreement.

但是和观点不一致的人交流 往往会让你更有启发、

Creativity and human progress

depend on it.

更有满足感。

While it may be often easier

但是争执和冲突可能会 产生实际和明显的代价。

to speak with someone who agrees with everything you say,

it's more enlightening and oftentimes more satisfying

争执，尤其以仇恨言语的形式，

to speak with someone who doesn't.

可以导致深而长久的伤口， 有时会造成暴力。

But disagreement and discord can have real and meaningful costs.

而在这个两极分化和创新

Disagreement, particularly in the form of hateful speech,

can lead to deep and lasting wounds and sometimes result in violence.

正在指数级增长的世界中，

建立激烈而非激化的争执机制

And in a world in which polarization and innovation are increasing

从来没有这么重要过。

at seemingly exponential rates,

《美国宪法第一修正案》 也许是开始寻找答案的

the need to create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement

好地方。

你，和我一样， 也许经常听人说过，

have never been more important.

The US Constitution's First Amendment might seem like a good place to start

某种形式的言论限制， 无论是老板、一家网站

还是其他人制定的，

to go to look for answers.

You, like I, may have often heard somebody say

都“违反”了《第一修正案》。

但其实，《第一修正案》往往 和这些几乎没有任何关系。

that some form of a speech restriction, whether from an employer, a website,

《第一修正案》只适用于

or even somebody else,

"violates" the First Amendment.

政府试图压制公民言论方面。

But in fact, the First Amendment usually has little if any relevance at all.

因此，《第一修正案》理论上 只是一种钝器。

The First Amendment only applies

一小部分的言论 会根据其内容被禁止。

when the government is seeking to suppress the speech of its citizens.

几乎所有其他的都不行。

As a result, the First Amendment is by design a blunt instrument.

但谈到私人机构在管理言论时，

《第一修正案》就没有任何意义。

A narrow category of speech can be banned based on its content.

并且这是件好事，

Almost everything else cannot.

因为它意味着私人机构拥有

But the First Amendment has no relevance

广泛又灵活的一套系统， 它虽不至于限制言论，

when what we're talking about is a private entity regulating speech.

但是会让发言者知道 他们说的话的后果。

And that's a good thing,

because it means private entities have at their disposal

这是几个例子。

a broad and flexible set of tools that don't prohibit speech,

你上大学时，

这是一个自由和不受限制的 思想交流的时候。

but do make speakers aware of the consequences of their words.

但有些用来表达的想法和言辞

Here are some examples.

When you go to university,

会引起争论，

it's a time for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas.

无论是由学生们 主办的煽动性的辩论,

But some ideas and the words used to express them

还是在课堂上讨论 而引起争议的话题。

can cause discord,

为了保护思想自由，

whether it's an intentionally inflammatory event hosted by a student group

和最脆弱的学生，

有些大学组织了一些团队， 将演讲者和听众聚在一起，

or the exploration of a controversial issue in class.

In order to protect both intellectual freedom

在那里，他们没有 受任何处罚的可能，

and their most vulnerable students,

可以听到彼此的观点。

some universities have formed teams that bring speaker and listener together,

有时学生们不想见面，

那也没事。

不过在其他情况下，

free from the possibility of any sanction,

适当暴露在相反的观点下 可以引起对观点的承认、

to hear each other's viewpoints.

Sometimes students don't want to meet,

对非预知后果的认可

and that's fine.

及扩大视野。

But in other circumstances,

mediated exposure to an opposing view can result in acknowledgment,

举个例子。

在某个大学校园里， 一群支持以色列的人

recognition of unintended consequences

和一群支持巴勒斯坦的人

and a broadening of perspectives.

经常举报对方

Here's an example.

破坏活动、乱拆海报

On a college campus, a group of students supporting the Israelis

还吵架。

and those supporting the Palestinians

学校知道学生们所举报的行为

were constantly reporting each other

for disrupting events, tearing down posters

基本上都没违反学校的法则，

and engaging in verbal confrontations.

于是请双方参加一个

Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting

叫“恢复圈”的活动，

did not violate the university's disciplinary code,

让他们听听对方的观点，

免受任何处分。

the university invited both groups to sit down

会议过后，

in a so-called "restorative circle,"

双方意识形态方面的争执

where they could hear each other's viewpoints,

依然非常明显，

但是他们之间的积怨 降低了不少。

free from the possibility of sanction.

After the meeting,

the ideological disagreements between the groups

当然，这不总会发生。

当时通过将对言论的反应 与纪律制度分开，

remained as stark as ever,

but the rancor between them significantly dissipated.

高等教育机构创造了

Now, obviously, this doesn't always happen.

一个有效分歧和拓宽视野的空间。

But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system,

我们都有偏见。

我并不说这是件坏事。

institutions of higher education have created a space

我们都会被家庭背景、

for productive disagreement and a broadening of perspectives.

教育、生活体验等上百万件其他事所影响，

We're all biased.

I don't mean that in a bad way.

这是理所当然的。

各种组织也会受到影响，

All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

其中最重要的， 不仅有组织成员的信仰，

by our family background, our education, our lived experience

还有它们依据的法律

and a million other things.

或竞争所在的市场。

Organizations, too, have influences,

这些影响因素构成了企业形象 很重要的一部分，

most importantly, the beliefs of their members,

but also the laws under which they're governed

也对吸引和留住人才至关重要。

or the marketplace in which they compete.

但这些我所说的“偏见”，

These influences can form a critical part of a corporate identity,

也可能变成挑战，

尤其是当我们在

and they can be vital for attracting and retaining talent.

划分可说和不可说的言论的时候。

But these "biases," as I'm calling them,

can also be a challenge,

仅仅因为观点不同就将

particularly when what we're talking about

某些言论划为有害或有破坏性的

is drawing lines for allowing some speech and not allowing others.

倾向是真实存在的。

但是某些类型的发言会带来伤害 也确实是真的。

The temptation to find speech harmful or disruptive

在这种情况下， 第三方可以提供帮助。

simply because we disagree with it

记得那个在考虑

is real.

But equally real is the harm that can come from certain types of expression.

要不要让那个宗教团体 举办会议的酒店吧？

与其对该团体的身份和信息

In this situation, third parties can help.

Remember the hotel,

做出复杂的、当场的决定，

trying to decide whether or not to allow the religious group to host its event?

那个酒店可以选择依靠第三方，

Rather than having to make a complex, on-the-spot decision

比如说，

南部贫困法律中心 （Southern Poverty Law Center），

about that group's identity and message,

这个机构有美国仇恨团体的清单，

the hotel could instead rely on a third party,

或者甚至是由来自不同背景的

专家组成的外部小组。

say, for example,

the Southern Poverty Law Center,

通过依靠第三方

which has a list of hate groups in the United States,

在特定事件背景外制定规则，

or indeed even its own outside group of experts

brought together from diverse backgrounds.

各个组织可以做出满意的决策，

By relying on third parties

而不会被指控基于私利或偏见。

to draw lines outside the context of a particular event,

事实和观点之间的界限很模糊。

organizations can make content decisions

互联网提供了针对话题

without being accused of acting in self-interest or bias.

公开发表任何观点的机会。

The line between facts and opinions is a hazy one.

并且在某些方面，这是一件好事。

它让少数观点得以表达，

The internet provides the opportunity to publish almost any position

并要求当权者承担责任。

on any topic under the sun.

但是拥有个人发表的能力

And in some ways, that's a good thing.

意味着未被验证甚至虚假的陈述

It allows for the expression of minority viewpoints

也可能会被迅速传播，

and for holding those in power accountable.

而这就非常危险。

But the ability to self-publish freely

means that unverified or even flat-out false statements

决定删除一个帖子或禁止一位用户 是个艰难的选择。

有时它当然是一个合适的选择，

can quickly gain circulation and currency,

但也有其他办法

and that is very dangerous.

来促进有效和负责任的辩论。

The decision to take down a post or ban a user is a tough one.

推特最近开始给推文贴上

It certainly can be appropriate at times,

误导、欺骗或 包含未验证的信息的标签。

but there are other tools available as well

to foster productive and yet responsible debate.

与其删除这些推文，

Twitter has recently started labeling tweets

推特选择了提供链接，可以跳转到

as misleading, deceptive or containing unverified information.

有更多相关信息的资源。

一个当下的好例子是 它关于冠状病毒的页面，

Rather than block access to those tweets,

Twitter instead links to a source that contains more information

上面有最新的关于病毒传播

以及感染后的处理方法的信息。

about the claims made.

A good and timely example is its coronavirus page,

对于我来说，这种方式很有道理。

与其封闭对话，

which has up-to-the-minute information about the spread of the virus

这种方式能为论坛带来更多的 思想、事实和背景消息。

and what to do if you contract it.

To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

而且，如果你知道你的主张

Rather than shutting down dialogue,

会和更有权威的信源比对，

this brings more ideas, facts and context to the forum.

这可能会鼓励你

一开始就做出更负责任的言论。

And, if you know that your assertions are going to be held up

让我用一个事实来结束我的演讲：

against more authoritative sources,

我所介绍的结构 可以促进富有成效的辩论，

it may create incentives

for more responsible speech in the first place.

同时孤立真正有害的言论。

但不可避免的是， 终究有些言论会落在灰色区域，

Let me end with a hard truth:

the structures I've described can foster productive debate

也许很冒犯人，

但也有可能会对公共辩论做出贡献。

while isolating truly harmful speech.

But inevitably, some speech is going to fall in a grey area,

在这种情况，

我觉得认为一般来讲，

应该允许更多而不是更少的言论。

perhaps deeply offensive

but also with the potential to contribute to public debate.

这就是为什么。

首先，总会有

In this situation,

I think as a general matter,

创新或创意的想法 因为看起来陌生或危险

the tie should go to allowing more rather than less speech.

而有被抑制的风险。

Here's why.

几乎从定义上讲，

For one, there's always the risk

有创意的想法挑战了事物 应该怎样的正统观念。

that an innovative or creative idea gets squelched

because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

所以，如果一个思想 看起很冒犯或有危险，

那也许是因为正是如此，

Almost by definition,

innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies about how things should be.

或者仅仅是因为我们害怕变化。

不过我想建议， 即使某些言语几乎没有任何价值

So if an idea seems offensive or dangerous,

it could be because it is,

or it might simply be because we're scared of change.

也应该通过公开辩论而不是压制

But let me suggest that even if speech has little to no value at all,

来展示它的缺陷。

我可以非常清楚地说：

假的言论可能导致 对现实世界毁灭性的伤害，

that deficiency should be shown through open debate

从 15 世纪的欧洲，因被控告为女巫

rather than suppression.

而被烧死的妇女，

To be very clear:

到美国南部受私刑的非洲人，

false speech can lead to devastating real-world harms,

再到卢旺达大屠杀。

from the burning of women accused of being witches in Europe

广开言论作为纠正错误言论的方法

in the 15th century

并不是永远正确的。

to the lynching of African Americans in the American South,

但我确实认为更多的时候， 更多的言论会有帮助。

to the Rwandan Genocide.

《第一修正案》案例法中的 一个著名故事表明了原因。

The idea that the remedy for false speech is more speech

isn't always true.

1977 年，一群新纳粹分子 想在伊利诺州斯考基市（Skokie），

But I do think more often than not, more speech can help.

大量犹太人大屠杀幸存者居住着的

A famous story from First Amendment case law shows why.

平静郊区举办游行。

In 1977, a group of neo-Nazis wanted to stage a march

市政府立刻通过法令 试图阻止这些新纳粹，

through the leafy, peaceful suburb of Skokie, Illinois,

然后纳粹分子就提起了诉讼。

home to a significant number of Holocaust survivors.

这个案件一直上诉到了 美国最高法院，

The City Council immediately passed ordinances trying to block the Nazis,

然后再次撤回。

法院判那些新纳粹分子有权游行，

and the Nazis sued.

而且他们可以展示他们纳粹的万字符

The case made it all the way up to the US Supreme Court

并同时做出他们的手势。

and back down again.

但到了游行的那天，

The courts held that the neo-Nazis had the right to march,

在所有的诉讼之后，

只有二十位新纳粹出现在

and that they could display their swastikas

伊利诺伊州芝加哥市的联邦大楼前，

and give their salutes while doing so.

But when the day for the march came,

他们还面对着 2000 名反抗议者，

and after all that litigation,

用包容性思想反击着

just 20 neo-Nazis showed up

in front of the Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois,

纳粹分子的仇恨讯息。

正如《芝加哥论坛报》报道的那样，

and they were met by 2,000 counter-protesters

纳粹游行在十分钟后就草草结束了。

responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

with ones of inclusion.

发生在弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔（Charlottesville）， 甚至全世界的暴力事件表明

As the Chicago Tribune noted,

the Nazi march sputtered to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes.

这种故事的结局并不永远如此。

但对我来说，斯考基市的故事 是一个很好的故事，

The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and indeed around the world,

它证明了对待 仇恨言论的谬误和道德沦丧

shows this isn't always how these stories end.

最好的方法不是通过压制，

But to me, the Skokie story is a good one,

而是通过善良和高尚思想的 正义力量去回应。

one that shows that the fallacy and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech

谢谢。

can best be responded to not through suppression

but through the righteous power of countervailing good and noble ideas.

Thank you.