How to foster productive and responsible debate | Ishan Bhabha

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Camille Martínez

譯者: Hsin-Hui Lin 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

What if you own a hotel,

假設你擁有一家飯店，

and one of the key principles in your mission statement

你們的企業宗旨之一

is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally,

是平等對待所有員工、顧客，

including on the basis of gender and religion?

不論其性別、宗教。

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

有天，一個大型團體在飯店訂了場地，

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

你查看訂單時才發現這是個宗教團體，

而他們的主要教條中說：

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

「女人絕不可離開家， 也不應謀求家庭以外的職業發展。」

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

What do you do?

你會怎麼辦？

Do you host the event and get criticized by some,

冒著被某些人批評的風險， 讓活動舉行？

or refuse and get criticized by others?

還是拒之於門外，被另一群人罵？

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

我的工作就是輔導組織制定規則，

以便在意識型態衝突或出現爭議性 言論的情況下找到適當的處理方式。

to navigate ideological disagreement and controversial speech,

and I defend my clients,

當我的客戶面臨挑戰，

whether in court or from the government,

不管是訴訟案件或政府制裁，

when their actions are challenged.

我都會為他們辯護。

The structures I recommend

我所推薦的架構

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

能夠辨認何種言論會帶來何種傷害，

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

但同時也促進溝通而非關閉對話，

The reason is that we need disagreement.

原因在於我們需要不同看法，

Creativity and human progress

創意和人類的進步由此而生。

depend on it.

While it may be often easier

雖然跟事事順著我們的人講話 通常比較容易，

to speak with someone who agrees with everything you say,

但與不同意見的人談話

it's more enlightening and oftentimes more satisfying

卻往往更具啟發性、也更讓人滿足。

to speak with someone who doesn't.

But disagreement and discord can have real and meaningful costs.

可是，意見不合與分歧 也可能會讓我們付出實質的代價，

Disagreement, particularly in the form of hateful speech,

尤其在爭論時使用仇恨的惡意言論，

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

可能造成深刻且恆久的傷害， 有時還會引發暴力。

And in a world in which polarization and innovation are increasing

在兩極化現象與改革行動 不斷翻倍成長的現今社會中，

at seemingly exponential rates,

the need to create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement

提出架構以應對強烈但非暴力的歧見，

have never been more important.

其重要性已提升到前所未有的程度。

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

想找答案，

從美國憲法第一修正案下手看似可行。

to go to look for answers.

You, like I, may have often heard somebody say

或許你跟我一樣，曾聽別人說過

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

某些型式的言論限制，

不管限制是來自僱主、網站或某人，

or even somebody else,

"violates" the First Amendment.

都違反了第一修正案。

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

其實，第一修正案幾乎與此沒有關聯。

The First Amendment only applies

第一修正案僅適用於

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

政府試圖箝制人民的言論時；

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

即，第一修正案的設計 不是為了廣泛的應用。

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

依照其規範，只有 一小部分的言論可被禁止，

Almost everything else cannot.

其他的幾乎都不行。

But the First Amendment has no relevance

但如果我們談的是 民間團體對於言論的規範，

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

則與第一修正案毫無關聯。

And that's a good thing,

這其實是件好事，

because it means private entities have at their disposal

因為這表示民間團體 有一套可靈活運用的工具，

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

可在不限制言論的前提下，

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

讓講者意識到其言論可能造成的後果。

Here are some examples.

這裡有幾個例子。

When you go to university,

大學是一段可以不受限制地 自由交換想法的時光。

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

But some ideas and the words used to express them

但有些想法和表達的言詞

can cause discord,

可能會導致不合：

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

可能是學生團體故意舉辦的 具煽動性的活動，

or the exploration of a controversial issue in class.

或者是在課堂中探討爭議話題。

In order to protect both intellectual freedom

為了保護學術自由，

and their most vulnerable students,

也為了保護容易受到傷害的學生，

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

有些大學會召集講者與聽者

free from the possibility of any sanction,

組成不受制裁的小組，

to hear each other's viewpoints.

以便讓雙方自由表達見解。

Sometimes students don't want to meet,

有的時候學生不想出席，

and that's fine.

那也沒關係，

But in other circumstances,

但在某些情況下，

mediated exposure to an opposing view can result in acknowledgment,

在這種有中間人調解的場合中 聽取反方意見，

反而可能會達成相互了解、

recognition of unintended consequences

認同相反意見

and a broadening of perspectives.

和擴大視角的結果。

Here's an example.

我舉個例子：

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

校園中有一群支持以色列的學生團體，

and those supporting the Palestinians

也有一群支持巴勒斯坦的團體。

were constantly reporting each other

他們常常檢舉對方干擾活動、

for disrupting events, tearing down posters

撕毀海報、

and engaging in verbal confrontations.

發動言詞衝突等。

在確認雙方皆未違反校規的情況下，

Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting

did not violate the university's disciplinary code,

the university invited both groups to sit down

校方邀請雙方一同參加

in a so-called "restorative circle,"

所謂「修復圈圈」的活動。

where they could hear each other's viewpoints,

在這裡，他們可以聽到彼此的聲音，

free from the possibility of sanction.

也不會受任何處罰。

After the meeting,

會面結束後，

the ideological disagreements between the groups

雙方意識型態的歧見仍然嚴重，

remained as stark as ever,

but the rancor between them significantly dissipated.

但對彼此的積怨卻大幅下降。

Now, obviously, this doesn't always happen.

顯然，並不是每次都會這麼順利。

But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system,

但學生對言論的反應 不再以校規來懲戒後，

institutions of higher education have created a space

高等教育機構得以創造出一個

for productive disagreement and a broadening of perspectives.

讓歧見有建設性、 讓視野更開闊的空間。

We're all biased.

我們都帶有偏見，

I don't mean that in a bad way.

這不見得是壞事；

All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

於情於理，我們都會被影響，

by our family background, our education, our lived experience

被家庭背景、教育、生活經驗

and a million other things.

和其他成千上萬的事影響。

Organizations, too, have influences,

各種組織也同樣有影響力，

most importantly, the beliefs of their members,

尤其是成員的信仰，

but also the laws under which they're governed

以及管轄他們的律法

or the marketplace in which they compete.

或他們所廝殺的市場，

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

這些影響力都會成為 公司形象關鍵的一部份，

and they can be vital for attracting and retaining talent.

對於吸引及留住人才也都至關重要。

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

但這些我所謂的「偏見」

can also be a challenge,

也可以是一種挑戰，

particularly when what we're talking about

尤其當我們要畫一條線區隔

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

允許甚麼言論和限制甚麼言論的時候，

The temptation to find speech harmful or disruptive

我們會不自主地 將不同意的言論視為有害，

simply because we disagree with it

is real.

但特定表述方式真的會帶來傷害。

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

In this situation, third parties can help.

在這種情況下，第三方就可以幫上忙。

Remember the hotel,

還記得旅館是否 要讓宗教團體辦活動的例子嗎？

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

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

與其直接針對團體的性質和言論

about that group's identity and message,

做出複雜的決定，

the hotel could instead rely on a third party,

旅館大可仰賴第三方，

say, for example,

比如：南方貧困法律中心，

the Southern Poverty Law Center,

他們有全美仇恨組織的名單，

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

or indeed even its own outside group of experts

甚至也有自己的外部專家團，

brought together from diverse backgrounds.

各路專家各有專精。

By relying on third parties

正因為是仰賴非活動相關的 第三方來畫界線，

to draw lines outside the context of a particular event,

organizations can make content decisions

組織得以做出對言論內容的決策，

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

而無須背負「自利」或「偏見」罵名。

The line between facts and opinions is a hazy one.

事實與看法兩者的分界線其實很模糊。

The internet provides the opportunity to publish almost any position

網路讓所有議題的各種立場

on any topic under the sun.

都得以攤在陽光下。

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

在某些層面來說，這是好事，

It allows for the expression of minority viewpoints

它讓少數人得以發聲、

and for holding those in power accountable.

也讓掌權者為自己負責。

But the ability to self-publish freely

但每個人都能夠自由、公開地發表

means that unverified or even flat-out false statements

也代表了未經證實或擺明是虛假的言論

can quickly gain circulation and currency,

能快速流竄並獲得聲量，

and that is very dangerous.

這是一件非常危險的事。

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

撤除貼文或封鎖使用者的決定並不容易，

It certainly can be appropriate at times,

有時候這的確是應當的處置，

but there are other tools available as well

但還是有其他可行的方法

to foster productive and yet responsible debate.

來促進有建設性且負責任的辯論。

Twitter has recently started labeling tweets

推特最近開始為推文加上標籤，

as misleading, deceptive or containing unverified information.

例如：誤導、造假或 含有未經證實訊息等。

Rather than block access to those tweets,

比起直接讓人無法讀取推文，

Twitter instead links to a source that contains more information

推特選擇附上連結，

引導至更多與該主張相關的訊息。

about the claims made.

A good and timely example is its coronavirus page,

一個很切時的例子 便是新冠肺炎的頁面，

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

該頁面有最即時的病毒傳播消息，

and what to do if you contract it.

和感染後應該怎麼做的訊息。

To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

對我來說，這個方法很有道理。

Rather than shutting down dialogue,

比起徹底關掉對話管道，

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

這麼做可以為論壇 帶進更多想法、事實與內容。

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

而且如果你知道你的說法

against more authoritative sources,

有可能會被拿來 與具有權威的言論做比較，

it may create incentives

你就可能會在一開始

for more responsible speech in the first place.

就更加審慎地發言。

Let me end with a hard truth:

讓我以一個殘酷的真相作結吧：

the structures I've described can foster productive debate

我前述所形容的架構 能促進有建設性的辯論，

while isolating truly harmful speech.

同時隔離本質有害的言論，

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

但無可避免地，還是有一些言論 會落入灰色地帶，

perhaps deeply offensive

可能是一些極為冒犯，

but also with the potential to contribute to public debate.

卻仍然可能對大眾辯論 有所貢獻的言論。

In this situation,

在這種情況下，

I think as a general matter,

我認為一般來說

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

還是應該鼓勵而非抑制言論。

Here's why.

以下是我的理由：

For one, there's always the risk

一、創新或有創意的想法

that an innovative or creative idea gets squelched

總是比較可能被扼殺，

because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

因為人們對它不熟悉或覺得它危險。

Almost by definition,

基本上從定義來看，

innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies about how things should be.

「新想法」就是在挑戰 「事情應該要怎麼樣」的正統思維。

So if an idea seems offensive or dangerous,

所以如果當一個想法 看起來冒犯到人或很危險，

it could be because it is,

有可能它的確如此，

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

也有可能純粹只是因為我們害怕改變。

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

但我建議，即使言論幾乎沒有價值，

that deficiency should be shown through open debate

還是應該透過公開的辯論來顯現其缺陷，

rather than suppression.

而不是直接壓制。

To be very clear:

我在這裡要明確指出：

false speech can lead to devastating real-world harms,

錯誤言論可能會帶來真實的慘痛傷害，

from the burning of women accused of being witches in Europe

從 15 世紀歐洲燒死 被指控為女巫的女人，

in the 15th century

to the lynching of African Americans in the American South,

到美國南方對非裔美國人動用私刑，

to the Rwandan Genocide.

甚或到盧安達種族大屠殺。

The idea that the remedy for false speech is more speech

「對抗錯誤言論最好的方法 就是更多言論」的觀念

isn't always true.

並非永遠正確，

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

但我著實認為更多的言論， 十有八九能幫得上忙。

A famous story from First Amendment case law shows why.

憲法第一修正案有個著名的案例 告訴我們為什麼。

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

1977 年，

一群新納粹主義者想舉辦遊行，

through the leafy, peaceful suburb of Skokie, Illinois,

地點選在綠意盎然、平和的 伊利諾州郊區：斯科基，

home to a significant number of Holocaust survivors.

那裡住著許多大屠殺的生還者。

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

該市議會迅速通過法規， 試圖阻止新納粹主義者，

and the Nazis sued.

新納粹主義者還因此告上法院。

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

案子一路打到美國最高法院，

and back down again.

然後又被退回來。

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

法院認為新納粹有權遊行，

and that they could display their swastikas

也可秀出他們的卍字飾，並行舉手禮。

and give their salutes while doing so.

But when the day for the march came,

經過漫長的訴訟，

and after all that litigation,

當遊行的那天真的到來，

just 20 neo-Nazis showed up

只有 20 名新納粹主義者 現身伊利諾州芝加哥聯邦大樓，

in front of the Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois,

and they were met by 2,000 counter-protesters

而 2000 名反抗議民眾

responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

以包容性的訊息 回應新納粹的仇恨言論。

with ones of inclusion.

As the Chicago Tribune noted,

根據芝加哥論壇報指出，

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

新納粹的遊行 只勉強撐十分鐘便草草結束

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

但維吉尼亞州的夏洛茨維爾 和世界的許多地方

shows this isn't always how these stories end.

卻有不同的故事結局。

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

在我看來，斯科基是一個很好的例子，

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

它展示了應對謬誤、 道德淪喪的仇恨言論

can best be responded to not through suppression

最好的辦法不是壓抑它，

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

而是透過良善、偉大、 正義的想法與之抗衡。

Thank you.

謝謝。