近日，蒋劲松老师发了一篇文章，质疑为何科学网比其它网站管制严厉。他的文章在科学网受到很多人的推荐，也立刻在科学网博客得到了很高的引用率。没有办法，这里也需要再引用一次：-） http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=335223 不过，我和蒋老师以及不少网友的看法有些不同。我简单地阅读了一下他提及的那篇所谓的“著名的帖子”，虽然没有完全读完，但是觉得那篇文章太无聊了。它的重点不是考证一些网上的八卦，而是排泄个人的愤恨，露骨地对他人进行人身攻击。那种垃圾文字在某些网站上大概是家常便饭，但是这里是科学网。科学网的主旨应该是宣扬科学精神，普及科学知识，促进科技人员的交流，而不是任何人以任何借口搞人身攻击的场所。 几年前我曾经给自然杂志发过一封通信。因为内容相关，这里张贴一下： Misconduct: forum should not be used to settle scores Nature 442 , 132 (13 July 2006) SIR — Although China is developing its science and technology at an unprecedented speed, scientific misconduct is a serious issue, as you have highlighted in your Special Report “Named and shamed” ( Nature 441, 393–393; 2006). Shi-Min Fang, one of your correspondents on this topic ( Nature 441, 932; 2006) and the webmaster of New Threads (www.xys.org), wrote to defend this website’s role in disclosing scientific misconduct on occasions when the authorities had ignored whistleblowers. Like many other Chinese scientists working overseas, I care very much about scientific misconduct in China. However, I have also been concerned for a long time about the quality of articles published on New Threads. Often, I find that there are few facts and little investigation behind the accusations, and that many articles are mixed with assumptions and personal attacks on named scientific researchers. One such example is that of Hualiang Jiang, a principal investigator working at the Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica. Because I work in a similar field, I am familiar with Jiang’s work and publications, although I have never met him. New Threads contains several articles (urls provided) attacking Jiang personally, using many insulting words such as “idiot”. It seems that some of the articles were written by someone who may have been an unsuccessful job candidate at Jiang’s institute. Disclosing scientific misconduct is not simply about free speech, as claimed by the webmaster of New Threads. It is also about being professional, objective and serious. Only verified facts should be published on the website if it is claiming to monitor incidents of scientific misconduct. It should not be used for unsubstantiated attacks in the name of free speech, not only because of the personal and professional effects on the scientists concerned, but also because readers, especially young students, could be misled.
在国外经常听到国内网络监控与封锁的报道。这回谷歌事件也与此有关。 虽然我赞成外国公司在国内开展业务需要遵守国内的法律，但是有些法律是否需要考虑修正？ 一个对自己和自己的民众充满自信的政府，是不需要那些破旧的法律。 从本质上讲，美国的爱国者法也是相似的功能，它的通过就从法律上保证了政府可能以反恐怖为由检查个人的通信，电话，财政记录等私人信息。 如果我没有搞糊涂的话，可能是实际操作有所不同。 当然，美国的爱国者法一样受到广泛的批评。 SO WHAT？ 有自信的政府应该是欢迎批评意见的。 参考： 1. 美国爱国者法全文： http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_lawsdocid=f:publ056.107.pdf 2. WIKI 对美国爱国者法的简介 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act The USA PATRIOT Act , commonly known as the Patriot Act, is a statute enacted by the United States Government that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 ( Public Law Pub.L. 107-56 ). The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasurys authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism , thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Acts expanded law enforcement powers can be applied. The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owners or the occupants permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters , which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional. Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.
不少人爱引用这句话用来说明民主社会言论自由的价值： I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. （我不同意你的观点，但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利！） 有博主在科学网爆粗口骂人，而且言语之间让某博主感到自身的安全受到了了威胁。不少博主出来说话，主张科学网处理这位爆粗口的博主，关掉其在科学网的博客。也有不少博主反对关闭这位爆粗口的博主的博客，他们的理由正是本文开始引用的这句话。 人类文明已经进化到一个相当发达的程度，以至于一提到言论自由，便自动站到了道德制高点上，仿佛一切不让封口的举动，都是跟言论自由这一现代社会的普适价值相违背了。因此，封口，或者关闭博主的博客，就是践踏了言论自由。 根据始作俑者的表现，再加上某些博主高喊言论自由，反对封杀博客的一阵阵声浪，我们仿佛听到了某些一声高过一声的呼喊： 我不同意你的观点，但我誓死捍卫你说话的权利！ 我不同意你爆粗口骂人的做法，但我誓死捍卫你爆粗口骂人的权利！ 我不同意你威胁他人人身安全的做法，但我誓死捍卫你威胁他人人身安全的权利！ 后两句听着别扭，自然是不对的了。 文明的民主社会，保障每个人都有言论自由的权利，没有错。但是，这需要有个前提，这个前提是不能因为保障少数人言论自由的权利，而使更多的人丧失了言论自由的权利。 同样地，文明的民主社会，保障每个人都有人身自由的权利，没有错。但是，这需要有个前提，这个前提是不能因为保障少数人人身自由的权利，而使更多的人丧失了人身自由的权利。 因此，这个社会对人的言行，需要道德约束；在道德约束无效的时候，需要法律约束。因此，这个社会才建立了批评教育、关禁闭、拘留、监禁、以及死刑等一系列限制乃至终结人身自由与言论自由的功能。 当一个人的言行妨碍了多数人的言论自由和人身自由的时候，他就透支了自己应该享受的那一份自由，就要为此付出代价。一个团体，一个社会，对妨碍多数人言论自由和人身自由的人的言行加以限制乃至取缔，正是这个团体和社会尊重民主价值尊重言论自由的体现。 具体到最近科学网热议的这件事，如果始作俑者在最初受到批评后有所收敛，或者在众人的谴责声中能够主动承认错误，那么，以科学网博主们的大爱精神，或许这个风波就算过去了。遗憾的是，这个情景没有发生。 再退一万步讲，或许就算始作俑者不认错，而选择了沉默，使得众人到底意难平，其所犯错误仍然不足以到被封杀的程度，究竟该他什么样的惩罚才是最合适的，仍然需要探讨。然而，就算这一点成立，拿所谓言论自由做大旗，用所谓 我不同意你XXX，但我誓死捍卫你XXX的权利 的句式和思路为其进行辩护，恐怕仍然是说不通的。
标签: 言论自由
