【長文】Freedom of Speech and the Fallacy of Demanding to be Heard
了解「思想市場」也是「市場」，不能強買強賣
連結
原文及個人翻譯
There is a troubling misunderstanding of the principle of freedom of speech gaining momentum right now. It fundamentally misunderstands two central concepts of the principle — individual freedom and the “marketplace of ideas.”
Before these can be discussed, it will be necessary to explain what we mean by “freedom of speech” or more precisely, what we do not mean.
目前，人們對言論自由原則的理解出現了一個令人困擾的誤解。它對該原則的兩個中心概念——個人自由和「思想市場」有了根本性的誤解。
在討論這些概念之前，有必要解釋一下我們對「言論自由」的含義，或者更準確地說，我們對它的含義不是什麼。
We are not talking about the legal aspect of freedom of speech such as specific laws or constitutions of specific countries around the principle of freedom of speech, e.g., the US First Amendment. These legal structures relate to the principle of freedom of speech, but they are not the principle of freedom of speech. That principle is much, much broader and extends much further than how governments may or may not interfere with public speech.
We are also not talking about some non-existent right to make any words at all with one’s mouth or keyboard. The “speech” defended under “freedom of speech” does not refer to literal verbal utterances. Some of these are rightly illegal — commissioning a crime, perjury, fraud, false accusations, breaking confidentiality laws, and espionage, for examples. Defenders of freedom of speech are not attempting to change this.
我們這裡討論的並不是言論自由的法律方面，例如特定國家有關言論自由原則的特定法律或憲法，例如美國第一修正案。這些法律結構與言論自由原則相關，但它們本身並不是言論自由原則。該原則遠遠超出了政府是否會干預公眾言論的範圍，其範圍要廣得多。
我們也不是討論用嘴巴或鍵盤發出任何話語的權利。言論自由下所捍衛的「言論」並不是字面意義上的口語表達。其中有些被正確地認為是非法行為——例如教唆犯罪、偽證、欺詐、虛假指控、違反保密法律和間諜等。言論自由的捍衛者並不是要改變這一點。
We are talking about a principled defense of the free exchange of ideas on many levels of society; an acknowledgement that this is a basic human freedom and an understanding that viewpoint diversity and the whole process of arguing, questioning, challenging, doubting, refuting, and revising ideas is essential to the advancement of knowledge, to social progress, and to liberal democracy itself. In short, we are talking about what Jonathan Rauch describes as “liberal science,” the development of which in Western modernity has a long and multi-faceted intellectual history. It includes key liberal philosophers such as John Stuart Mill but also thinkers and political activists as diverse as Puritans and secularists, Marxists and Libertarians. Though rarely seen this way, it is, in fact, an advanced social technology. Establishing the “marketplace of ideas” as the most positive model for a successful and progressive society took hundreds of years and much hard work.
我們正在討論對社會各個層面自由交流思想的原則性捍衛；承認這是一種基本的人權，並認識到觀點多元化以及論證、質疑、挑戰、懷疑、反駁和修訂思想的整體過程，對知識進步、社會進步和自由民主本身至關重要。簡而言之，我們正在討論喬納森·勞赫（Jonathan Rauch）所描述的「自由科學」（liberal science），其發展在西方現代史上有著悠久而多樣化的知識歷史。它包括約翰·斯圖爾特·密爾（John Stuart Mill）等自由主義哲學家，但也包括普世主義者、世俗主義者、馬克思主義者和自由主義者等不同思想的思想家和政治活動家。雖然很少被這樣看待，但它實際上是一種先進的社會技術。建立「思想市場」作為成功和進步社會的最積極模式，花了數百年時間和大量的艱苦工作。
The principle of freedom of speech is often misunderstood. Lately, seemingly following the democratization of information and communication via the Internet and social media, the misunderstanding of the key tenets of the principle of freedom of speech most often takes the form of an accusation, which we might call the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard. These accusations can be broadly paraphrased like this:
“You say you are an advocate of free speech, but then you don’t allow everyone to talk to you. You advocate for the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as a way to advance knowledge and say that it must be open to everyone, but you don’t allow everyone to engage with yours. Therefore, on the one hand, you are saying that shutting down speech is wrong but on the other you are shutting down speech. This is, at best, inconsistent, and at worst, downright hypocritical.”
This is very confused on two central concepts of the principle of freedom of speech and these work on an individual level and on a societal level.
言論自由原則經常被誤解。在互聯網和社交媒體通過信息和溝通的民主化普及之後，對該原則關鍵原則的誤解似乎越來越多，這種誤解通常採取一種指控的形式，即「要求被聽見」的謬論。這些指控可以大致如下所述：
「你說你是言論自由的倡導者，但你不允許每個人都與你交談。你提倡『思想市場』作為一種促進知識進步的方式，並表示它必須對每個人開放，但你不允許每個人都參與你的思想。因此，一方面，你說審查（原文shut down但中文不能用關閉吧）言論是錯誤的，但另一方面，你卻在審查言論。這在最好的情況下是不一致的，在最壞的情況下，是完全虛偽的。」
這種誤解對言論自由原則的兩個中心概念造成了混亂，這些概念在個人和社會層面上都起著作用。
On an individual level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the concept of freedom（在個人層面上，要求被聽見的謬論誤解了自由的概念）
Within freedom of speech, there are four essential freedoms:
(1) The freedom to speak — Individuals may express all ideas without hindrance or punishment.
(2) The freedom to listen — Individuals may listen to all ideas without hindrance or punishment.
(3) The freedom not to speak — Individuals must not to be required to express any ideas or speak to any person.
(4) The freedom not to listen — Individuals must not to be forced to listen to any ideas or any person.
在言論自由的範圍內，有四大基本自由：
（1）言論自由——個人可以自由表達任何想法，而不會受到阻礙或懲罰。
（2）聽取自由——個人可以自由聽取任何想法，而不會受到阻礙或懲罰。
（3）不發言自由——個人不必被迫表達任何想法或對任何人發言。
（4）不聽取自由——個人不必被迫聽取任何想法或任何人。
Given that, alarmingly, so many of the people who seem confused about freedom of speech in this way describe themselves as secularists and skeptics and have long fully understood and argued that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, perhaps a direct comparison with the freedom of religion will be helpful here.
Under freedom of religion, people are free to believe any creed they want to, and they are also free not to believe that creed or any creed at all. People are free to practice their religion but not to compel others to practice it, observe its obligations, participate in its rituals and customs, or accept its dogmas, doctrines, or premises. Freedom of religion entails the freedom to worship and to believe in accordance with one’s community or conscience, and it also contains freedom from being compelled to worship or believe any particular thing at all. A secularist mentality understands this, and only those who reject liberal secular values — that is, fundamentalists — feel others should be compelled to believe or worship in any particular way.
In the same way that it is clear that a defense of freedom of religion does not equate to a commitment to allow everyone else to impose their religion on you, it should be clear that a defense of freedom of speech does not equate to a commitment to allow everybody else impose their speech on you. Nowhere within freedom lies the right to be heard. You have the freedom to speak, yet every other individual has the freedom to ignore your speech by whatever means are necessary, including by removing themselves from the vicinity of it. Being ignored does nothing to infringe upon your right to speak, to hear, not to speak, or not to hear. Your freedom of speech remains fully intact because nowhere in that is the freedom to impose your speech upon others. The right to decide what one listens to remains as inviolable as the right to decide what one believes.
This is the “freedom” bit of freedom of speech.
在自由言論方面如此困惑的人中，許多人自稱為世俗主義者和懷疑論者，他們長期以來一直充分理解並主張宗教自由包括免於宗教的自由，因此，與宗教自由進行直接比較可能在此處有所幫助。
在宗教自由下，人們可以自由地信仰任何他們想要的信念，他們也可以自由地不信仰任何信念。人們可以自由地實踐他們的宗教，但不能強迫他人實踐它，遵守其義務，參加其儀式和習俗，或接受其教義、原則或前提。宗教自由意味著按照自己的社區或良心崇拜和信仰的自由，它也包括免於被強迫崇拜或信仰任何特定事物的自由。世俗主義心態理解這一點，只有那些拒絕自由世俗價值觀的人——即原教旨主義者——覺得其他人應該被強迫以任何特定方式信仰或崇拜。
正如捍衛宗教自由並不等於承諾允許其他人強加他們的宗教給你，捍衛言論自由也不等於承諾允許其他人強加他們的言論給你。自由中沒有被聽到的權利。你有言論自由，但每個其他個人都有自由通過任何必要手段忽略你的言論，包括通過離開它們的附近。被忽略並不會侵犯你說話、聽取、不說話或不聽取的權利。你的言論自由仍然完全完好，因為其中沒有強加你的言論給他人的自由。決定聽什麼的權利與決定相信什麼的權利一樣不可侵犯。
這就是言論自由的「自由」部分。
On a societal level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the marketplace of ideas（在社會層面，要求被聽到的謬論誤解了思想的市場）
Some people concede that freedom from speech should be a right even for people who defend freedom of speech but add that they think it is clear that those who argue for the importance of viewpoint diversity to advance knowledge and then refuse to listen to (certain) other views are not putting their money where their mouth is. That is, they are behaving hypocritically because they fail to consistently hold a principled line on viewpoint diversity.
This would certainly be a just accusation of hypocrisy if an individual who argues for this then refuses ever to engage with any different ideas. This is not a just accusation, however, if they merely refuse to engage with every idea and every proponent of every idea. Far too often, the criticism “You refuse to listen to other ideas (or your critics)!” means “You refuse to listen to me.” That may be, and there could be a number of reasons someone who is committed to freedom of speech might not be listening to you.
有些人承認，即使是那些捍衛言論自由的人，也應該享有言論自由的權利，但他們認為，那些主張觀點多樣性對知識進步重要，卻拒絕傾聽（某些）其他觀點的人，顯然沒有將他們的話付諸實踐。也就是說，他們行為虛偽，因為他們未能在觀點多樣性上堅持原則。
如果某人主張這一點，然後完全拒絕與任何不同的想法交流，那麼這確實是對虛偽的公正指控。然而，如果他們只是拒絕與全部想法和全部想法的倡導者交流（即選擇性交流），那麼這就不是公正的指控。在許多情況下，“你拒絕傾聽其他想法（或你的批評者）！”的意思是“你拒絕傾聽我”。這可能是這樣，也可能有許多原因導致某個致力於言論自由的人不聽你。
First, your ideas could simply not be within their area of interest or knowledge. We all have to be selective in what we discuss. People have approached me (Helen) recently to discuss economics, drug laws, and adoption policies. I am not well-informed on any of these things, neither do they interest me to the extent that ideology and psychology do. I declined to discuss because my opinion would not be worth much.
首先，您的想法可能不屬於他們感興趣或了解的領域。我們在討論的選擇上必須有選擇性。最近有人找我（海倫）討論經濟學、毒品法律和收養政策。我對這些事情一無所知，而且對意識形態和心理學更感興趣，所以我拒絕討論，因為我的意見沒有什麼價值。
Second, they could find your ideas foolish, tedious, or unsupported by evidence. We have recently declined to discuss whether women should be able to vote, metamodernism, metaethics, certain framings of the issues with firearms, and the claim that God exists. We have discussed all these in the past and find such discussions fruitless. You might think we are wrong to think so but again, we all have to be selective, and we retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give attention to.
其次，他們可能認為你的想法愚蠢、乏味或沒有證據支持。我們最近拒絕討論女性是否應該有投票權、後現代主義、元倫理、某些關於槍支問題的框架以及上帝存在的主張。我們過去討論過這些問題，發現它們沒有成果。你可能認為我們這樣想是錯的，但我們都有選擇的權利，並有權決定值得關注的是什麼。
Third, you could be personally rude or dishonest in your style of conversation. We are simply not going to enter a conversation with someone who is gratuitously abusive, snarky, insincere, misrepresents our position, or deliberately misses our point. You could be giving off every signal of discussing in bad faith, particularly in wishing to prove yourself right more than to discuss the issue with someone you know disagrees with you. There is no point in pretending that what follows from such a situation is going to be a conversation. At best it is a winding debate, and at worst it’s just a frustrating monologue from the effective equivalent of a street preacher. Conversation requires give and take, and ideally, when there is disagreement, it requires both participants to be willing to change their minds about some or all of the issues. When this condition is not met, there is no onus placed upon us to participate or to listen because, again, we all retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give our attention to,
第三，你在對話中可能個人粗魯或不誠實。我們不會與那些無端辱罵、諷刺、不誠實、歪曲我們立場或故意忽略我們要點的人進行對話。你可能正在以惡意進行對話，尤其是當你更希望證明自己對某人正確而不是與他討論問題時。從這種情況下產生的，在最好的情況下是一場無意義的辯論，在最糟糕的情況下，只是來自街頭傳教士等級的令人沮喪的獨白。對話需要給予和接受，理想情況下，當有分歧時，它需要雙方都願意改變他們對某些或所有問題的看法。當這個條件沒有滿足時，沒有任何義務參與或傾聽，因為，再次，我們都有權決定值得關注的是什麼。
Fourth, your ideas could be being presented much better by someone else. We have often been accused of refusing to engage with disagreement when, in fact, the person disagreeing with us is just doing so badly whilst other people are doing it well and presenting us with a much more challenging and therefore interesting and potentially productive conversation. It is quite possible to have highly intellectually & ideologically diverse discussions by choosing to talk to and listen to the most thoughtful, reasonable, knowledgeable and honest proponents of a variety of ideas and not to engage with the abusive, the incoherent, the ignorant and the dishonest.
第四，你的想法可能是由其他人更好地呈現的。我們經常被指控拒絕與不同意的人進行接觸，事實上，與我們不同意的人只是做得不好，而其他人在呈現相同的想法時做得更好，為我們提供了更具挑戰性、因此更有趣和潛具生產力的對話。非常可能與各種想法的最富有思想、合理、了解和誠實的倡導者進行高度知識和意識形態多樣性的討論，而不與濫用、無理、無知和不誠實的人接觸。
This last point is particularly important to note. There is a terrible sense of entitlement to insisting that someone must listen, not only to counterviews but your counterviews. We are small social and political commentators and writers, and we already have to be selective with the views we engage. If the person you seek to disagree with is a prominent public intellectual, realize that they will be receiving vast amounts of critical feedback, some of it of a very high quality and much of it off-point and downright rude. If you want yours to be one of the ones they engage with, you’ll have to earn that. It’s nothing personal; everyone faces this same difficulty in being heard by busy and prominent figures.
最後這點非常重要。堅持認為某人必須傾聽，不僅是反面觀點，而且是你的反面觀點，這是一種可怕的權利意識。我們是小小的社會和政治評論員和作家，我們已經必須對我們參與的觀點進行選擇。如果你試圖不同意的人是一個著名的公共知識分子，請意識到他們會收到大量的批評意見，其中一些意見非常優秀，而許多意見則離題或粗魯。如果你想讓他們理會你的意見，你必須贏取他們的意願。這與個人無關；每個人在被忙碌和著名的人物聽到時都面臨相同的困難。
This is the crucial element of the metaphor called “the marketplace of ideas,” which is being so badly misunderstood. The metaphor appeals to a marketplace. If you were to show up at a farmer’s market with your tomatoes, it doesn’t matter if they are the best tomatoes in the world; it is still your job to attract interest in purchasing them. You cannot force people to buy them. You cannot force prominent individuals to try your tomatoes and then promote them. If someone is allergic to tomatoes, doesn’t like them, or isn’t in the mood for them — or yours, or you — at the time, they have every right to pass your tomatoes by, and you have no standing upon which to demand that they change their mind.
Within the marketplace of ideas, the responsibility is on each vendor to present his ideas to the public by showing them as best they can and hoping people will want to “buy” them, that is, take them seriously and engage with them. No one is obligated to buy any product they believe is inferior or, in fact, any product they are not interested in — for any reason — in a real marketplace in a free society, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to buy something they do not want. Likewise, no one is obligated to listen to, engage, promote, or be interested in any ideas within the marketplace of ideas, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to do otherwise. Furthermore, people can refuse interest for any reason, which includes any bad behavior on the part of the vendor, regardless of the quality of the product.
This is how the marketplace of ideas works, and it works well. There is no point complaining that your stall has been shut down if people decline to buy from it. It remains open, but it is your responsibility to improve your product by making your argument strong, your evidence substantial, your point clear, your ideas engaging, and your sales pitch courteous. In this way, even if any individual is genuinely badly motivated to avoid your justifiable and insightful criticism, other people will still hear it and your ideas will ultimately win out over theirs in the marketplace.
這是“思想市場”這一隱喻的關鍵元素，它正被嚴重誤解。這個隱喻指向一個市場。如果你帶著西紅柿出現在農貿市場上，無論它們是世界上最好的西紅柿，你也必須吸引人們對購買它們的興趣。你不能強迫別人買它們。你不能強迫著名的個人嘗試你的西紅柿並推廣它們。如果某人對西紅柿過敏，不喜歡西紅柿，或者在當時不喜歡西紅柿——或者你的西紅柿——他們有權忽略你的西紅柿，你沒有任何權利要求他們改變主意。
在思想市場中，每個賣家都有責任向公眾展示自己的想法，希望人們會想要“購買”它們，也就是說，認真對待它們並參與它們。沒有人有義務購買他們認為劣質的任何產品，在自由社會的實際市場中，任何嘗試強迫他們購買他們不想購買的產品都是對他們權利的公然侵犯。同樣，沒有人有義務傾聽、參與、推廣或對思想市場中的任何想法感興趣，嘗試以其他方式強迫他們違反他們的權利。此外，人們可以出于任何原因拒絕興趣，其中包括賣家任何不良行為，無論產品質量如何。
這就是思想市場的工作方式，它工作得很好。如果人們拒絕從你的攤位購買，你沒有必要抱怨你的攤位被關閉。你的攤位仍然開放，但你有責任通過使你的論證強大、證據充足、觀點清晰、想法吸引人以及銷售演說禮貌來改善你的產品。這樣，即使某人真正出于壞動機而避免你的合理而深刻的批評，其他人仍然會聽到它，你的想法最終會在市場中勝過他們的想法。
結論
The Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard is often leveled in terms of freedom of speech accompanied by gleeful (and reckless) accusations of hypocrisy. Not only is this a misunderstanding of the freedom part of freedom of speech and the marketplace part of the marketplace of ideas, it is a form of entitlement which can even lead to harassment and bullying. It is an attempt to insist that someone who isn’t interested in you or your ideas is somehow failing to uphold critical liberal, intellectual, or academic virtues and then, often, using that against them. This can create a vicious spiral in which the entitled and insulting behavior of someone demanding to be heard will encourage the other person to ignore them even more leading to the former becoming yet more intrusive and defamatory. A better approach for advocates of freedom of speech is to speak when you have something to say, listen when there’s something you want to hear, stay silent when it’s better you don’t speak, and be selective about what ideas and individuals you listen to in a way that upholds your belief in the productivity of viewpoint diversity. Allow people who want to talk and listen to each other do so and you will uphold the principle of freedom of speech. Don’t think you can force anyone to talk or listen to you.
要求被聽到的謬論通常以言論自由為名，並伴隨著興奮（原文gleeful）（和鲁莽）的虛偽指控。這不僅誤解了言論自由和思想市場的部分內容，還是一種可能導致騷擾和欺凌的權利意識。這是一種試圖堅持認為，某人對你或你的想法不感興趣，某种方式未能堅持批判性自由、知識或學術美德，然後用這點對付他們。這可能導致惡性的螺旋形勢，其中要求被聽到的人由於前者的侵入性和誹謗行為而更加忽略他們。對言論自由的更好方法是，當你有話要說時說話，當你想聽時聽，當你最好保持沉默時保持沉默，並以一種支持觀點多樣性生產力原則的方式選擇你聽取的想法和個人。讓那些想說話和聽話的人相互交流，你將堅持言論自由的原則。不要認為你可以強迫任何人與你交談或傾聽你。