What if you own a hotel,

如果你擁有一家酒店。

and one of the key principles in your mission statement

以及你的使命宣言中的一個關鍵原則。

is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally,

是對所有員工和客戶一視同仁的承諾。

including on the basis of gender and religion?

包括基於性別和宗教的歧視？

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

然後一大群人在你的空間裡訂了一個活動。

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

而當你看到預訂， 你意識到這是一個宗教團體。

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

他們的主要原則之一是婦女永遠不應離開家庭；

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

並應在其外沒有專業發展的機會。

What do you do?

你是做什麼的？

Do you host the event and get criticized by some,

你主持活動，會不會被一些人責備。

or refuse and get criticized by others?

還是拒絕，被別人責備？

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

在我的工作中，我為各組織提供諮詢，幫助它們制定規則。

to navigate ideological disagreement and controversial speech,

以駕馭意識形態的分歧和有爭議的言論。

and I defend my clients,

我為我的客戶辯護。

whether in court or from the government,

無論是在法庭上還是從政府那裡。

when their actions are challenged.

當他們的行動受到挑戰時。

The structures I recommend

我建議的結構

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

認識到某些類型的言論可能帶來的真正危害；

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

但與此同時，應設法促進對話，而不是關閉對話。

The reason is that we need disagreement.

原因是我們需要分歧。

Creativity and human progress

創造力和人類進步

depend on it.

依靠它。

While it may be often easier

雖然它可能往往更容易

to speak with someone who agrees with everything you say,

和一個同意你所說的一切的人說話。

it's more enlightening and oftentimes more satisfying

醍醐灌頂，妙趣橫生

to speak with someone who doesn't.

要和不的人說話。

But disagreement and discord can have real and meaningful costs.

但是，分歧和不和諧會帶來真實而有意義的代價。

Disagreement, particularly in the form of hateful speech,

不同意，特別是以仇恨言論的形式；

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

可能導致深刻而持久的創傷，有時還會導致暴力。

And in a world in which polarization and innovation are increasing

而在這個兩極分化和創新不斷加劇的世界裡

at seemingly exponential rates,

以看似指數級的速度。

the need to create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement

有必要為激烈而非暴力的分歧建立結構；

have never been more important.

從未如此重要。

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

美國憲法第一修正案似乎是一個很好的開始。

to go to look for answers.

去尋找答案。

You, like I, may have often heard somebody say

你和我一樣，可能經常聽到有人說

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

認為某種形式的言論限制，無論是來自僱主、網站。

or even somebody else,

甚至是別人。

"violates" the First Amendment.

"違反 "第一修正案。

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

但事實上，第一修正案通常根本沒有什麼關係。

The First Amendment only applies

第一修正案只適用於

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

當政府試圖壓制其公民的言論時。

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

是以，第一修正案在設計上是一個鈍器。

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

狹義的言論類別可以根據其內容而被禁止。

Almost everything else cannot.

幾乎所有其他的東西都不能。

But the First Amendment has no relevance

但第一修正案與此無關

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

當我們談論的是一個私人實體 監管言論。

And that's a good thing,

這是件好事

because it means private entities have at their disposal

因為這意味著私人實體可以自由支配

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

一套廣泛而靈活的、不禁止言論的工具；

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

但確實讓發言者意識到他們說話的後果。

Here are some examples.

下面是一些例子。

When you go to university,

當你上大學的時候。

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

這是一個自由和不受限制的思想交流的時間。

But some ideas and the words used to express them

但有些觀點和表達這些觀點的詞語

can cause discord,

會造成不和諧。

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

不管是學生團體舉辦的蓄意煽動性活動

or the exploration of a controversial issue in class.

或在課堂上探討一個有爭議的問題。

In order to protect both intellectual freedom

為了保護知識自由

and their most vulnerable students,

及其最脆弱的學生。

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

一些大學組建了團隊，將演講者和聽眾聚集在一起。

free from the possibility of any sanction,

不受任何制裁的可能性。

to hear each other's viewpoints.

來聽取對方的觀點。

Sometimes students don't want to meet,

有時學生不想見面。

and that's fine.

這很好。

But in other circumstances,

但在其他情況下。

mediated exposure to an opposing view can result in acknowledgment,

媒介性的對立觀點的接觸可以導致承認。

recognition of unintended consequences

承認意外後果

and a broadening of perspectives.

和拓寬視野。

Here's an example.

這裡有一個例子。

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

在一所大學的校園裡，一群支持以色列人的學生們

and those supporting the Palestinians

和支持巴勒斯坦人的人

were constantly reporting each other

互相舉報

for disrupting events, tearing down posters

破壞活動、撕毀海報的行為

and engaging in verbal confrontations.

並進行言語上的對抗。

Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting

認識到學生們所報告的大部分內容

did not violate the university's disciplinary code,

並沒有違反大學的紀律守則。

the university invited both groups to sit down

學校邀請兩組人坐下來

in a so-called "restorative circle,"

在所謂的 "恢復性循環 "中。

where they could hear each other's viewpoints,

在那裡他們可以聽到對方的觀點。

free from the possibility of sanction.

擺脫制裁的可能性。

After the meeting,

會後，

the ideological disagreements between the groups

思想上的分歧

remained as stark as ever,

依然是那樣的鮮明。

but the rancor between them significantly dissipated.

但他們之間的嫌隙明顯消散了。

Now, obviously, this doesn't always happen.

現在，很明顯，這並不總是發生。

But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system,

但通過將言論反應與懲戒制度分開。

institutions of higher education have created a space

高等教育機構已經創造了一個空間

for productive disagreement and a broadening of perspectives.

以促進富有成效的分歧和拓寬視野。

We're all biased.

我們都有偏見。

I don't mean that in a bad way.

我不是說不好的意思。

All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

我們所有人都會受到影響，而且是正確的影響。

by our family background, our education, our lived experience

我們的家庭背景，我們的教育，我們的生活經驗。

and a million other things.

和其他無數的事情。

Organizations, too, have influences,

組織，也有影響。

most importantly, the beliefs of their members,

最重要的是，其成員的信仰。

but also the laws under which they're governed

但同時也是法律的管轄範圍。

or the marketplace in which they compete.

或其競爭的市場。

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

這些影響可以形成企業形象的關鍵部分。

and they can be vital for attracting and retaining talent.

而且它們對吸引和留住人才至關重要。

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

但這些 "偏見"，我稱之為。

can also be a challenge,

也可以是一個挑戰。

particularly when what we're talking about

特別是當我們說到

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

是為允許一些言論而不允許另一些言論劃線。

The temptation to find speech harmful or disruptive

發現有害或破壞性言論的誘惑；

simply because we disagree with it

只因我們不同意

is real.

是真實的。

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

但同樣真實的是，某些類型的表達方式可能帶來的傷害。

In this situation, third parties can help.

在這種情況下，第三方可以提供幫助。

Remember the hotel,

記住酒店。

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

試圖決定是否允許宗教團體舉辦其活動？

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

而不是必須在現場做出複雜的決定。

about that group's identity and message,

關於該團體的身份和資訊。

the hotel could instead rely on a third party,

酒店可以轉而依靠第三方。

say, for example,

比如說，。

the Southern Poverty Law Center,

南方貧困法中心。

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

其中有一份美國仇恨團體的名單。

or indeed even its own outside group of experts

甚至是自己的外部專家組

brought together from diverse backgrounds.

來自不同背景的人聚集在一起；

By relying on third parties

依靠第三方

to draw lines outside the context of a particular event,

在特定事件的背景之外畫線。

organizations can make content decisions

組織可以做出內容決策

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

而不被指責為出於私利或偏見。

The line between facts and opinions is a hazy one.

事實與觀點之間的界限是朦朧的。

The internet provides the opportunity to publish almost any position

互聯網提供了發佈幾乎任何位置的機會。

on any topic under the sun.

陽光下的任何話題。

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

從某種程度上來說，這是件好事。

It allows for the expression of minority viewpoints

它允許少數人表達觀點；

and for holding those in power accountable.

並追究當權者的責任。

But the ability to self-publish freely

但能夠自由地自我出版

means that unverified or even flat-out false statements

意味著未經核實甚至是完全錯誤的陳述。

can quickly gain circulation and currency,

可以迅速獲得流通和貨幣。

and that is very dangerous.

這是很危險的。

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

刪除一個帖子或禁止一個用戶是一個艱難的決定。

It certainly can be appropriate at times,

當然有時候也可以適當的。

but there are other tools available as well

但也有其他工具可供選擇

to foster productive and yet responsible debate.

促進富有成效和負責任的辯論；

Twitter has recently started labeling tweets

Twitter最近開始給推文貼上標籤

as misleading, deceptive or containing unverified information.

誤導性、欺騙性或含有未經核實的資訊；

Rather than block access to those tweets,

而不是屏蔽對這些微博的訪問。

Twitter instead links to a source that contains more information

而Twitter則鏈接到一個包含更多資訊的源頭

about the claims made.

關於所提出的要求。

A good and timely example is its coronavirus page,

一個很好很及時的例子是其冠狀病毒頁面。

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

該網站有關於病毒傳播的最新資訊。

and what to do if you contract it.

以及如果你感染了它該怎麼辦。

To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

在我看來，這種做法很有意義。

Rather than shutting down dialogue,

而不是關閉對話。

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

這給論壇帶來了更多的想法、事實和背景。

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

而且，如果你知道你的論斷會被證實的話

against more authoritative sources,

對照更權威的來源。

it may create incentives

它可能會產生激勵作用

for more responsible speech in the first place.

以期在第一時間獲得更多負責任的言論。

Let me end with a hard truth:

最後讓我說一個殘酷的事實。

the structures I've described can foster productive debate

我所描述的結構可以促進富有成效的辯論。

while isolating truly harmful speech.

同時隔離真正有害的言論。

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

但不可避免的是，有些言論會陷入灰色地帶。

perhaps deeply offensive

惡語相向

but also with the potential to contribute to public debate.

但也有可能對公眾辯論作出貢獻。

In this situation,

在這種情況下。

I think as a general matter,

我認為作為一般的問題。

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

平局應歸於允許更多而不是更少的言論。

Here's why.

這就是為什麼。

For one, there's always the risk

首先，總是有風險

that an innovative or creative idea gets squelched

泯然眾人矣

because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

因為它看起來不熟悉或危險。

Almost by definition,

幾乎按定義。

innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies about how things should be.

創新的想法挑戰了關於事物應該如何發展的正統觀念。

So if an idea seems offensive or dangerous,

所以，如果一個想法看起來令人反感或危險。

it could be because it is,

可能是因為它是。

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

也可能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,

但是，讓我建議，即使言論根本沒有什麼價值。

that deficiency should be shown through open debate

應通過公開辯論來表明不足之處

rather than suppression.

而不是壓制。

To be very clear:

說得很清楚：

false speech can lead to devastating real-world harms,

虛假的言論會導致毀滅性的現實危害。

from the burning of women accused of being witches in Europe

焚燒被指控為女巫的歐洲婦女的事件

in the 15th century

元代

to the lynching of African Americans in the American South,

到美國南方對非洲裔美國人的私刑。

to the Rwandan Genocide.

盧旺達種族滅絕罪的責任。

The idea that the remedy for false speech is more speech

虛假言論的補救措施是多說幾句的想法。

isn't always true.

並不總是正確的。

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

但我覺得更多的時候，多說幾句也是有幫助的。

A famous story from First Amendment case law shows why.

第一修正案判例法中的一個著名故事說明了原因。

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

在1977年，一群新納粹分子想舉行一次遊行。

through the leafy, peaceful suburb of Skokie, Illinois,

穿過伊利諾伊州斯科基多葉、寧靜的郊區。

home to a significant number of Holocaust survivors.

眾多大屠殺倖存者的家園。

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

市議會立即通過條例，試圖阻止納粹。

and the Nazis sued.

和納粹起訴。

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

此案一直到美國最高法院。

and back down again.

再回落。

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

法院認為，新納粹分子有權遊行。

and that they could display their swastikas

他們可以展示他們的 "卐 "字標誌

and give their salutes while doing so.

並一邊行禮，一邊。

But when the day for the march came,

但當出征的日子到來時。

and after all that litigation,

而在所有的訴訟之後。

just 20 neo-Nazis showed up

只有20個新納粹分子出現

in front of the Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois,

在伊利諾伊州芝加哥的聯邦大廈前。

and they were met by 2,000 counter-protesters

他們遭到了2,000名反抗議者的襲擊。

responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

對納粹的仇恨資訊作出迴應

with ones of inclusion.

用包容的方式。

As the Chicago Tribune noted,

正如《芝加哥論壇報》所言。

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

納粹的行軍在10分鐘後就戛然而止了.

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

弗吉尼亞州夏洛茨維爾市乃至全世界的暴力事件。

shows this isn't always how these stories end.

說明這些故事並不總是這樣結束的。

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

但對我來說，斯科基的故事是一個好故事。

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

一個表明仇恨言論的謬誤和道德淪喪的人。

can best be responded to not through suppression

應對的最好方法不是打壓

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

但通過正義的力量反作用於善良和高尚的思想。

Thank you.

謝謝你了