Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A779-W497
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A779-W497
Release
Date: September 22, 2013
发布日：2013年9月22日
Topic:
The Boundaries of Free Speech in China -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：言论自由的界限 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
Note:
Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese
parts of this release. If this
mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request
for special delivery to us or visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2013/report2013-09/WeiJS130922FreeSpeechA779-W497.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Boundaries of Free Speech in China
--
Wei Jingsheng
Recently,
in response to the call by the Communist leader Xi Jinping, the Chinese
government launched an Internet clean-up campaign. It has just begun, yet its scale is almost the same as the
Cultural Revolution. However, even
at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, there were no cases when the
police grabbed people and put them in jail. At that time, what they did was to use the guise of
sophistry to cover up their unreasonableness, and then gradually developed into
being fully unreasonable. It was
so shy to be unreasonable then, so they had to use the excuse of "people
seize the bad guys and turn them in" to be lawless. It was not like now, where they break
the law in the open.
Xi
Jinping's action of turning the clock back has received sudden attention not
just within China, but even the world.
Various foreign media have given him bad reviews, even including some
media that are pretty pro-Communist.
Why is this? Probably it
could be described by the old Chinese proverb: "When the rabbits get
killed, even the foxes are sad and scared." Besides a few hawks working for the Communist regime, the
people who work in the media industry and others active in the media, have an
instinctive antipathy against incrimination due to speech.
Why
this instinctive antipathy? We can
put ourselves in their shoes as media persons or writers. When they cannot write articles or make
comments on the Internet freely, when they have to examine their own words
carefully and make sure their writings will not offend someone, even to result
in jail time, would not they feel awkward? Would not they feel disgusted? How could people to write about truth? How could they write good articles?
So
these writers will instinctively dislike censorship, while these officials do
it. This newly relaunched
censorship movement by Xi Jinping is the strengthening of the Communist
autocracy in China. This is also
the instinct of all authoritarian rulers, and is not just limited to a cultural
tyranny movement.
Looking
back in history, we will find that not only the notorious dictators such as Mao
Zedong and Adolf Hitler, but even bullies of small potatoes will find some
grounds that look quite reasonable when they do evil. This time the cultural tyranny movement began with a
cleansing of the Internet, even though the reasons seem to be reasonable. Since ancient times for thousands of
years now, starting rumors have been the most sinister means, but also an evil
act that the people hate most.
However,
a lot of people in this world are afraid of this "however". However, is this cleansing of Internet
rumors by the Communist regime really safeguarding the public interest? When we look at it closely, it just
does not look so. To talk about
"rumors", we know that the Communist Party itself has been making
them for decades, without worrying that it could make the sky fall. Why doesn't the regime start its
cleansing with these biggest and most evil rumors first, rather than charge
some middle school students as guilty?
To
be more arrogant than Mao Zedong then, now the Communist regime also made
"spreading the rumors" into a crime. The people who spread stories would think these
"rumors" to be real, and do so just out of curiosity. An Old Chinese saying goes as:
"For those who do not know, it is not a crime." However, now, even these who do not
know become criminals. Which kind
of logic is this? This suppression
of speech is much more severe than the scale of the Cultural Revolution era,
and could be compared with the way of incriminated people of rumors by King
Zhou You more than two thousand years ago.
In
all the societies of ancient and modern times there have been many laws and
institutions to guard against rumors in an effort to stop them. The challenge is how to define what is
rumor. The original meaning of the
word "rumor" in Chinese was the information and argument spread among
the folks. Some of this
information and argument could be accurate, while others might not be. Some could be justified, while other
might be baseless. Some could be
harmful to the people, while others are trivial. If all the "rumors" could be used to punish, then
people have to seal their mouths with tape.
Many
countries already have a lot of relevant laws, such as the laws regarding
reputation infringement, invasion of privacy, and so on that are clearly
defined to protect people's rights.
And in accordance with the practice in most countries, government
officials and celebrities get relatively low degrees of protection. This is because they are too close to
the powerful and are the least likely to be violated, rather than the average
person who is more likely to be easily violated.
I
remember one time that a group of reporters surrounded Dr. Henry Kissinger and
me while we had conversations in a public place. While he was expelling these reporters, Dr. Kissinger said:
"We are just ordinary people and this is a private conversation. If you do not leave, I will sue
you." There was also a
similar event during a conversation between President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan
and me. These left me deep impressions
about the officials' protection.
However,
the Internet rumor cleanup movement by Xi Jinping does not have the intention
of protecting the people from the very beginning. Further, the Communist media clearly stated that the target
of this movement is to punish any rumors against the government and
officials. And the use of the
charges was not for clearly defined offenses, but the vague concept of
"rumors". By now we
should also understand that this is an ulterior motive.
It
was not for the protection of people's human rights. This is unmistakably protecting officials' rights while violating
civil rights. The regime is
quietly swapping the concept to mislead people that it is protecting human
rights and to avoid the harm of malicious rumors. In fact it is clearly protecting the officials, and their
illegal rights to avoid their corruptions being exposed.
The
Communist Party proposed a ridiculous reason, saying that the Internet rumor is
like the big posters during the Cultural Revolution. That tune made these big posters to be false. This is really cheating the middle aged
and young generations of Chinese who did not experience the Cultural Revolution
and do not know the truth. The big
posters back then were just as the free speech now on the Internet - it was
impossible for all the writings with every word to tell the truth.
But
most of the posters at that time had indeed revealed corruption and lawlessness
of bureaucrats. This was also the
reason that Mao Zedong was able to overthrow the bureaucratic class
successfully by the big poster movement.
The bureaucratic class that was restored in the 1980's of course
extremely hated these posters.
That was because indeed the posters violated their lawless authoritarian
official rights, and indeed violated their "privacy" of lawlessness
and suppression against the average people. They did not yet have the guts to say that the
whistleblowers from these posters were all false.
This
generation of Xi Jinping does indeed have more guts and more shamelessness than
their parents. They dare to assume
that the posters from the Cultural Revolution were all false, all rumors. Then they used this assumption as a
basis to alluding online speech as rumors and lies against the government and
officials. This purpose of
protecting the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is too obvious. The posture of protecting one-party
dictatorship, instead of protecting the human rights of the people is too
clever. Their approach of
deceiving first and then substitution could be rated as perfection.
When
Xi Jinping just took power, he hypocritically said that he would lock the power
into a cage. I guess it was the
reporters made it wrong: what he meant was to lock people's basic rights into a
cage. Only this way, the Communist
bureaucratic bourgeoisie is protected.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's related commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2013/WeiJS130920FreeSpeech.mp3
(Written
and recorded on September 20, 2013.
Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This
is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The
Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are
dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help
in any means. We pledge solidarity
to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this
planet.
You
are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website
at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although
we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your
contribution as well. You may send
your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files,
not in attachments.
For
website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web
master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org
To
find out more about us, please also visit our websites at: www.WeiJingSheng.org
and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org for news and information for Overseas Chinese
Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole,
especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.
You
may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-270-6980
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
You
are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in
learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply
reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process
your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A779-W497
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A779-W497
Release
Date: September 22, 2013
发布日：2013年9月22日
Topic:
The Boundaries of Free Speech in China -- Wei Jingsheng
标题：言论自由的界限 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2013/report2013-09/WeiJS130922FreeSpeechA779-W497.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
言论自由的界限
-- 魏京生
最近中共在习近平的号召下，发动了一场清理网络的运动。才刚刚开始，动静就和文革时期差不多了。即使文革刚开始的时候，也没有动用警察把人抓进监狱，而是在讲理的表面掩盖下强词夺理；逐步发展到不讲理；甚至还羞羞答答的以群众扭送为理由无法无天。那时也不敢像现在这样，公然违法乱纪。
习近平的开历史倒车，一下子就轰动了不仅是全国，而且轰动了全世界。各国媒体都有恶评，甚至一些相当亲共的媒体也没有什么好评。为什么这样？可能是兔死狐悲吧。除了少数的朝廷鹰犬之外，从事媒体行业的人和在媒体上活跃的人，对于因言入罪都会有一种本能的反感。
为什么会是本能的反感呢？大家可以设身处地地为媒体人，或者说码字儿的人们想象一下。你在写文章的时候，或者在网络上汪洋恣肆地评论任何事情的时候，时不时的要回过头来看看哪些文字会得罪了谁，弄不好还得进监狱。你别扭不别扭呢？恶心不恶心呢？这让人还怎么能写出心里话？怎么能写出好文章呢？
所以，码字的人都会本能地反感审查制度，而当官的人都会喜欢审查制度。习近平重新掀起文字狱制度的运动，就是共产党专制体制的强化。这也是所有专制统治者的本能，而不仅仅是文化专制运动。
回头看看历史就会发现，不仅是毛泽东、希特勒这些大独裁者，就是小的溜的恶霸们在作恶的时候，都会找些看上去挺合理的理由。这次文化专制运动从网络清理运动开始，而清理网络的理由听上去确实还有些道理。造谣是自古以来几千年最阴损的手段之一，也是人们深恶痛绝的恶行之一，就像过街老鼠一样人人喊打。
但是，这个世界上的很多事情就怕但是。但是中共治理网络谣言真的是维护大众的利益吗？怎么看，怎么都不像。要说谣言，中共自己几十年如一日，任凭风吹雨打都不怕地造谣。怎么不说从这些最大最恶的谣言开始清理，反倒是把些个中学生入了罪呢？
比毛泽东还牛气的是，居然把传播谣言也入了罪。传播者往往只是看着像真的，出于好奇而已。古语云不知者不为罪，如今成了不知者也有罪。这是什么逻辑？这比文革时钳制言论的尺度要严厉得多，和两千多年前以谣言诽谤入罪的周幽王有得一拼。
古今中外的所有社会都想制止谣言，也制订出了很多的法律和制度来防范谣言。难就难在如何界定什么是谣言。谣言的本来含义是民间传播的信息和说法。有些准确，有些不准确；有些有根据，有些没根据；有些损人，有些无关紧要。如果统统都拿来治罪，所有人都只好嘴巴上贴封条了。
各国早就有很多相关的法律，如侵犯名誉权、侵犯隐私权等等界定明确的法律，来保护人们的权利。而且按照大多数国家的惯例，对官员和名人的保护程度相对较低。这是因为他们离权势太近，最不容易被侵犯；而不像老百姓那样容易被侵犯。
记得有一次我和基辛格博士在公众场合谈话，被一群记者围堵。基辛格博士在驱赶记者的时候说：我们现在都是普通老百姓，这是私人谈话，如果你们不离开我可以去法庭告你们。陈水扁当总统之前我们有一次谈话也发生了类似的场面。我对官员不受保护有了深刻的印象。
可是习近平的清理网络谣言运动，从一开始就没发现有保护老百姓的意思。甚至共产党的媒体明确说是要惩罚针对政府和官员的谣言。而且使用的罪名不是界定明确的罪名，而是概念模糊的谣言这个名词。看到这儿我们大家也应该明白，这是醉翁之意不在酒。
这哪里是在保护老百姓的人权。这是在明白无误地保护官权，侵犯民权。用偷换概念的手法让老百姓相信是在保护人权，免受恶意谣言的侵害。实际上则是在赤裸裸地保护官权，保护贪官污吏免受揭发的非法权利。
他们提出来一个很可笑的理由，说是网络谣言就像文革时的大字报，那口气好像文革时的大字报说的全是假的。这是欺负中青年一代人没经过文革不了解真相。大字报就像现在的网络言论一样自由，其中不可能全都是真相，全都字字是真理。
但是大多数大字报确实揭露了当时就已经贪污腐化、违法乱纪的官僚们。这也是毛泽东能够成功地借助大字报运动打倒官僚阶级的原因。八十年代复辟的官僚阶级当然极端痛恨大字报，这确实侵犯了他们无法无天的专制的官权，也确实妨碍了他们违法乱纪、欺压良善的隐私。但他们还没胆量说大字报的揭发全是假的。
习近平这一代人确实比他们的父辈更有胆量，更无耻。他们居然敢假设文革时期的大字报全是假的，全是谣言。然后以此为根据影射网络言论也是谣言，是针对政府和官员的假话。这个保护官僚资产阶级的目的不是太明显了嘛。这个保护一党专政，而不是保护老百姓人权的身段不是太巧妙了嘛。他们瞒天过海，然后再偷梁换柱的手法可以说是炉火纯青了。
习近平刚上台时假惺惺地说什么把权力关进笼子里。其实是记者听错了一个字；是把老百姓的基本权利关进笼子里。这样才能保障他们官僚资产阶级的江山。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2013/WeiJS130920FreeSpeech.mp3
（撰写并录音于2013年9月20日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱： HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话： 1-202-270-6980
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。