The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

大眾對巴黎喋血事件的反應, 是很多人很快地聯結那些惹惱法國的伊斯蘭恐怖份子的人, 與被惹惱的人是開不起玩笑的

We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

這樣講好了, 當你十三歲時, 你叛逆挑釁, 敢指著權威人士挑戰他們, 嘲諷他們的宗教信仰

But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

但一段時間後, 就顯得蠻幼稚的. 大部份的我們會移向較多元複雜的觀點, 對他人的觀點也多能包容原諒...(諷刺就變得越來越不好玩, 當你變得對自己經常性的冷嘲熱諷更有自知時). 大部份的人會試著表露一點點的尊重, 無論對怎樣的觀點或信仰. 我們都試圖打開對話, 帶著傾聽的意圖, 而非攻擊或侮辱的念頭.

Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

不過, 同時, 大部份的人知道, 挑動事情者與一些奇怪的人物仍有他們的公共角色. 嘲諷作家這類的人物, 曝露出我們的缺點與浮華. 當我們自覺很驕傲時. 吹捧自我的成功. 以全能的低劣分出社會高低上下. 當這有效時, 能幫助我們看清這社會的弱點. 畢竟笑聲仍是促成人與人聯結的潤滑劑.

Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

更進一步地是, 挑動者與嘲諷者會曝露出基本教義派的愚蠢. 基本教義派是指那些把每一件事都當真的人. 他們無法同時持有多種角度觀點. 他們無法看出他們的信仰可能有需要被檢視之處. 很多宗教其實都有點怪. 嘲諷者將那些那些無法嘲笑自己的人曝露在陽光下, 也教導其他的人或許有時自我解嘲是不錯的事

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

如果你想拉開那個處於法律, 講話符號的微妙平衡, 而禁止講話的人, 你將會被他們批評到體無完膚. 壓制言論, 試著設置言論文明, 或排擠講話的人幾乎總是錯的,



Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

幸好, 社會禮儀比法律或講話規則來得柔性. 大部份的社會能成功保有文明與尊重的標準, 也能廣開門戶給那些比較具攻擊性, 講話總帶著好笑, 不文明與激化的方式的人

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

大多數的社會, 有大人桌與小孩桌. 那些看Le Monde媒體的人坐大人桌. 像ann coulter, Bill Maher則坐小孩桌. 他們的話比較無法穫得全然的尊重, 但他們的話被聽到, 他們像是亂無導航方向的核彈說話方式, 不過他們有時也說些必要的話, 是其他人看到而沒講出來的

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

也就是, 健康的社會, 不壓制言論, 但他們同意來自不同類的人的不同觀點. 有智慧考慮周到的學者, 他們的言論, 以高度尊重的方式被聽到. 嘲諷者以半被尊重的方式被聽到. 種族主義的話也有被聽到, 但透過不太被尊重的方式. 人們如果希望自己的話被注意地聽到必需從他們的行為來贏得尊重.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.