柞里子：从翟天天案看美国的以言治罪

来源: 柞里子于 2010-05-21 11:10:18 [档案] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：次 (16519 bytes)

据说，来自中国西安、就读于美国Steven Institute of Tech的博士研究生翟天天因与教授口角时声称【大不了火烧校园】云云，被美国检方控以“恐怖分子”罪，现已锒铛入狱、在押候审。

强调一下“据说”。柞里子最近在网上发表的涉及美国的文字连续遭崇美之徒的攻击，被指为证据不足、出于想像等等。特此声明：下文所云，以“据说”这类为据，没有经过调查。但凡觉得“据说”云云证据不足、出于想像者，敬请止步，不必枉费功夫。

美国官方、舆论一向以言论与信仰自由的旗手自居。

无可否认，美国在这方面比很多国家做得更好。

不过，做得更好不等于无可指摘，也不等于达到了美国官方与舆论自以为达到了的水平。

比如，美国官方与舆论一向鼓吹言论与信仰自由是一种普世价值。然而，美国移民局的入境条例上却分明有过鼓吹与信仰国共产党主义者不得入境的规定。（说“有过”，因为据说现在文字没了，而原则依旧。）

美国公民是有权鼓吹与信仰共产主义的，共产党在美国是合法的政治组织。自己人行，外人不行。说明什么？说明美国政府其实并不视言论与信仰的自由具有普及全世界的价值。或者，从另一角度看，美国政府其实视外人为另类，不得享受美国公民能够享受的自由。

自从9·11事件以后，美国社会显然在言论与信仰自由的尺度上有所退缩、有所退步。2001年10月26日，小布什总统签署经国会两党绝大多数通过的UAS Patriot Act。自此以后，因言论而被扣上“恐怖分子”的罪名者，翟天天并非第一例，相信也不会是最后一例。

“恐怖分子”究竟如何定义？

从维基百科找到这么一段：

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state.).^[8][9] A less politically and emotionally charged, and more easily definable, term is violent non-state actor^[10] (though the semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists," while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists").^{[citation needed]}

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[11] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[12]

看完之后的感觉是：滑不溜湫，难以把握。一时激动，出言不慎，尤其是身为外人者，皆可遭爱国分子或小人罗织为“恐怖分子”，就像国人应当熟悉的“反革命分子”罪名一样。

翟天天一案的结果将如何？难以预测。

不过，无论结果如何，皆足以为戒。

为谁之戒？无人不可。

尤其适用于天真、老实、执着、愚昧地迷信美国的言论自由、信仰自由无国界、无限制、无所不容、无所不可的崇美派。