冰點
國內一連串的傳媒整肅行動,加上Google 和Microsoft等助紂為虐,令中國媒體言論空間又一次大幅收窄。本來一直相信,互聯網的高度流通能力,將會令中國政府大為頭痛,並且會令中國一般民眾向資訊自由走近一步的,但...
無奈。只好轉貼相關報導,算是沒有糟蹋了香港人所擁有的資訊自由。第二篇轉貼的文章,是由我最喜歡的(在世)哲學家Peter Singer所撰寫的。
【明報專訊】27-1-06
《中國青年報》旗下每周特刊《冰點》因發表中山大學教授袁偉時批評內地歷史教科書的文章而遭勒令停刊事件進一步升級。周刊主編李大同昨日在互聯網刊文公開抗議,指當局的封殺行為不僅違反憲法,同時嚴重踐踏中共的黨章準則;是「上面少數人背後操縱,共青團中央前台扮演丑角」、「將社會公器視為個人家產」的滑稽劇。公開信還歷數中宣部近年對冰點的種種迫害行為,斥中宣部「除了文革式詈罵和扣帽子、打棍子,還有什麼﹖﹗」李大同還表示,他將上訴中紀委,控告中宣部的非法行為。
位於風口浪尖中的李大同昨日下午回應本報查詢時戲稱,「我剛起牀。不在其位,不謀其政,美美地睡了一覺。到現在為止,沒人找我談話。」被問到如此高調與當局抗爭,有否擔心會受中共黨政紀律處分時,他朗聲說道:「我就不信他們(中宣部)敢肆無忌憚。我不信,也不怕這個」;「我們很多人(遇到這種情況時),都是自己嚇自己,其實他們(中宣部)沒那麼了不起。」
中宣部下令保持距離
李大同在這封3000字公開信中表示,《冰點》自刊登袁偉時教授的文章——《現代化與歷史教科書》後不久,即受到中宣部「文革式上綱上線」的蠻橫指摘,「我已估計撤銷我職務的時刻來到了」。周二(24日)下午,他接到全國各間傳媒朋友來電查詢「周刊被停」一事,並告知中宣部、國新辦等已下令傳媒「禁止炒作」、要與冰點周刊「保持距離」等,他成為「最後一個知道事件的人」。
他表示,「這是一個黨內高層某些人甘冒天下之大不韙,蓄謀已久、精心策劃的行動。不僅沒有任何憲法法律依據,也嚴重違反、踐踏了黨章與黨內政治生活準則」﹔「在作出這個決定的人那裏,社會影響算什麼﹖讀者算什麼﹖大報聲譽算什麼﹖中國改革開放形象算什麼﹖」「這是上面少數人在背後操縱,團中央在前台扮演丑角的滑稽劇」﹔他們「將社會公器視為個人的家產,隨意處置」﹔「我將向黨中央紀律檢查委員會控告這次非法行為」。
刊文悼念胡耀邦亦遭指摘
公開信還歷數中宣部近年對冰點周刊的種種迫害行為。去年6月1日刊登《平型關戰役與平型關大捷》,被蠻橫批評「美化國民黨,貶低共產黨」﹔刊出台灣女作家龍應台《你可能不知道的台灣》,又被指摘「處處針對共產黨」﹔刊登前中共高層胡啟立《我心中的耀邦》,被指摘「違反沒有自選動作」規定(即只能跟隨新華社,不能自行報道)﹔披露武漢大學教授周葉中抄襲,被指「有嚴重輿論導向問題」並下令撤版,因為這名教授曾獲中宣部「推薦」,到中南海為中共政治局成員上過課。
公開信指,「中宣部除了文革式的詈罵和扣帽子、打棍子,還有什麼﹖﹗」、「事件再次集中暴露出我國新聞管理體制的根本性弊端,就是中宣部少數人以其狹隘的眼界、逼仄的心胸、專制蠻橫的工作方法」,令中國輿論出現「萬馬齊喑、死氣沉沉」﹔「儘管中宣部某些人動用權力,封鎖媒介和網絡,但我們相信,人們有知道真相的權力﹗」Doing Beijing's dirty work
by PETER SINGER (Saturday, January 21, 2006, SCMP)
Earlier this month it was reported that, at the request of China's rulers, Microsoft shut down the website of a mainland blogger that had been maintainedon a Microsoft service called MSN Spaces. The blogger,Zhao Jing , had been reporting on a strike by journalists at the Beijing News following thedismissal of the newspaper's independent-minded editor.
Microsoft's action raises a key question: can the internet really be a force for freedom that repressive governments cannot control as easily as newspapers, radio and television? Ironically, Microsoft's founder and chairman, Bill Gates, has been an enthusiastic advocate of this view. In October he said: "There's really no way to, in a broad sense, repress information today, and I think that's a wonderful advance we can all feel good about ... This is a medium of total openness and total freedom, and that's what makes it so special."
Despite these sentiments, Microsoft is helping Beijing authorities repress information as best they can. A Microsoft spokeswoman was reported as saying that the corporation has blocked "many sites" in China. It has been known for several months that Microsoft's blogtool on the mainland filters words such as "democracy"and "human rights" from blog titles.
Microsoft's defence is that it must comply with local and global laws. But the MSN Spaces sites are maintained on servers in the United States. The relevant local laws would therefore seem to be those of the US, and Mr Zhao's discussion of the Beijing journalists' strike does not violate any of them.
Nor are there any global laws that prevent mainlanders from discussing events that their government would prefer them not to discuss. If Beijing does not want its citizens to read a foreign newspaper, then it isup to them to figure out how to block access to it.The newspaper is under no obligation to do it forthem.
So Microsoft's defence misfires, and we can only guess at the company's real reason for taking down thewebsite. Fear of commercial repercussions is likely to be an important factor.
To be sure, a corporation can and should place limitson the use of its services. The absolutist line - let complete freedom of expression prevail - crumbles in the face of uncomfortable examples. According to MrGates, Microsoft might prevent the use of its servicesto spread instructions about making nuclear bombs, tosend pro-Nazi statements into Germany - where suchmaterial is illegal - and to propagate childpornography.
But how relevant are such examples? In his classicdefence of freedom of expression, On Liberty, JohnStuart Mill argued that the most important reason forfreedom of expression is to promote competitionbetween the widest possible range of ideas: unfettereddebate is the best way to test them. If we agree with Mill, then only one of Mr Gates'examples falls into the category of expression thatshould be protected. Recipes for making nuclear bombsare techniques, not ideas. Nor is child pornographythe expression of ideas. We may therefore restrictboth of them without running afoul of Mill's argument.
The most difficult of Mr Gates' three examples is thatof pro-Nazi statements on a website aimed at Germany.It is easy to understand why Germany would wish toprohibit such statements. But the best possible signthat Germany has overcome its Nazi past would be tofocus its laws specifically on incitement to racialhatred, rather than on Nazism.
In any case, Beijing's crackdown on straightforward reporting and discussion of events is not the suppression of a discredited political ideology, but of open and informed political debate. If Mr Gates really believes that the internet should be a liberating force, he should ensure that Microsoft does not do Beijing's dirty work.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
也可看思存的相關文章:http://www.seechuen.com/blog/?postid=320


