What if you own a hotel, and one of the key principles in your mission statement is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally,
假设你拥有一家饭店，你们的企业宗旨之一是平等对待所有员工、顾客，
including on the basis of gender and religion?
不论其性别、宗教。
And then a large group books an event at your space, and when you look at the booking, you realize it's a religious group,
有天，一个大型团体在饭店订了场地，你查看订单时才发现这是个宗教团体，
and one of their key principles is that women should never leave the home and should have no opportunities for professional development outside of it.
而他们的主要教条中说：“女人绝不可离开家，也不应谋求家庭以外的职业发展。”
What do you do? Do you host the event and get criticized by some, or refuse and get criticized by others?
你会怎么办？冒着被某些人批评的风险，让活动举行，还是拒之于门外，被另一群人骂？
In my work, I counsel organizations on how to create rules to navigate ideological disagreement and controversial speech,
我的工作就是辅导组织制定规则，以便在意识型态冲突或出现争议性言论的情况下找到适当的处理方式。
and I defend my clients, whether in court or from the government, when their actions are challenged.
当我的客户面临挑战，不管是诉讼案件或政府制裁，我都会为他们辩护。
The structures I recommend recognize the real harms that can come from certain types of speech,
我所推荐的架构能够辨认何种言论会带来何种伤害，
but at the same time, seek to promote dialogue rather than shut it down.
但同时也促进沟通而非关闭对话。
The reason is that we need disagreement. Creativity and human progress depend on it.
原因在于我们需要不同看法，创意和人类的进步由此而生。
While it may be often easier to speak with someone who agrees with everything you say,
虽然跟事事顺着我们的人讲话通常比较容易，
it's more enlightening and oftentimes more satisfying to speak with someone who doesn't.
但与不同意见的人谈话却往往更具启发性、也更让人满足。
But disagreement and discord can have real and meaningful costs.
可是，意见不合与分歧也可能会让我们付出实质的代价。
Disagreement, particularly in the form of hateful speech, can lead to deep and lasting wounds and sometimes result in violence.
尤其在争论时使用仇恨的恶意言论，可能造成深刻且恒久的伤害，有时还会引发暴力。
And in a world in which polarization and innovation are increasing at seemingly exponential rates,
在两极化现象与改革行动不断翻倍成长的现今社会中，
the need to create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement have never been more important.
提出架构以应对强烈但非暴力的歧见，其重要性已提升到前所未有的程度。
The US Constitution's First Amendment might seem like a good place to start to go to look for answers.
想找答案，从美国宪法第一修正案下手看似可行。
You, like I, may have often heard somebody say that some form of a speech restriction,
或许你跟我一样，曾听别人说过某些型式的言论限制，
whether from an employer, a website, or even somebody else, "violates" the First Amendment.
不管限制是来自雇主、网站或某人，都违反了第一修正案。
But in fact, the First Amendment usually has little if any relevance at all.
其实，第一修正案几乎与此没有关联。
The First Amendment only applies when the government is seeking to suppress the speech of its citizens.
第一修正案仅适用于政府试图箝制人民的言论时。
As a result, the First Amendment is by design a blunt instrument.
即，第一修正案的设计不是为了广泛的应用。
A narrow category of speech can be banned based on its content. Almost everything else cannot.
依照其规范，只有一小部分的言论可被禁止，其他的几乎都不行。
But the First Amendment has no relevance when what we're talking about is a private entity regulating speech.
但如果我们谈的是民间团体对于言论的规范，则与第一修正案毫无关联。
And that's a good thing, because it means private entities have at their disposal a broad and flexible set of tools that don't prohibit speech,
这其实是件好事，因为这表示民间团体有一套可灵活运用的工具，可在不限制言论的前提下，
but do make speakers aware of the consequences of their words.
让讲者意识到其言论可能造成的后果。
Here are some examples. When you go to university, it's a time for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas.
这里有几个例子。大学是一段可以不受限制地自由交换想法的时光。
But some ideas and the words used to express them can cause discord,
但有些想法和表达的言词可能会导致不合，
whether it's an intentionally inflammatory event hosted by a student group or the exploration of a controversial issue in class.
可能是学生团体故意举办的具煽动性的活动，或者是在课堂中探讨争议话题。
In order to protect both intellectual freedom and their most vulnerable students,
为了保护学术自由，也为了保护容易受到伤害的学生，
some universities have formed teams that bring speaker and listener together, free from the possibility of any sanction, to hear each other's viewpoints.
有些大学会召集讲者与听者组成不受制裁的小组，以便让双方自由表达见解。
Sometimes students don't want to meet, and that's fine.
有的时候学生不想出席，那也没关系。
But in other circumstances, mediated exposure to an opposing view
但在某些情况下，在这种有中间人调解的场合中听取反方意见，
can result in acknowledgment, recognition of unintended consequences and a broadening of perspectives.
反而可能会达成相互了解、认同相反意见和扩大视角的结果。
Here's an example. On a college campus, a group of students supporting the Israelis and those supporting the Palestinians
我举个例子。校园中有一群支持以色列的学生团体，也有一群支持巴勒斯坦的团体，
were constantly reporting each other for disrupting events, tearing down posters and engaging in verbal confrontations.
他们常常检举对方干扰活动、撕毁海报、发动言词冲突等。
Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting did not violate the university's disciplinary code,
在确认双方皆未违反校规的情况下，
the university invited both groups to sit down in a so-called "restorative circle,"
校方邀请双方一同参加所谓“修复圈圈”的活动，
where they could hear each other's viewpoints, free from the possibility of sanction.
在这里，他们可以听到彼此的声音，也不会受任何处罚。
After the meeting, the ideological disagreements between the groups remained as stark as ever, but the rancor between them significantly dissipated.
会面结束后，双方意识型态的歧见仍然严重，但对彼此的积怨却大幅下降。
Now, obviously, this doesn't always happen.
显然，并不是每次都会这么顺利。
But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system,
但学生对言论的反应不再以校规来惩戒后，
institutions of higher education have created a space for productive disagreement and a broadening of perspectives.
高等教育机构得以创造出一个让歧见有建设性、让视野更开阔的空间。
We're all biased. I don't mean that in a bad way.
我们都带有偏见，这不见得是坏事。
All of us are influenced, and rightly so, by our family background, our education, our lived experience and a million other things.
于情于理，我们都会被影响，被家庭背景、教育、生活经验和其他成千上万的事影响。
Organizations, too, have influences, most importantly, the beliefs of their members,
各种组织也同样有影响力，尤其是成员的信仰，
but also the laws under which they're governed or the marketplace in which they compete.
以及管辖他们的律法或他们所厮杀的市场。
These influences can form a critical part of a corporate identity, and they can be vital for attracting and retaining talent.
这些影响力都会成为公司形象关键的一部分，对于吸引及留住人才也都至关重要。
But these "biases," as I'm calling them, can also be a challenge,
但这些我所谓的“偏见”也可以是一种挑战，
particularly when what we're talking about is drawing lines for allowing some speech and not allowing others.
尤其当我们要画一条线区隔允许甚么言论和限制甚么言论的时候。

The temptation to find speech harmful or disruptive simply because we disagree with it is real.
我们会不自主地将不同意的言论视为有害。
But equally real is the harm that can come from certain types of expression.
但特定表述方式真的会带来伤害。
In this situation, third parties can help. Remember the hotel, trying to decide whether or not to allow the religious group to host its event?
在这种情况下，第三方就可以帮上忙。还记得旅馆是否要让宗教团体办活动的例子吗？
Rather than having to make a complex, on-the-spot decision about that group's identity and message,
与其直接针对团体的性质和言论做出复杂的决定，
the hotel could instead rely on a third party, say, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center,
旅馆大可仰赖第三方，比如：南方贫困法律中心，
which has a list of hate groups in the United States, or indeed even its own outside group of experts brought together from diverse backgrounds.
他们有全美仇恨组织的名单，甚至也有自己的外部专家团，各路专家各有专精。
By relying on third parties to draw lines outside the context of a particular event,
正因为是仰赖非活动相关的第三方来画界线，
organizations can make content decisions without being accused of acting in self-interest or bias.
组织得以做出对言论内容的决策，而无须背负“自利”或“偏见”骂名。
The line between facts and opinions is a hazy one.
事实与看法两者的分界线其实很模糊。
The internet provides the opportunity to publish almost any position on any topic under the sun.
网络让所有议题的各种立场都得以摊在阳光下。
And in some ways, that's a good thing. It allows for the expression of minority viewpoints and for holding those in power accountable.
在某些层面来说，这是好事，它让少数人得以发声、也让掌权者为自己负责。
But the ability to self-publish freely means that unverified or even flat-out false statements
但每个人都能够自由、公开地发表，也代表了未经证实或摆明是虚假的言论
can quickly gain circulation and currency, and that is very dangerous.
能快速流窜并获得声量，这是一件非常危险的事。
The decision to take down a post or ban a user is a tough one.
撤除贴文或封锁使用者的决定并不容易。
It certainly can be appropriate at times, but there are other tools available as well to foster productive and yet responsible debate.
有时候这的确是应当的处置，但还是有其他可行的方法来促进有建设性且负责任的辩论。
Twitter has recently started labeling tweets as misleading, deceptive or containing unverified information.
推特最近开始为推文加上标签，例如：误导、造假或含有未经证实信息等。
Rather than block access to those tweets, Twitter instead links to a source that contains more information about the claims made.
比起直接让人无法读取推文，推特选择附上连结，引导至更多与该主张相关的信息。
A good and timely example is its coronavirus page, which has up-to-the-minute information about the spread of the virus and what to do if you contract it.
一个很切时的例子便是新冠肺炎的页面，该页面有最实时的病毒传播消息和感染后应该怎么做的信息。
To me, this approach makes a ton of sense. Rather than shutting down dialogue, this brings more ideas, facts and context to the forum.
对我来说，这个方法很有道理。比起彻底关掉对话管道，这么做可以为论坛带进更多想法、事实与内容。
And, if you know that your assertions are going to be held up against more authoritative sources,
而且如果你知道你的说法有可能会被拿来与具有权威的言论做比较，
it may create incentives for more responsible speech in the first place.
你就可能会在一开始就更加审慎地发言。
Let me end with a hard truth: the structures I've described can foster productive debate while isolating truly harmful speech.
让我以一个残酷的真相作结吧：我前述所形容的架构能促进有建设性的辩论，同时隔离本质有害的言论。
But inevitably, some speech is going to fall in a grey area, perhaps deeply offensive but also with the potential to contribute to public debate.
但无可避免地，还是有一些言论会落入灰色地带，可能是一些极为冒犯，却仍然可能对大众辩论有所贡献的言论。
In this situation, I think as a general matter, the tie should go to allowing more rather than less speech.
在这种情况下，我认为一般来说还是应该鼓励而非抑制言论。
Here's why. For one, there's always the risk that an innovative or creative idea gets squelched because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.
以下是我的理由。一、创新或有创意的想法总是比较可能被扼杀，因为人们对它不熟悉或觉得它危险。
Almost by definition, innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies about how things should be.
基本上从定义来看，“新想法”就是在挑战“事情应该要怎么样”的正统思维。
So if an idea seems offensive or dangerous, it could be because it is, or it might simply be because we're scared of change.
所以如果当一个想法看起来冒犯到人或很危险，有可能它的确如此，也有可能纯粹只是因为我们害怕改变。
But let me suggest that even if speech has little to no value at all, that deficiency should be shown through open debate rather than suppression.
但我建议，即使言论几乎没有价值，还是应该透过公开的辩论来显现其缺陷，而不是直接压制。
To be very clear: false speech can lead to devastating real-world harms,
我在这里要明确指出：错误言论可能会带来真实的惨痛伤害，
from the burning of women accused of being witches in Europe in the 15th century
从15世纪欧洲烧死被指控为女巫的女人，
to the lynching of African Americans in the American South, to the Rwandan Genocide.
到美国南方对非裔美国人动用私刑，甚或到卢旺达种族大屠杀。
The idea that the remedy for false speech is more speech isn't always true.
“对抗错误言论最好的方法就是更多言论”的观念并非永远正确。
But I do think more often than not, more speech can help.
但我着实认为更多的言论，十有八九能帮得上忙。
A famous story from First Amendment case law shows why.
宪法第一修正案有个著名的案例告诉我们为什么。
In 1977, a group of neo-Nazis wanted to stage a march through the leafy, peaceful suburb of Skokie, Illinois,
1977年，一群新纳粹主义者想举办游行，地点选在绿意盎然、平和的伊利诺伊州郊区：斯科基，
home to a significant number of Holocaust survivors.
那里住着许多大屠杀的生还者。
The City Council immediately passed ordinances trying to block the Nazis, and the Nazis sued.
该市议会迅速通过法规，试图阻止新纳粹主义者，新纳粹主义者还因此告上法院。
The case made it all the way up to the US Supreme Court and back down again.
案子一路打到美国最高法院，然后又被退回来。
The courts held that the neo-Nazis had the right to march, and that they could display their swastikas and give their salutes while doing so.
法院认为新纳粹有权游行，也可秀出他们的卍字饰，并行举手礼。
But when the day for the march came, and after all that litigation, just 20 neo-Nazis showed up in front of the Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois,
经过漫长的诉讼，当游行的那天真的到来，只有20名新纳粹主义者现身伊利诺伊州芝加哥联邦大楼，
and they were met by 2,000 counter-protesters responding to the Nazis' messages of hate with ones of inclusion.
而2000名反抗议民众以包容性的信息响应新纳粹的仇恨言论。
As the Chicago Tribune noted, the Nazi march sputtered to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes.
根据芝加哥论坛报指出，新纳粹的游行只勉强撑十分钟便草草结束。
The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and indeed around the world, shows this isn't always how these stories end.
但弗吉尼亚州的夏洛茨维尔和世界的许多地方却有不同的故事结局。
But to me, the Skokie story is a good one, one that shows that the fallacy and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech
在我看来，斯科基是一个很好的例子，它展示了应对谬误、道德沦丧的仇恨言论最好的办法不是压抑它，
can best be responded to not through suppression but through the righteous power of countervailing good and noble ideas. Thank you.
而是透过良善、伟大、正义的想法与之抗衡。谢谢。