Negative Remarks are Hateful. The Internet Witch Hunt Should End

Negative Remarks are Hateful. The Internet Witch Hunt Should End
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2009

Taiwan has a diverse society, which often leads to social friction or even social confrontation. Whether such a society is benign or malignant depends upon our commitment to mutual respect and social harmony.

Over the past few days some of the media have milked the "Fan Lan Qing Incident" for all it is worth. The incident raises at least three issues. One is the deliberate incitement of "ethnic" antagonisms. Another is freedom of speech. Yet another is appropriate behavior for public servants. If these issues are conflated, right and wrong will be confused. These issues must be clarified, one at a time.

First of all, Kuo Kuan-ying used his real name when he published the article in the newspapers. He related his childhood experiences eating oyster omelets at the Yuan Huan. In a self-deprecating manner he said "Here we were, high-class mainlanders, not knowing how a local Taiwanese uncle wound up bringing us to Taipei ..." The phrase "high-class mainlanders" was promptly taken out of context and played up by the Green Camp for all it was worth. It was cited as damning evidence of mainlander prejudice against locals. Kuo Kuan-ying returned and apologized for the article and for the troubles it caused the Junior Chamber of Commerce. He maintained that he was using the term in a spirit of self-mockery, without malice, without any intention of demeaning locals.

Frankly, if one reads the entire article, one will find that aside from this bit of self-mockery, the article contains nothing that expresses contempt for Taiwan. That said, language such as "high-class mainlander" also reflects the sense of superiority some mainlanders feel toward locals. Such tangible and intangible forms of prejudice have hurt the feelings of locals and done considerable harm to their self-esteem. Resentment over this has yet to dissipate. Some mainlanders do lack self-awareness, sensitivity, and self-restraint.

The "Fan Lan Qing" blog article was much blunter. Its stance on reunification vs. independence was much more direct. The name was clearly a pseudonym for "Pro Pan Blue." Its pro Blue position and even pro-mainland position is not surprising. But is it consistent with the principle of proportionality to leave no stone unturned tracking down the identity of an anonymous blogger, as if one were investigating Internet crime? Whether such efforts might impact freedom of speech on the Internet is also a concern.

The most valuable aspect of the Internet, but perhaps also its most troubling, is that one may hide behind a pseudonym and express oneself without inhibition. On Internet fora and blogs, too many people, having concealed their true identity, say and do things they would never say or do in their daily environment. They give free rein to radical positions and venomous criticism. They engage in irresponsible agitation and express unrestrained lust. Once they turn off their computers however, they return to polite normality.

Some of what appears on the Internet may be hard to stomach. It may make one wonder why human nature is so dark, so barbaric. But to breach layer after layer of Internet privacy over a politically controversial article, as if one were tracking down a violent criminal, in order to put the offender on trial, to be stoned by the mob, is even more chilling. After all, the individual hasn't violated any laws. He never agreed to reveal his identity. Who has the right to conduct such an Internet witch-hunt?

After all, the anonymous Internet article was just that, anonymous. That means the author did not lend weight to the article by identifying himself. That means the author wanted to enjoy the increased latitude anonymity granted him. We don't even know for certain whether the article was written by an overseas civil servant. Yet some people would destroy the anonymity the Internet has provided over such an article. Is this not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? There is no legal need to investigate. Kuo Kuan-ying says he did not write the anonymous article. True or false, there is not need to continue digging. He is not the issue. The issue is that we must safeguard freedom of expression on the Internet.

Civil servants who are paid out of the national treasury must of course behave with propriety. If they disagree with the nation's policies, they can quit. This is the way to be true to one's own beliefs. It is also the way to show respect for the nation's institutions.

To incite ethnic antagonism, to promote racial and gender prejudice and discrimination, by words or by deeds, is considered taboo in advanced nations in Europe and in the United States. It is not merely Politically Incorrect, it is immoral and unethical. Racial and gender prejudice and discrimination are difficult to eliminate. One must know right from wrong. One must not overstep the bounds of free expression. One must understand that everyone has the same rights. Only then can one ensure social harmony.

By contrast, much of the political language on Taiwan is not merely cruel, but reveals the moral vacuum that underlies our society. For example a certain Kuomintang legislator alleged that Chen Chu suffered a stroke because she demolished a bronze statue of Chiang Kai-shek. Such remarks raise one's hackles. He refuses to admit he made a mistake, and the KMT appears loath to intervene. People cannot help but wonder whether politicians are intrinsically immoral, or whether intrinsically immoral people choose to become politicians.

Freedom of speech is precious. It must be defended. Right and wrong and social harmony are also precious. They too must be defended. Freedom of speech must not become an excuse for inhumane behavior. Not should freedom of speech be abridged for partisan political reasons.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.03.18
社論－負面言論可惡 網路獵巫可休
本報訊

台灣是個多元社會，多元意味著可以激盪出許多火花，也可能意味著對立衝突；究竟是產生正面能量，抑或製造負面殺傷力，全看我們願不願意堅持尊重、包容與維護和諧。

連日來不斷成為部分媒體炒作的「范蘭欽事件」，當中固然有刻意煽動族群對立的成分，但也同時涉及了網路言論自由的空間，以及公務員的言行分際問題。全部攪和在一起，容易把是非黑白全部混為一談，應該一碼歸一碼地說清楚。

首先，Kuo Kuan-ying以本名發表在報端的文章，說到小時候去圓環吃蚵仔煎的美食經驗時，自嘲地說「我們是高級的外省人哦，不知怎會是一個本省伯伯帶我來台北…」這句「高級外省人」被綠營揪出來痛打，認為是外省族群歧視本省族群的佐證。Kuo Kuan-ying雖然回國說明，並且對文章對青商會帶來紛擾而道歉，但仍然認為該用語只是在自我調侃，並無歧視本省之惡意。

坦白說，看完全文會發現，該文除了一個小調侃之外，其餘全無任何輕視台灣的文字。不過，即使如此，「高級外省人」用語也反映了一個長久存在於台灣的社會背景，亦即當時不少外省族群是有相對於本省族群的優越感，這種生活中點點滴滴有形無形的歧視，對本省族群的感情與自尊造成了相當大的傷害，憤恨至今未消，而部分外省族群有時對此也確實較缺乏反省、敏感、自我警惕與自我約束。

至於「范蘭欽」部落格裡的文章，則更辛辣得多，統獨的政治立場也更為直接。明顯的，這個名字是「泛藍親」的代稱，立場傾藍甚至親中並不令人意外。但是，從網路部落格匿名文章的遣詞用字一一去比對本人到底是誰，以抽絲剝繭如偵辦網路犯罪的辦案手法去追查真正的作者，是否符合比例原則、又是否會影響網路的言論自由空間，卻是很值得商榷的。

網路空間最可貴、但或許也最令人頭痛的，是躲在無數匿名背後的不羈自由。網路上、論壇上、部落格裡，太多人隱藏起自己的真實名字身分，做出在日常禮教與環境拘束下絕對不會有的言行。偏激的立場、惡毒的批判、無厘頭的搗亂、赤裸裸的慾望，都可以奔放宣洩。電腦一關，大家又恢復了文質彬彬。

雖然網上有些言論實在讓人難以苟同，覺得人性為何陰暗蠻橫至此；但若要像抓犯人一樣，為了某篇文章激起的政治爭議，就硬要扒開網路的層層簾幕，把真正的執筆者強拉到陽光下梟首示眾，這卻更是令人不寒而慄的事。在當事人沒有違反任何一條法律、也沒有同意揭露身分的情況下，誰又有權力去進行這種網路獵巫？

而且，既然是網路上的匿名文章，擺明了就是要匿名，就是不想用自己的真實身分來負責，也就是要享受匿名時較大尺度的自由特權。為了幾篇至今還不確定是不是某位駐外人員寫的文章，就要把網路向來的匿名保護機制拆毀，恐怕是倒洗澡水時連嬰兒一起倒掉了。沒有司法偵查的必要，就不應率爾侵犯網路世界的匿名機制。如果Kuo Kuan-ying不認那些匿名文章，不管真假，都不宜再追殺下去。不是為他，而是為了維護整個網路世界的言論自由。

不過，拿國家俸祿的公務員，坦白說，言行舉止還是應該要有一定的分寸與分際。如果真不能認同現行的政策，大可選擇離去。這是對自己理念的誠實，也是對國家體制的尊重。

煽動族群對立、散播種族歧視與成見的言論，和性別歧視的言行一樣，在歐美先進國家是被列為禁忌的，這不只是政治不正確的問題，而是屬於道德不正確的程度了。固然種族歧見與性別歧視很難消除，但意識到其中的對錯是非，不容許逾越尺度的言論，背後其實存在著一種對平等人權的信念，以及對社會和諧的悉心維護。

相較之下，台灣有些政治語言不只粗暴殘忍，更暴露出背後價值的空洞與是非的虛無。例如有國民黨立委指陳菊中風是拆蔣公銅像的現世報，就簡直令人髮指。而他本人不但不認錯，國民黨也彷彿事不干己，讓人不禁納悶，到底是搞政治會沒人性、還是沒人性才去搞政治？

言論自由非常珍貴，需要努力維護；價值是非與社會和諧也同樣珍貴，需要大家一起來呵護。我們不應藉言論自由濫行人性之惡，但也不應為政治廝殺踐踏言論自由。