Chapter 4 fourth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! In your reply you have guessed the outcome of the story I told in my last letter. The Kansas City Council voted, 7 to 3, that the "Public Participation" channel was reinstated under the principles of protecting free speech.The Ku Klux Klan's first video episode aired on April 3, 1990. This is a fairly well-known case, not too far from now.The reason why I tell this story is that through this case, you can get a general idea of ​​how Americans think about freedom of speech.Because, as you have seen, even in the United States, both the government and the opposition are constantly exploring this issue, and this exploration has not stopped so far. The process of gradually adjusting to new situations that arise.

Those who call for freedom of speech are usually political parties, groups and individuals who are in a minority and disadvantaged at a certain stage.They always believed that although they were at a disadvantage and their voices were weak, the truth was in their hands and they must cry out.Especially when their speech is suppressed, and perhaps some of them sincerely believe that if they ever become a majority, they will very naturally promote free speech.When they are fighting for their own rights and advocating their own principles, freedom is often their declared goal and banner.However, we have seen countless precedents where the opposite is often the case.In most cases, freedom of speech has in fact only become a tool and means to win, and once won, it is often abandoned intentionally, unintentionally or helplessly.

Why does this situation repeat itself over and over again in history?Where did things go wrong?What is the key to free speech?I think the key lies in its "content-neutral" principle, which is to resolutely reject the word "truth" from the gate of freedom of speech.As long as the word "truth" slips in accidentally through the crack of the door, freedom of speech is over.Why do you say this way?People who call for and promote freedom of speech are easily fooled by "truth".They either clearly believe that, or subconsciously, they always think that freedom of speech is a "sunshine road" to "truth", and that freedom of speech is just a way to make the truth "better and clearer". Under the guidance of the Communist Party of China, once you reach the point where you feel that you have "reached the truth", it is very logical that freedom of speech will be abandoned.

As long as you don't insist on the "neutrality of speech", as long as you think that the purpose of freedom of speech is only to pursue the truth, then such a situation cannot be avoided: one day, in theory and in reality, it will be impossible to stop one or several authorities in their hands. Some people, or a group of so-called "majority", come out to declare themselves as "truth" and stifle the freedom of speech of others. In the United States, the line between "freedom of speech" and "pursuit of truth" is very clear.Here, those are two completely unrelated things.Freedom of speech has only one purpose, to ensure that everyone can speak his own voice, to ensure that the world will always have different voices.It is by no means hoped that one day, people will only make one voice, even if it is recognized as the "voice of truth."

The willingness to understand and truly understand the principles of free speech, and the willingness to pay the price, is no easy feat.When people face it, it is often much more difficult than imagined in advance.I bet many people around the world who are crying out for freedom of speech right now haven't really thought about the price. If they really see the freedom of speech in the United States and the rights that those who abuse it have, Keep it a surprise. Let me give another example.You wrote about this year's Oklahoma City explosion and concern for our safety.It can be seen that the news spread to China immediately.But I think, standing outside the United States, it is really difficult to experience the shock of this explosion to this country.This is not just the feeling of "watching the fire from the other side" caused by the Pacific Ocean, I believe there is also the distance opened by cultural barriers.So, I'll start with this explosion.

When the explosion happened, I was driving a long distance in a daze. I heard the news intermittently on the radio in the car. I hadn't realized its seriousness or thought about what it meant.That night, I stopped at the home of an American friend, Mike.As soon as he entered the door, he excitedly took me to watch the explosive news in front of the TV. He knew that I would never have the chance to watch TV after driving all day.I was as shocked as all Americans when I saw the federal building that had been disemboweled and smoke billowing from the TV, and the dead and injured, including many young children in the nursery inside the building.You know, there was a similar incident at the World Trade Center in New York two years ago, which was a not entirely successful bombing, with relatively few deaths (six deaths) as only a few floors of the parking garage were destroyed.However, this explosion not only happened at the time when people were just coming to work, but also collapsed all nine floors of the front of the building. The estimated death toll at that time was between 100 and 300 people, but the actual death toll was 168.At the time, the news media called it the worst attack on the continental United States since Pearl Harbor in World War II.This statement, in addition to explaining the lethality of the explosion, also implies people's speculation that the author of the explosion is an international terrorist organization.Such speculation should be said to be unreasonable.Because the United States is really a very special country.First of all, the United States has been involved in many international affairs. When you calm down and think about it, it seems that terrorist organizations in many countries have reasons to blame the United States for their domestic plight. The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York two years ago is an example.At the same time, based on the special background of the United States, it is very easy for any terrorist organization to find their fanatical compatriots and supporters on American soil.What kind of people in the United States do not have wow!

Remembering that night, Mike also estimated that there was probably a smart guy behind this criminal organization.Because Oklahoma City is the capital of Oklahoma State, this state belongs to the south and center of the United States.This city is seldom mentioned. Compared with the bustling big cities on both sides of the Strait, it is a quiet and peaceful place.Like most places in the United States, "living and working in peace" is probably the most appropriate description.No one would have expected that such a place would become a target, and of course they would not have taken strict precautions.So, isn't it a cunning guy to pick such a place to start?

Next, everyone thought that it would take quite a long time to solve such a major case before any clues could be made.When President Clinton declared that "no one can hide in America," I immediately thought to myself how easy it is to hide someone here.The United States has never had a household registration system, and the concept of hometown is very weak. We often joke that Americans do not have the "village old locust tree complex" of the Chinese, so the flow of people is as frequent and busy as ants moving.But in less than 48 hours, everything will be decided.The result of unpacking really shocked everyone.Both McVeigh and Nichols, who were arrested, were typical Native Americans, and almost what is commonly called a "redneck."

For a moment, everyone seemed to breathe a sigh of relief.Because if it is really an international terrorist organization, who knows if a series of explosions will follow.If it was just a single individual act, that would be the end of it.However, after a while, people realized that things were not that simple.There are probably many people who will think of the speech made by US President Clinton immediately after the incident.This is probably the best speech he has given since he came to power, even though it is very, very short.Everyone will recall his comment on the bombing: "This is an attack on America, our way of life, and all of our beliefs." People gradually realized that no matter who launched the attack, as long as it is in this area The use of violence and terror on the land is an attack on the most basic goal chosen by the American people-freedom.Why do you say this way?Which brings me back to your question: what kind of freedom does this country have?What is special about this freedom?For those of us who have lived here for several years, while trying to answer these two questions, it seems impossible to avoid another question that follows closely behind like a shadow: what kind of money has the American people paid for over two hundred years? What price is it to maintain such freedom?Freedom is not free.As the background to the event deepened, it became increasingly clear that the Oklahoma bombing was just one of the many prices Americans paid for their freedom.

Both McVeigh and Nichols involved in the case are veterans. They are not "gangsters" in the general sense, and they can even be said to be "idealists" who have gone mad.The FBI once believed that there was an undiscovered domestic dangerous organization behind them, and they once suspected that a certain militia organization was the backstage of his operation, but the leader of the organization immediately denied it.So far, there is no evidence to prove that any militia organization was directly involved in the case.However, they have frequent contact with some right-wing militia organizations and are deeply influenced by them. It is probably good to say that the ideas of these right-wing militia organizations are their spiritual backing.

We also stopped by the militia booth at the Human Rights Festival last time we were there.At the time, it was not long after the Oklahoma bombing that reports in the press aroused our curiosity about the militia.We bought a copy of their newspaper and chatted with a militiaman in camouflage.He immediately brought the topic to the bombing that just happened.And excitedly warned us that the most important thing now is to prevent the government from using this case to deprive the people of their rights.What do you say?Because at that time, the press reported a lot of extreme remarks of some militiamen, which not only aroused criticism from many people, but also drew fierce criticism from President Clinton. What are the masses of American militias promoting and doing?Ordinary Americans are not very clear about it.In other words, even if people who have seen their propaganda hear it, most of them don't take it seriously.They basically call themselves patriots, emphasize civil rights, and warn the people that the federal government is expanding their power and people are gradually losing their freedom; they oppose taxation, accuse government officials of corruption, and waste people's money; They opposed government control of guns, stated that they were founded to defend themselves when the government lost control of the people, and so on. Americans have never been unfamiliar with such views.They are willing to have all kinds of weird theories legally, even if they are a little bit extreme, it doesn't matter, as long as it is not an action.Besides, everyone thought it would be better if someone sounded the alarm about the behavior of the government than nothing.However, there will always be people who abuse their freedom.Any kind of freedom you determine will be abused, and freedom of speech is no exception.In fact, although the abuse of freedom of expression is not as shocking as the abuse of weapons and arms, it is far more complicated. The propaganda of the American militia is all kinds of colors.Among them were delusional views like McVeigh's.After reading the propaganda below, you can also have a better understanding of the tolerance of freedom of speech in the United States. The paranoid propaganda of some militias believes that there will be a "world government", an insidious force that will unite all people, the world will be filled with hatred and fear, and the federal government and the FBI are the worst enemies of true patriots .In the training manuals distributed by some of the most influential militia groups, you can find well-crafted plans for assault operations, including assaulting federal buildings, kidnapping key figures, destroying food supplies and executing enemies.In these plans, the US federal government is always their imaginary enemy. The Montana Militia is one of the three most important militia organizations in the nation.The $75, 200-page "MOD Training Manual" it distributes to militias is a public sale by the group.It includes the following: ---An operation involving an explosion, or an operation of great destructive force, which can cause irreparable damage to the enemy...This requires both theoretical and practical knowledge of explosives, and the suburban guerrilla must execute it with ruthlessness . ---Destructive attacks on the country's economy, transportation and communication systems, military and police systems.Government agencies and service centers are easier targets to destroy. If the guerrillas in the suburbs are workers themselves, it is better for them to attack the industry, because they have a better understanding of factories and machinery, and know how to destroy the entire operating system, and the damage will be greater. ---Spread more rumors about police failures, government mismanagement, and wrong programs into the hands of the authorities. This kind of misinformation can create "a tense, insecure, unstable, and wary of the government. ". --- Raid the arsenal to seize weapons, bombs, munitions.Develop skills in weather forecasting, survival, ambushes, and sniping, as well as master night vision devices, grenades, and more.Spies, government officials, and members who surrender to the police or provide information to the police can be executed. ---Abduction of well-known artists, athletes, or outstanding figures in other fields, although they have no interest in politics, but kidnapping them "can be a useful means of propagating revolutionary and patriotic ideas." I don’t know if you were taken aback after reading it. Anyway, when I read it for the first time, I really asked several times: Is such a publication really legal?In the United States, no one can really ban such propaganda, because it is only an abstract guiding principle, not a terrorist operation plan that is being implemented concretely, and there is no "imminent" danger.Therefore, it has not gone beyond the scope of freedom of speech stipulated by this country. However, no one can guarantee that this group of people is absolutely "talking but not practicing". It is entirely possible for someone like McVeigh to be "obsessed".The aftermath of the Big Bang was ahead, and all Americans knew that this was one of the prices they paid for their freedom. Of course, banning and criticizing rebuttals are two different things.Not prohibiting all kinds of speech does not mean that there is no objection.Although, under normal circumstances, there are very few criticisms of this type of speech.The main reason is because no one cares, there are so many books, magazines and various publications here.As long as you have money, you can "self-publish", that is, send the manuscript to the printing factory and print it.The problem is that it's not easy for your book to be read.There are too many books, and people only pick the ones they are interested in reading, just occasionally turn to the readings mentioned above, and at most say: This guy is crazy.Just throw it aside.In addition, because people are used to this all-encompassing world, there are all kinds of lunatics and lunatics, who will seriously write articles to criticize a lunatic? But with the Big Bang, the situation is completely different.Crazy words that people usually dismissed are mentioned and reproduced in various newspapers and magazines again and again.Although so far, there is no evidence that the guy who planted the bomb has any organizational background, but watching the smoke billowing on the TV, new death figures are reported every day.People no longer dare to underestimate those "crazy words" anymore.Various articles began attacking this abuse of free speech.accuse them of inciting terrorism.The voices of criticism definitely prevailed.At this time, President Clinton made a speech that caused a sensation in the whole country. In a speech on April 24, five days after the bombings, Clinton rebuked the "angry voices" that were fomenting public debate.Too many of America's radio stations, he said, are being used "to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us divided and dissatisfied with each other. They spread hate and their rhetoric makes violence acceptable. ... Now is the time for us to stand up and speak out against such reckless words and actions.” He also appealed: “When they talk about hate, we must stand firm. When they talk about violence, we must stand firm When they make irresponsible remarks that may cause serious consequences, we must challenge them." He also accused these people of trying to create division in the country, "They are actively using freedom of speech to make those of us who remain silent even more inexcusable. So, fellow Americans, exercise your power. This is our country, our future, our way of life." In fact, just two days after the bombing, Clinton was already asked the following question in the city where the bombing took place: "In recent years, people have been attacking the government and describing the government as the enemy of the people. Happened?" Clinton was very cautious at the time, he refused to suspect the motive and atmosphere of the crime, and asked everything to wait until the results of the investigation.His caution is well justified. In the United States, civil discourse, especially civil criticism, including speeches attacking the government, is best left to the president.If you are really annoyed, you can only enter one ear and exit the other, and forget it.When we were in China, we only heard that Americans can even scold the president.I think they are really "liberalized" enough.After arriving here, I gained specific perceptual knowledge and found that the President of the United States is really not that easy to be. The president is under attack almost all the time. Although the attacks by opponents in the upper political circles are fierce, they are more or less ceremonial.Sarcasm, personal attacks, swearing, everything, and nothing personal.Various forms of attack are either on the radio or on television.In newspapers and magazines, cartoons are flying all over the sky. On TV, we have also seen Clinton being vilified by actors.Especially on conservative "talk shows", Clinton and his wife have always been the target of attack and ridicule by the host.The one with the most anti-government speech was Key Gordon Liddy. He once said on his program that if the names of President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton were written on the target of the gun practice, "the aiming degree can be increased." For all of this, the President of the United States has no right to prohibit it, and there is no chance to retaliate against small actions such as wearing small shoes.The government has no right to intervene.It's not just Clinton who has this trouble, all previous presidents have.However, the president is also a mortal, so it is conceivable that he will be angry.To take a step back, even if the president is a "gentleman's belly" and cannot be treated with a "mortal heart", he may not care about those personal attacks at all.However, in the face of those "speeches" that have brought him and the government huge troubles and incited the anger of voters, which will directly affect his political future, he cannot remain indifferent.However, no matter how the president feels, no matter how much he wants those guys to "shut up," he'd better not react or react less.Because in the United States, apart from the Constitution, it doesn't count who says anything.The biggest taboo of the president and the government is violation of the constitution.Questioning public criticism and attacking the government's remarks may be suspected of interfering with freedom of speech. In addition to achieving little effect, it may also damage one's own political image.Therefore, the general president rarely counterattacks the critical speeches of the people.Clinton has fought back against conservative "talk shows" and hosts before, but hardly with success. I think Clinton thought about it before launching this war of words, despite his initial caution.Firstly, the bombing case provided a good opportunity; secondly, due to the proper handling of the case, his popularity is rising greatly; thirdly, he followed the condemnation of radical speeches, which should be in line with the public psychology under the shadow of terrorist incidents .You have already read his speech above, and when you think about the background of the big bang, you may also think that this is a very ordinary and "righteous" speech.However, in the United States, things are far from simple.His speech immediately caused an uproar. Although Clinton did not name them.However, it is generally believed that he is a "talk show" aimed at conservatives, and the "famous mouths" of these shows immediately come out to fight back.On the one hand, they pointed out that there is no relationship between conservatives and terrorists at all. The host of the most listened-to show, Rashi Limbaugh, said, "There is absolutely no connection between these lunatics (referring to the bombing suspects) and mainstream conservatives. There's a big difference between having a different point of view and harboring hatred." On the other hand, they accused Clinton of "planting the flag" by conflating the two.Although people who hold different views on the government sometimes speak fiercely, Clinton's speech, because of his different status, is suspected of inciting people to attack and suppress the speech of political opponents, which is taboo in the United States.The "angry voice" that Clinton accused is a vague term that is not legally defined.There is also no clear evidence that someone planted the bomb because of which "angry voice" they heard.Clinton's words are also suspected of "sweeping the area" and "expanding the attack surface". There is nothing new about what Clinton said. As I mentioned earlier, after the bombings, many people tried to reflect on and criticize some abuses of freedom of speech.However, Clinton forgot that he is different. He is the president, and he must be very cautious about all kinds of "voices" from the people.In his speech, he also questioned these "angry voices": "Who do you think you are?" What he meant was that you should not think that you can represent the people.But it was precisely this kind of question that caused the opponents to make an "angry voice" on the radio: "Who are we? Mr. Clinton actually asked who we are! We are taxpayers! We are your voters! We were expecting You serve the common people, but you turn around and ask who we are!" Clinton's negligence is that he forgot to ask himself: Who am I?Because, as we all know, he has always been the subject of the various "angry voices" of the opposition that he accuses.After the big bang, he attacked the vaguely conceptual "angry voices", and it was difficult for him to get rid of the relationship of using excuses to vent his anger and taking the opportunity to suppress negative voices.One could even point out that the militia was a warning to us: to prevent the government from taking advantage of the bombings to deprive the people of their rights.In short, President Clinton's remarks did not achieve the reaction he expected, and it can even be said to have caused some opposite effects.At the same time, you can also see that freedom of speech is really a very sensitive issue in the United States. The Oklahoma bombing was indeed a strong stimulus for the United States.Clinton's repeated anti-terrorism laws have never been passed, not even in Congress after the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.After the Oklahoma bombing, the Senate and the House of Representatives quickly passed the anti-terrorism law.However, this immediately attracted strong attention from civil rights organizations and intellectuals across the country, who believed that its implementation was far from simple, and some of its provisions were highly controversial, and may even eventually be challenged by the Supreme Court.You may wonder, "Anti-terrorism" should be a matter of no doubt, how can there be some people who object to it? The anti-terrorism law includes increasing the number of judicial personnel, strengthening the ability of judicial authorities to track phone calls, check credit card and other records, restricting some rights of appeals of death row prisoners, and using the military in cases involving chemical and biological weapons, among others.These provisions clearly strengthen and expand the authority of the federal government, and the "civil rights" of Americans are clearly threatened.The slightest abuse of these powers would put American liberties at risk.Therefore, all people are very cautious about this kind of problems.Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the president to get Congress to make concessions on such an anti-terrorism law. As I said just now, even when the World Trade Center in New York was bombed by international terrorists, Congress refused to make concessions.The passage of such a bill by Congress this time just verified the speech made by President Clinton after the bombing. This bombing was an attack on the free "way of life" and "belief" in freedom of Americans.For liberty is forced to give way when security is seriously threatened. The thinking of Americans on these issues is quite far from our original oriental cultural background.There is a very interesting phenomenon, that is, the Chinese community here, even though most of them have already naturalized in the United States, relatively speaking, they still have far greater trust in the federal government than other Americans.They are far less wary of the expansion of the authority of the U.S. federal government than Americans, because for them, the power of the U.S. government is much smaller than that of any government in the millennium in their cultural background. , the President of the United States is much more pitiful in comparison.Therefore, in the Chinese-language Chinese newspapers in the United States, the articles written by the Chinese introducing the FBI will call the FBI "the most respected federal agency in the United States" in the headline, which is very important to many Americans. is unimaginable. As I have already said, the United States was built in a very unusual way.It took 13 years after the founding of the United States to have a formal government and president. In fact, this government still lacked a lot of things compared with the governments of other countries at that time.For example, each state has its own police to manage public security, but the federal government does not have police or police-like institutions.This state has lasted for more than a hundred years.As long as the criminals escape from state A to state B, the police can only look at the ocean and sigh.It's not that Americans are so stupid that they don't even understand this simple truth, it's that they believe that a federal government with great power, assisted by a strong police agency, is only one step away from controlling the people up. However, freedom and security, freedom and price, this is a choice without ultimate.Even in America, liberty keeps giving way.Under attack from crime, Congress finally relented in 1907, agreeing to create a 20-person Bureau of Investigation for domestic crimes despite Americans' great fear of the possibility of a Tsarist-style secret police agency .It now appears that Congress's original concerns were not unreasonable, and the American people have always been worried about the FBI, which cannot be said to be overly concerned.Because the founders of the United States already knew 200 years ago that the state apparatus has its own operating mechanism. Once you establish it, it is beyond your control. In the past 90 years, the FBI has developed into the largest federal agency in the United States, with an annual budget of 1.5 billion US dollars, 22,000 employees, 60 branches all over the country, and 15 foreign branches.It has the world's largest fingerprint center and the world's most advanced laboratory.It has played a major role in fighting crime in America.But Americans are rarely proud of it.Because the more developed the investigative agency, the more they feel that their freedom is threatened.This is why Americans have always been uneasy about the anti-terrorism law. The United States still has very strict control over the authority of the FBI.Before the Oklahoma bombing, some scholars who studied right-wing militias warned the FBI that some of these organizations had a very dangerous tendency to carry out terrorist activities.But the answer they got from the FBI was that we have no authority to do anything.Because it is impossible for them to obtain permission for actions such as wiretapping based on such a warning, or in other words, based on a tendency.According to the "New York Times" report, the average number of wiretappings conducted by the FBI with the permission of the court is less than 850 times a year. You can see that for countries with a large number of international drug trafficking groups and international human trafficking groups, etc. , this number is very low.For this issue, it is also a very difficult balance. Too strict control restricts their hands and feet, which is not conducive to fighting crime. If they relax, civil rights will immediately lose their protection.It's also a question of the FBI's purview, which the president and Congress, Justice Department officials and civil rights groups, as well as pundits and academics, have been feuding with. There is also a very interesting question, that is, after the Oklahoma bombing, crimes and terrorism are on the rise, and when the US Congress passed the anti-terrorism law, what are the American people worried about? ?In the results of a recent US poll, more than half of Americans still answered that they were worried about the federal government invading their right to privacy.Crime has the potential to take some lives, but it is only when the powers of the federal government grow out of control that they can lose their entire liberty.To give a simple example, this year the US Federal Bureau of Investigation proposed to establish a large-scale nationwide telephone monitoring system. This system will allow law enforcement officers to simultaneously monitor 1% of telephone calls in certain areas with high crime rates. Equipment capacity.Of course, having the capability of this device does not mean that they can more easily obtain the court's wiretapping permission.Even so, the suggestion sent Americans into a tizzy.No amount of explanation by FBI officials can convince Americans that this does not affect their right to privacy.As soon as this idea came out, it has already aroused serious concern and anxiety from civil rights organizations. So far, in the face of security and freedom, Americans still choose freedom, or choose to continue to pay the price to keep their freedom.So, after the Oklahoma bombing, Americans were doing their best not to overreact, that is, to act on the principles they had laid down in the past.All they do is arrest criminal suspects with proven evidence of action.So far, only two are in custody.The brother of one of the suspects, Nichols, was once detained, but was released immediately due to insufficient evidence.When reporters interviewed him, he was still a set of anti-government theories in front of reporters.However, Americans still believe that for him who did not participate in the "action", he must still be given freedom of thought and speech.For the two suspects who have evidence, the Americans still intend to protect their civil rights as defendants and seek a fair trial for him.Before the bombed federal building is destroyed, there is still plenty of time for the defendant's lawyers to find evidence in his favor and consider moving him to another state for trial because of concerns that in the state where the bombing occurred, the local jury will be imprisoned. If the stimulus is too great, it may affect the fairness of the trial and ruling.Even before the trial, the appeals court replaced the presiding judge because the judge's courtroom and office were damaged and some of his staff were injured when the federal building was bombed, the appeals court said in its order to remove the judge, "according to In these circumstances, a reasonable person cannot fail to question Judge Avery's ability to be impartial."In addition, civil rights organizations and intellectuals are still questioning some provisions of the anti-terrorism law to prevent the overreaction caused by the bombing from violating the rights of the people. However, you may have noticed that I said "so far", Americans still choose freedom over security and freedom.No one knows how terrorism will develop and what weapons it may use in this increasingly unpredictable world.What McVeigh imitated was the car bomb that was more commonly used in the world a while ago. The Tokyo subway gas case that came out almost at the same time hinted to the world the escalation of terrorism.I think, in fact, the invention of nuclear weapons has not revealed its real potential danger to the entire human being. We assume that one day, when nuclear technology is no longer so mysterious and terrorists can easily use one or two, I really don't know what choice the United States will make, and what choice human beings will make. So in fact, in the end it will be a contest between human conscience and evil.It is a pity that what we have seen so far is still the concession of freedom.It is not easy for Americans to persist in their freedom to this day, even to this point.What do you say? I have written a lot, so I will mail this letter tomorrow.I'll write about it later. wish it is good! Linda