我不是查理？ 咱能别再丢人了么？
昨天，巴黎N万人团结游行，大伙喊出了“今天的巴黎是世界自由之都”的口号；央视则神色凝重地告诉我们言论自由害死人呀害死人！
今天，《环球时报》也及时地发了一篇文章叫《美媒刊文“我不是查理” 西方言论自由遭质疑》，文中提到：
“不过，世界舆论场也有一些不同的声音。《纽约时报》9日刊发“我不是查理”的专栏文章说，人们正以言论自由的名义把《查理周刊》的记者们当做烈士赞美，这么做不无道理，不过让我们正视这点吧：在过去20年里，如果他们尝试在美国大学校园里发行他们的讽刺报刊的话，他们连30秒都撑不下去。学生和教师会指控他们散布仇恨言论，行政部门会切断他们的经济来源。”
《纽约时报》的这篇文章我昨天晚上也看到了，可我看到的东西跟《环球时报》看到的完全相反的。首先环球引用的这段确实存在，不过这是文章的第一段：
但是作者很快就说：
"So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists."
基本的意思是：当我们为巴黎的人们而悲哀的时候，我们应该开始用不那么伪善的态度来看待我们自己的争议性人物，挑衅以及讽刺。
换句话说，作者认为美国的言论自由还不够彻底！他认为美国应该学习法国，能出一些像查理这样的刊物！
作者结尾还说到：
"The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating."
(在法国的屠杀应当让我们结束对于言论本身的歧视。它应当提醒我们在法律上容忍攻击性的言论，哪怕我们在社会上对此言论不齿。)
所以，作者文章的题目“我不是查理”的引申意义是，美国人还不像法国人那么言论自由，我们应该更敢说才能配得上“查理”的名字。■
附：以下英文为布鲁克斯《我不是查理》原文，中文译文来自观察者网：
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.
《查理周刊》的记者们正被捧为代表言论自由的烈士，这没错，但请面对以下事实：从20年前到现在，倘若他们想要在美国任何一个校园出版此类讽刺报纸，绝对撑不过30秒。学生和教师群体会指责他们发表仇恨言论，管理机构则会削减资金然后勒令关门。
Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.
巴黎袭击事件的公众反应表明：很多人可以立即把那些冒犯法国伊斯兰恐怖分子的见解奉若神明，但对于那些冒犯自己的本国人却没那么宽容。
Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.
只要看看校园里那些因轻微冒犯他人却遭受过度反应对待的人，就可以知道这一点。伊利诺伊大学开除了教授“天主教的同性恋观念”的教授；堪萨斯大学暂停了反对全美步枪协会的一位教授的教职；范德堡大学解散了一个坚持要求由基督徒自我领导的基督教组织。
Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.
美国人大可称赞《查理周刊》勇敢地发表漫画嘲笑先知穆罕默德，但假使阿亚安•希尔西•阿里（索马里裔荷兰女权分子、无神论者、作家及政治人物，以批评伊斯兰教、反对割礼及女性生殖器切割而知名。——观察者网注）被邀请到校园里，会有很多人拒绝她登上演讲台。
So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.
所以，现在或许是可供深思的时刻。我们因这些作家和编辑在巴黎被屠杀而感到羞愧，那么，我们同样应当用不那么伪善的态度来看待本国的争议人物、挑衅分子和讽刺作家。
The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.
首先，我想要说的是，不管你有没有在脸谱网晒出“Je Suis CharlieHebdo”（“今天我们都是查理人”），大多数人都不适用这一口号。实际生活中，我们大多数人并不会真正做出《查理周刊》擅长那种事情：用幽默的方式刻意冒犯他人。
We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.
我们以前可能有过这种行为。当你13岁时，你可能胆子很大，喜欢挑衅“中产阶级”（épater la bourgeoisie），故意与权威作梗，或者嘲笑他人的宗教信仰。
But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.
但过了一段时间自己就发现这很幼稚。我们大多数人会慢慢认识到现实的复杂性，以更宽容的看法看待别人的观点。（你会意识到自己也常作错事儿，嘲笑他人变得不再有趣。）面对不同教派、不同信仰的人，我们大多数人都会表现出某种尊重。我们会去坦诚对话与倾听，而不是去侮辱对方。
Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.
与此同时，我们大多数人都知道，煽动者和其他古怪人物自有其社会作用。当我们骄傲自大时，讽刺者和嘲讽者揭示我们的弱点。他们会戳破成功人士的自我膨胀心理。他们把有权者拉下马，对抗社会不公。他们帮助我们共同解决问题，因为笑声是联系你我的终极纽带。
Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.
此外，讽刺者和嘲讽者还暴露出原教旨主义者的愚蠢。原教旨主义者的照本宣科地对待每件事情。他们不能接受多样化的观点。他们无法认识到，自己所信仰的宗教也许最值得尊敬，但同时，大多数宗教看起来都有点儿古怪。嘲讽者揭露了那些无法嘲笑自己的人，也提醒我们，也许应当学会自嘲。
In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.
简言之，当想到那些破坏分子和无礼的人，我们想要对这些人保持礼貌和尊重的同时要给这些有创造性和挑战性的人们留出空间，让他们无需接受礼仪和品味的约束。
If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.
如果你试图全盘打破法律、话语禁忌和违禁演说家之间微妙的平衡，最终结果将是野蛮的言论审查，人与人之间的对话将被扼杀。压制言论、设立话语禁忌、赶跑演讲者，大概永远都是错误行为。
Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.
幸运的是，社交礼仪总是比法律法规更加灵活。大多数社会都成功地维护了社会文明和尊重，为那些有趣、不文明、喜欢冒犯他人的人士言论留出空间。
In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.
在大多数社会中，存在两种桌子，一桌给成人，一桌给孩子。《世界报》的读者或社会既得利益者围坐在成人的桌子边。而小丑，傻瓜和类似为安•蔻特（专栏作家）、彪马叔（脱口秀主持人）的人们则围坐在孩子们的桌子边。虽然他们不能得到充分尊敬，但他们无厘头的言论仍然会被倾听，因为他们有时会说些其他人不说、但又很有必要的东西。
Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.
换言之，健康的社会不会打压言论，但会给予不同的人不同的地位。博学而又善解人意的学者的声音能够获得满怀敬意的倾听。讽刺作家的声音只能迷糊地被听取一半，种族主义者和反闪米特人的声音则只能透过轻蔑而鄙视的眼光听取。任何人想要收获全神贯注的倾听只能通过他们自己的努力。
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.
《查理周刊》屠杀事件应当是终结话语禁忌的契机。它提醒我们要在法律上宽容那些冒犯的声音，即使我们平时会歧视身边的人。
