2016年5月20日金曜日

〔翻訳〕ヘイトスピーチを擁護する

何やらあいまいな「悪人」を起訴するために法(言論の自由)を放棄したら、立場が逆転したとき、「善人」に何が起こるだろうか。何がヘイトスピーチで何がそうでないか、誰が定義するのだろうか。
If the law is thrown aside in order to prosecute some nebulous “bad,” what will happen to the “good” when the roles are reversed? If hate speech is to be defined, who gets to say what it is and is not?
https://www.thefire.org/the-case-for-hate-speech/

国際法にヘイトスピーチ規制を入れるよう求めたのは、全盛期のソ連とその同盟国だった。…自由な言論の制限に利用しようとしたのである。…規制の標的はナチズムだけでなく、資本主義や自由民主主義を擁護する煽動も含まれた。
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech...[T]he Soviet proposal would be targeted not just at Nazism but also against agitation in favor of capitalism and liberal democracy, and in all likelihood against any other political ideology than the supposed real democracy of communism.
http://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws

1960年代米国で、新左翼は完全な言論の自由を求めたかもしれない。しかしそれは、当時右翼が文化を支配していたからにすぎない。…今や状況は逆転した。…左翼は優位にあるので、もはや言論の自由を必要とせず、捨て去った。
New leftists may have proposed unfettered free speech back in the early 1960s, but that was just because the right was the one in power culturally at the time...Now the situation has reversed. The right is at the disadvantage so it appeals to free speech. The left is ahead and no longer needs free speech, so it has discarded it.
https://mises.org/library/when-youre-popular-you-dont-need-freedom-speech

ヘイトスピーチ規制を支持する者は、反対者に対し「ヘイトスピーチがその対象者に大きな害を及ぼさないことを証明しろ」と言って、立証責任を転嫁することはできない。切迫した害の存在を証明しなければならないのは、規制を支持する側だ。
That is not in itself an unreasonable question, but Waldron ignores one vital issue. He is endeavoring to make a case for the regulation of hate speech. He cannot then fairly shift the onus probandi entirely to the side of his opponents, saying to them, "prove that hate speech does not much affect its victims." It is for him to show that hate speech in fact has the dire effects he attributes to it.
https://mises.org/library/harm-hate-speech-laws

憎しみは弱者に暗い癒やしを与えることがある。しかも中毒性になりかねない。…神は罪を憎む。私たちも罪は憎まなければならない。しかし…神にならって、罪人と、憎しみを抱く者は愛さなければならない。
Hatred sometimes provides a dark place of comfort for the weak, and it can be addictive...Yet, God, too, hates. He hates sin, and we, as well, must hate sin. But like the families of those murdered in Charleston, we must imitate our Creator: We must love the sinner and the hater.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/andrew-p-napolitano/we-must-protect-hate/

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿