To Those Who Suppress Freedom of Speech：Insights gained from Studying Party Principles 告压迫言论自由者： 研究党义的心得

To Those Who Suppress Freedom of Speech：

Insights gained from Studying Party Principles

告压迫言论自由者：

研究党义的心得

I

Those currently concerned about national affairs generally focus on the northwest and southeast regions, because they believe these internecine civil wars are of the utmost importance and value to China at present. In fact, a hundred years later, when historians read through the pages on the history of the 18th year of the Republic of China (1929), it remains uncertain whether they will find any passage mentioning these internecine events. I anticipate future generations, apart from the extraordinarily humiliating story of the invasion of Manchuria by the Russians,2 will also find a story such as this: “ In the 18th year of the Republic of China, Hu Shih (胡适, 1891-1962) wrote such articles as ‘Knowing is Difficult While Doing is Also Challenging’  (zhinanxingyibuyi ‘ 知难，行亦不易’), and ‘Human Rights and the Rule of Law.’  These articles criticised the party principles and violated the party tenets of Kuomintang, causing party members to accuse Hu Shih of insulting the Prime Minister and committing a subversive act. Consequently, he was charged with the crime of counter-revolution. The Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang government decided to admonish Hu Shih through the Ministry of Education. In the meantime, the Central Executive Committee passed the eight ‘Regulations on the Study of Party Principles by School Staff at All Levels’ in the regular conference on 21st October and instructed teachers and staff at all levels across the country to ‘spend at least half an hour of self-study every day’ for party principles.”

I

目前留心国事的人，大概把视线都集中在西北与东南两方面，都认为这些自相残杀的内战，是中国目前极重要的事端，都认这些内战有极可注意的价值。其实，百年后读史者，翻到民国十八年这几页史的时候，寻得着一条纲目，提到这些自相残杀的事件否，仍为问题。我预料后人在民国十八年的历史上，除了俄人侵入满州这奇辱极耻外， 定还可以寻得出这样一段故事： “十八年时有胡适其人，做了‘知难，行亦不易’，‘人权与约法’ 一类的文章，批评党义，触犯党讳，被党员认为污辱总理，大逆不道， 有反革命罪。党政府的中央执行委员会议决由教育部向胡适加以警诫。 同时中央执行委员会于十月廿一日常会通过‘全国各级学校教职员研究党义条例’八条，通令全国各级教职员，对于党义，‘平均每日至少须有半小时之自修研究’”。

I anticipate that people who compile and read history will highly value this event. This does not mean that in the 18th years of the Republic of China, the status of Mr Hu Shih was comparable to that of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (jiangzongsiling 蒋总司令, 1887-1975), nor does it mean that the anti-revolutionary slogan of “Human Rights and the Rule of Law” was as influential as the cannon of Feng Yuxiang (冯玉祥, 1882-1948) and Zhang Fakui (张发奎, 1896-1980). However, historians never made light of such events, in which individuals or groups make use of political power to suppress freedom of speech. The people reading history also never regarded such events as less significant than soldiers’ battle and killings with each other. For example, during the nineteen years’ reign of Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇, 259B. C.-210 B.C.), there were naturally such numerous wars and killings that the official historians could not record every single one of them. However, they assiduously and extensively documented the events of burning books and burying Confucians alive, and killings of the people who merely met to talk privately about Confucian classics. More than 1,700 years have passed since the downfall of the Qin dynasty, yet how many people in China have forgotten the history of Qin Shi Huang’s burning of books and burying of Confucians?

我预料编史及读史的人，一定重视这件故事。这并不是说在十八年的中国，胡适先生的地位的高贵，比得上蒋总司令等等，更不是“人权约法”这种反革命的口号，有冯玉祥张发奎们反革命的大炮的响亮。不过个人或团体，利用政治势力，压迫言论自由，这一类的事历史家对之从来不肯放松，读史的人对之，也从来没有把他看得比武人互相斯杀的事更小。譬如说，秦始皇做皇帝十九年之久，当此十九年中，打仗杀人的事，自然很多，史家就没有件件都记载出来。焚书坑儒，偶语弃市，这一端，史家是大书特书的。秦到如今，已一千七百余年了，试问，中国有几个忘记了秦始皇焚书坑儒这段历史？

Revisiting the old case of Mr Hu Shih’s violations of the tenets of the Kuomintang, I have no intention of making any judgement on what is right or wrong, as this right belongs to future readers of the history. To be honest, I am personally very appreciative of this case, as it is precisely because of it that the Central Executive Committee was willing to think through and determine the methods of self-study for a group of faculty and staff. Therefore, I was able to obtain the official document “Studying Party Principles Regulations” from the school, and I subsequently pushed myself to diligently work on the first issue of the second article of the regulations. In this case, I have gained some minor insights through my daily half-hour of self-study, thus having the courage to write this article.

如今旧事重提，说到胡适先生触犯党讳的公案，我不是想来判断什么是非──这是后人读史者的权利。在我，其实很感谢这案件的发生，因此，中央执行委员会才肯为一班教职员们讨论出自修研究学问的方法，因此我才可以从学校里得到“研究党义条例” 这件公文，因此，我才逼迫着努力起来做条例上第二条第一期的工夫，因此，我每日半小时自修党义的结果，才有这点点心得，才敢鼓起胆量来做这篇文章。

II

Mr. Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhongshan孙中山, 1866-1925) was an advocate of free speech. Those who suppress freedom of speech fail to grasp the true essence of party principles, and they defy the teachings of the Prime Minister. If those who go against the teachings of the Prime Minister are seen as reactionary or counter-revolutionary, then those who suppress freedom of speech should similarly be considered as such.

II

孙中山先生是拥护言论自由的。压迫言论自由的人，是不明了党义，是违背总理的教训。倘使违背总理教训的人是反动或反革命，那么，压迫言论自由的人，或者是反动或反革命。 

These words are not fabricated. There is indeed concrete evidence to support them in the context of party principles.

这些话不是杜撰的。在党义上确有证据。

In the 30th year of the Guangxu (光绪) reign of the Qing dynasty (1904), Mr. Sun Yat-sen wrote an article entitled “The True Solution to the Issues in China” (Zhongguo wenti zhen jiejue《中国问题真解决》) (see Volume 4, the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen published by the Zhongshan Bookstore). In this article, Mr. Sun made the crimes committed by the Qing dynasty public to the world. He listed ten charges against the Qing government, including these two:

清光绪三十年（一九 Ο 四），孙先生曾做过“中国问题真解决”一篇文章（见中山书局出版的中山全书第四卷）。这篇文章，孙先生把满清的罪孽宣布于世界。他举出满清罪状十条，内有这两项：

Point Two) Restricting the development of our people’s intelligence 

第二条：抑遏吾人智识之发展 

Point Six) Prohibiting freedom of speech

第六条：禁止言论自由

As the Qing dynasty committed such heinous crimes, including “suppressing the development of intellect” and “prohibiting freedom of speech,” Mr. Sun Yat-sen declared to the world that “to attain peace, one must strengthen force.” Therefore, in the same article, he stated that “the time for the revolution in China has come.” This is evidence of Mr. Sun’s support for freedom of speech, along with some minor insights  gained through my self-study in conformity with “Regulations on Studying Party Principles for the Faculty and Staff.”

因为满清有这样“抑遏智识发展”，“禁止言论自由”的罪恶，所以孙先生向世界宣言“欲得平和，必加强暴”，所以他在同一篇文章里说：“中国革命时机，刻已熟矣”。这是孙先生拥护言论自由的证据，同时就是我本着“教职员研究党义条例”做自修工夫的一点心得。

。

During the 13th year of the Republic of China, the Kuomintang convened the National Congress in Guangzhou, and the first Congressional Declaration was thereby announced. The sixth point of the internal policy in the declaration stated:

民国十三年国民党在广州开全国代表大会，于是有第一次代表大会宣言。宣言里对内政策第六项说：

“确定人民有集会，结社，言论，出版，居住，信仰之完全自由。”

Mr. Sun Yat-sen was still alive in the 13th year of the Republic of China, and it was he who convened the first Congress. All the policies included in the Declaration were naturally reflective of his own ideas and beliefs. This serves as further evidence of Mr. Sun’s advocacy for freedom of speech, with some minor insights gained through my self-study of the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen in conformity with “Regulations of Studying Party Principles for the Staff.”

民国十三年孙先生尚在世。第一次大会就是孙先生招集的。宣言里的一切政策，当然是孙先生的政策。这又是孙先生拥护言论自由的证据，同时就是我本着“教职员研究党义条例”读中山全书得来的一点心得。

Nowadays, a group of loyal comrades regards every proposition and scheme put forth by the former Prime Minister as an unquestionable doctrine – and every single word he spoke as an unalterable truth. Merely daring to discuss the Prime Minister’s theories is considered a subversive act, while criticising his propositions is deemed an unforgivable sin. Does this conform with the sixth principle of the First Declaration regarding domestic policies, which stipulated “people have rights to freedom of speech”? Is this not a violation of party principles? Can any evidence of such practices be found in the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen (zhongshan quanshu 中山全书)?

如今一班忠实同志们，认先总理的一切主张及计划，是天经地义，先总理传下来的一言一字，都是不可移易的真理。敢讨论总理学说的是大逆不道；敢批评总理主张的，罪不容诛。这不知与第一次宣言里对内政策的第六项“确定人民有言论自由权”的原则，是否相合？这不知是否党义上的遗教？这又不知是否中山全书里寻得出来的办法？

Committing myself to the “daily half-hour self-study of party principles,” I came across the following excerpt from Sun Yat-sen’s English book of his industrial scheme, The International Development of China, published by the Commercial Press in 1920.

在我“每日半小时自修研究党义”的结果，在孙先生的英文实业计划（The International Development of China 系商务印书馆一九二 Ο 年出版）里，发现这样一段话：

“Each part of the different programs in this International Scheme, is but a rough sketch or a general policy produced from a layman’s thought with very limited materials at his disposal. So alterations and changes will have to be made after scientific investigation and detailed survey. For instance, in regard to the projected Great Northern Port, which is to be situated between the mouths of the Tsingho (qinghe青河) and the Lwanho (luanhe滦河), the writer thought that the entrance of the harbor should be at the eastern side of the port but from actual survey by technical engineers, it is found that the entrance of the harbor should be at the western side of the port instead. So I crave great indulgence on the part of experts and specialists.” (See the second section, the preface of the original book)

“这计划的各部，不过是一个外行人（layman）根据很有限制的资料想出来的一个粗简的大纲或政策。经过科学的研究及详细的调查，修正及改良是不可避免的。例如，关于在青河滦河两口之间修筑北方大港的计划，著者以为港口应位在东方，但经过专家实地调查后，发现港口应在西方。所以，这计划应待专家的指正。”

（见原书序文第二节）

Sun Yat-sen humbly acknowledged that he was a layman when it came to industry and fully recognized expert knowledge. He admitted that “alterations and changes will have to be made after scientific research and detailed investigation” to his scheme. This was Sun Yat-sen’s attitude towards his own propositions and theories during his lifetime, and it was the attitude that great figures should have towards their own propositions and theories.

孙先生很谦恭地承认自己在实业上是外行，完全承认专家的知识，承认他的计划“经过科学的研究及详细的调查，修正及改良是不可避免的”，这就是孙先生在世时对他的主张及学说的态度，这是伟大人物在他的主张上及学说上应有的态度。

Mr. Sun’s open-minded attitude towards his industrial plans is the same as towards his other propositions and theories. There are experts in various fields, including industry, psychology and politics. His industrial plans can be revised through scientific investigation and detailed surveys, and the same applies to other areas, such as psychological and political development. This was a scientific attitude that a great person should have towards their propositions and theories. When Mr. Sun was alive, he invited experts to criticize and discuss his propositions and theories, and he would always revise his own ideas if someone had better suggestions. The technical engineers of the Great Northern Port (baifang dagang北方大港) believed that the entrance of the harbour should be built at the western side of the port and Mr. Sun could not insist on building it at the western side of the port (the location of the entrance of the harbour was altered to reflect measurements by technicians sent by the American ambassador Dr. Reinsch). The same goes for other schemes, where the location of east or west could not be reversed either. What evidence can be found in the Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen to support the claim that his theories and propositions are disallowed from being discussed or criticized?

孙先生在他的实业计划上的态度是如此，在他其余的主张及学说上，当然想亦如此。实业上有专家，心理上亦有专家，政治上亦有专家，一切的学说上都有专家。他的实业计划，经过科学的研究及详细的调查，可以修正；其他心理建设，政治建设等等， 经过科学的研究及详细的调查，当然亦可以修正。这是科学的态度，这是伟大人物对他的主张及学说上应有的态度。孙先生在世的时候，于他的主张及学说，他请专家来批评，他请专家来讨论，只要讨论与批评的人，有较好的意见，他随时修正他自己的主张。北方大港的港口专家认为应在西方的孙先生不能坚持应在东方（港口的更正是美使芮恩诗博士派技师测量后改正的）。在其他方面的计划亦如是，东西的位置，亦不能倒置。所谓先总理的学说及主张，不许讨论，不许批评，在中山全书上有什么根据？

No one would dare to say and be willing to say “infallibility,” except for only a few ignorant and narrow-minded popes lacking a sound understanding of Christian doctrines. Jesus himself never held such an attitude. In fact, those who said “infallibility” had already become traitors to Jesus. In reality, the assertion of “infallibility” is not only “a mistake” but also their “perpetual mistake.”

“永无错误”（Infallibility）这句话，只有几个浅陋无识，心怀窄狭，不明了基督教义的教皇才敢说，才肯说。耶稣本身没有这样的态度。实际上，他们说这句话的时候，根本就成了耶稣的叛徒。实际上，说“永无错误”，既此既是他们的错误；既此既是他们“永远的错误”。

The paragraph above illustrates two points. First, Mr. Sun welcomed criticism and discussion of his propositions and schemes. Second, he supported free speech. My conclusion is that those who suppress discussion and criticism are essentially suppressing freedom of speech. This is the same crime that the Qing dynasty committed and the very thing that Sun Yat-sen opposed. Those who suppress freedom of speech are going against the teachings of Sun Yat-sen.

上面这段话，不过说明两点：（一）孙先生在他的主张及计划上是欢迎批评和讨论的；（二）孙先生是拥护言论自由的。我本段的结论：压迫讨论及批评的人，是压迫言论自由，压迫言论自由，是亡清的罪恶，是中山先生所反对的。压迫言论自由的人，是违背中山先生的教训的。

Here, some people may judge that I misunderstand the concept of “freedom of speech.” They may argue that “freedom of speech” has a specific scope, adding that not everything can be said or discussed. Let us therefore delve deeper into the discussion on the scope of “freedom of speech.”

这里，或者有人要认我误解“言论自由”了。他们要说“言论自由”有“言论自由”的范围，不是什么都可言，什么都可论。因此，进一步来讨论言论自由的范围。

Ⅲ

Freedom of speech means “expressing what one wants to express and discussing what one wants to discuss.” Speech itself ought not to be interfered with by any power. It is illegal for government officials to prohibit freedom of speech through edicts. This violates the principle of freedom of speech. Even if the legislative branches or judiciary authorities use the law as a pretext to restrict the speech, they still go against the principle of freedom of speech.

Ⅲ

言论自由，就是“有什么言，出什么言，有什么论，发什么论”的意思。言论的本身， 绝对不受何种干涉。行政官吏用命令禁止言论，这当然是非法的行动，是违背言论自由的原则。就是立法机关或司法机关拿法律的招牌来范围言论，也是违背言论自由的原则。

The statement “there is no freedom outside the law” is deceptive. Merely discussing the word “freedom” in isolation is vague and meaningless. The concept of “freedom” needs to be understood within a specific context. For example, if one has a particular type of freedom, it means that a specific matter has become a privilege – and that the law of the government therefore should not interfere with that matter.

“法律以外无自由”，是句欺人的话。单单说，“自由”两字，是空泛无意义的。具体的举出某种自由来，就是说某事已成特权，政府的法律在某事方面不得干涉。

The term “freedom of speech” refers to the idea that speech ought not to be interfered with by the law. This concept originated in the UK, and the British code that recognized freedom of speech was initially found in The Bill of Rights, enacted in December 1689. One sentence in The Bill of Rights reads as follows：

言论自由这名词，就是指法律不得干涉言论而言的。言论自由这名词，起于英国。英国承认言论自由的法典，第一次发现于一六八九年十二月公布的人权条文（The Bill of Rights）。条文里有这样一句：

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.”

“国会内一切演说，辩论，及议事的自由，不受院外一切法庭及任何地点的弹劾及追问（That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.）

It is clear that freedom of speech ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament, nor should it be interfered with by the law. Until this day, any speech of Parliament on the part of a British MP remains outside the jurisdiction of the courts and the law.

这是很明白的，言论自由，是指不受院外法庭及任何地点的弹劾及追求而言，是指不受法律的干涉而言的。直到如今，英国议员在院内的言论，是在法庭法律势力范围以外。

Strictly speaking, only British Members of Parliament are guaranteed freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights. In contrast, common people are not protected by the constitution but by British common law. The United States was the first country to enshrine laws protecting common people’s freedom of speech in its constitution. The original text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

严格说起来，人权条文上所保证的只有英国议员的言论自由。普通人民的言论自由是在宪法上没有保障的。普通人民的言论自由是靠英国的“common law”。普通人民言论自由的保障载在宪法上的，先例是美国。美国宪法的修正案第一条原文如下：

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

“国会不得制定法律，规定宗教或禁止人民信教自由，或取缔人民的言论，印刷，集会及请愿之自由。”(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.)

It is clear that freedom of speech refers to the freedom to speak without interference from the law. Congress shall make no law prohibiting people from exercising this right. Therefore, the true essence of “freedom of speech” should be as follows:

这是很明白的，言论自由，是指不受法律干涉的自由。是指国会不得制定法律，取缔人民的言论而言。所以“言论自由”的真义应如此：

The speech itself shall be completely unrestricted by law. The scope of freedom of speech is, nothing in the world, cannot be said or discussed. A person may express whatever he wants to express and discuss whatever he wants to discuss, as long as he is willing to bear responsibility for his words. For instance, in the field of astronomy, one may advocate for the theory that the sky is a square and the earth is an octagon; in mathematics, one may promote the theory that three plus two equals four, or that four minus two equals three; in politics, one may promote monarchy, preach communism, advocate for a Cabinet made up of thirty thousand people, or propose a Parliament of just five. All of this is because the fundamental principle of freedom of speech is that one may say anything and express any opinions. As for the value and truth of one’s speech, that is a separate matter from freedom of speech.

言论的本身是绝对不受法律限制的。言论自由的范围是世界上无事不可言，世界上无事不可论的。只要言论者肯负言论的责任，他有什么言，尽可出什么言，有什么论，尽可发什么论。譬如说，在天文方面，他尽可倡天是四方，地是八角的学说；在算术方面，他尽可倡三加二为四，四减二为三的理论；在政治方面，他尽可以宣传君主，他尽可以鼓吹共产，他尽可以赞成三万人组织内阁，他尽可以提议五个人组织国会。因为有什么言，出什么言，有什么论，发什么论，这是言论自由的根本原则。至于他言论的价值及真理，那与言论自由是两件事。

The above argument is not just my own sophistry. As the British politician Laski has stated, “The view I am concerned to urge is that from the standpoint of the State, the citizen must be unfettered to express either individually, or in concert with others, any opinions he happens to hold. He may preach the complete inadequacy of the social order. He may demand its overthrow by armed revolution. He may insist that the political system is the apotheosis of perfection. He may argue that all opinions which differ from his own ought to be subject to the severest suppression. He may himself as an individual urge these views or join with others in their announcement. Whatever the form taken by their expression he is entitled to speak without hindrance of any kind. He is entitled, further, to seal the ordinary means of publication to make his views known. He may publish them as a book or pamphlet or in a newspaper; he may give them in the form of a lecture; he may announce them at a public meeting. To be able to do any or all of these things, with the full protection of the State in so doing, is a right that lies at the basis of freedom.”(see p120, Chapter 3, Grammar of Politics, by Laski).

上面这段话，不是我故作诡论的。英国政治学者拉斯克 Laski 有这样一段话： “我的主张是，在国家（state）方面，国民应绝对让他自由发表他私人所有或与旁人考虑结果所有的意见。他可以宣传社会现状的缺点。他可以主张用武力革命的方法去改造现状。他可以偶像现在的制度是理想中的完满者。他可以说凡与一己持异议的人的意见，均应取缔。他可以由私人单独或联合他人去发表他的意见，无论取哪种形式发表他的意见，他是不受任何干涉。进一步，他有权利采用任何出版的方法，宣布他的意见，他可以发刊书本，或小册，或报纸；他可以采用演讲的方式，他可以到大会去报告。他能做任何或所有一切上列的事项， 在进行上同时他得到国家完全的保障，这才是自由上一种根本的人权”（Grammar of Politics Chapter 3, p120）。

In fact, Laski’s explanation of freedom of speech is not an empty ideal but has been a reality in many areas of British life. No law in the UK can interfere with people’s freedom of speech, provided that the speech does not involve baseless lies, unfounded rumours, deliberate slander or intentional defamation. The British monarch, Parliament, Cabinet and courts cannot prohibit people from saying what they want to say, nor can they compel anyone to speak against their will (see Law of The Constitution by A.V. Dicey). While the British government can intervene in cases involving baseless lies, unfounded rumors, deliberate slanders or intentional defamation under the Law of Libels, this pertains to the speaker’s character and responsibility for such speech.

其实，拉斯克这个言论自由的解释，不是空的理想。有许多已经是英国的事实了。只要言论不是凭空说谎，不是无故造谣，不是蓄意诽谤，不是存心诬陷，英国没有法律能够干涉到人民的言论的。英国的皇帝，英国的国会，英国的内阁，英国的法庭，故不能叫要说什么话的人不说什么话，或叫不说什么话的人说什么话（参看 Dicey 的 Law of The Constitution）。英国政府可以干涉凭空说谎，无故造谣，蓄意诽谤， 存心诬陷，这是英国的（Law of Libels）。但这是言论者的人格问题，言论上的责任问题。

There is a distinction between freedom of speech and lying, spreading rumours, slandering, or defamation. Even if one engages in such behaviors, the government cannot issue edicts to warn that person or prohibit that speech at will. The jury in the court of law should confirm that person has engaged in such behaviour before the law of the State can exercise its authority. In other words, British law cannot interfere with freedom of speech; it can only hold speakers accountable for their speech. In the UK, one may advocate for anarchism in public parks or speak in favour of communism in the Houses of Parliament. In the UK, there are no propositions of political parties that disallowed from being criticized, and no one’s theories are disallowed from being discussed.

言论自由与说谎、造谣、诽谤、诬陷是两件事。即使说谎、造谣、诽谤、诬陷，亦不是政府随时随意可以用命令去警诫或取缔的，是要先经过法庭方面陪审员决定某人确有说谎、造谣、诽谤，诬陷的事实，而后国家的法律，才可以行使他的威权。换言之，英国的法律，不能干涉言论，只能迫言论者负言论的责任而已。英国的公园里就可以宣传无政府，英国的议院里就可以演讲共产党，英国没有什么党的主张是不许批评的，英国没有什么人的学说是不许讨论的。

The concept of “freedom” is absolute and indivisible and cannot be measured or divided into certain degrees. If there should be limits on “freedom of speech,” and A is a follower of B, and discussion of B’s propositions are not allowed, then discussion of A’s propositions must also not be allowed. If C is a friend of a follower of B, then C’s propositions must also not be allowed, and the same goes for D, who is a friend of a friend of a follower of C. If criticizing a Heaven organization (tianzihao天字号) is not allowed, and a Earth organization (dizihao地字号) is subordinate to the Heaven organization, then criticizing the Earth organization must also not be allowed. Similarly, if a Human organization (renzihao人字号) is connected to the Earth organization, and a Harmony organization (hezihao和字号) is connected to the Human organization, then criticizing any of these organizations must not be allowed. Such limitations and prohibitions inevitably lead to a situation where there is no room for discussion or criticism. Where there is no absolute freedom of speech, there will be an absolute loss of freedom.

“自由”是绝对的，是整个的。“自由”二字不能有什么度数，不能分什么多少。假使说“言论自由”应有么量或多少的限制，假使说某甲的主张是不许讨论的, 某乙是某甲的信徒，势必至某乙的主张亦不许讨论。某丙是某乙的信徒的朋友，势必至某丙的主张亦不许讨论，某丁是某丙的信徒的朋友的朋友，势必至某丁的主张亦不许讨论。假使说天字号这个团体是不许批评，地字号这个组织是原于天字号的，势必至地字号的组织亦不许批评，人字号是与地字号有关系的，和字号是与人字号有关系的，势必至人字号和字号这一切组织都不许批评。这种限制，这种取缔，势必至无可讨论，无可批评而止。结果，天下事没有绝对的自由，就成为绝对的没有自由。

“All criticism of social institutions is a matter of degree. If I prohibit X from preaching violent revolution, I shall ultimately prohibit X from suggesting that the given social order is not of divine origin. If I begin by assuming that Russian communism is politically obnoxious, I shall end by assuming that language classes to teach English to Russians are a form of communist propaganda.” (see p120, Chapter 3, Grammar of Politics, by Harold J. Laski).

拉斯克说得好：“凡对于社会制度的批评，都是多少的问题。假使禁止鼓吹革命，势必至取缔说现状不是神圣。假使我根本咬定俄国共产党是政治上的万恶，势必强认教授俄国人的英文是一种共产的宣传”。

So, freedom of speech means expressing what one wants to express, and discussing what one wants to discuss.” There’s nothing that cannot be expressed and nothing that cannot be discussed. Where there is no absolute freedom of speech, there will be an absolute loss of freedom.

所以说言论自由，是有什么言，出什么言；有什么论，发什么论。无事不可言，无事不可论。天下事没有绝对的自由，就成为绝对的不自由。

Many rulers view such an explanation of freedom of speech as being arrogant and absurd, fearing it could lead to rebellion. They see such permissiveness as a potential breeding ground for heretical ideas that could result in a disaster. This is not a matter of the scope of freedom of speech, but the effectiveness of suppressing it. Let us therefore engage in further discussions with those who suppress freedom of speech about the consequences of such suppression.

这种言论自由的解释，在一班执政者看来，必以为狂妄怪谬，必认为暴乱危险。必以为如此放任，邪说异端，必成为洪水猛兽般的祸害。这点，不是言论自由之范围的问题，乃为压迫言论之效力问题。因此，进一步与压迫言论自由者讨论压迫言论之效果。

IV

Those who put forward truly sound propositions or theories should not fear attacks, criticisms, or debates from others. Prohibiting others’ free speech is just asking for trouble. Those who are threatened by others’ attacks and who chose to prohibit others’ freedom of speech only reveal their own cowardice and will ultimately bring about their own downfall. In contrast, those with sound propositions or theories cannot be defeated by others. Likewise, I cannot defeat those with sound propositions or theories. Absolute freedom of speech, which includes free criticism and free discussion, can be risky. However, the risk of suppressing freedom of speech is actually even more significant than the risk of allowing it.

（四）

真正好的主张及学说，不怕对方的攻击，不怕批评和讨论，取缔他人的言论自由，适见庸人自扰。对方的攻击，果能中的，取缔他人的言论自由，是见敌而怯，适足以示弱，适足以速亡。本身真有好的主张及学说，对方攻不倒。对方真有好的主张及学说，我亦压迫不住。自由批评，自由讨论，绝对的言论自由，固然是危险，实际上压迫言论自由的危险，比言论自由的危险更危险。

Throughout human history, there have been innumerable examples of the suppression of speech, yet can you name a single case where the oppressors did not suffer greatly as a consequence?

人类史上，压迫言论自由的经验举不胜举，有哪次，在压迫者的方面，没有弄到极凄惨的结果？

Why bother going far back to ancient and medieval history? If suppressing freedom of speech was an effective way to defeat enemies, then Beijing would still be China’s capital today, and the Xuantong (宣统) Emperor would still be wearing his crown and dragon robe. Or at least, the country would be under the rule of Hongxian (洪宪) Emperor, or under the rule of Zhang Xun (张勋, 1854-1923), Zhang Zongchang (张宗昌, 1881-1932) or Zhang Zuolin (张作霖, 1875-1928). They can certainly be considered predecessors who had “foresight and insight” towards the suppression of free speech. However, Sun Yat-sen’s successful revolution indirectly benefited considerably from the Qing Dynasty’s “suppressing knowledge development” and “prohibiting freedom of speech.” The Qing Dynasty once thought that suppressing freedom of speech was a clever approach to banning revolutionary theories, but what was the outcome? In 1929 China, faculty and staff at all levels had the opportunity to study the revolutionary theories that the Qing Dynasty had suppressed for years. Yuan Shikai (袁世凯, 1859-1916), Duan Qirui (段其瑞, 1865-1936), Zhang Zuolin and others also believed that suppressing freedom of speech was a clever way to defeat their enemies. Journalists and editors of People’s Rights Newspaper (minquanbao 《民权报》) and acting principals of Peking University were all forced to flee. However, if we look around today, whose world is it now?

何必远索上古中古的史事。假使压迫言论自由是制服敌人的好办法，如今中国的首都一定还在北京，如今宣统一定还在头戴皇冠，身着龙袍。纵不然，亦应是洪宪皇帝的天下，纵不然，亦应是张勋(Zhang Xun)19，张宗昌(Zhang Zongchang)20，张作霖(Zhang Zuolin)21的天下。在压迫言论自由上，他们当然要算前辈，要算“先知先觉”了。反过来看，中山先生革命的成功，满清“压迫知识发展”，“禁止言论自由”，间接的帮忙不少。前清何尝不以为压迫言论自由，是取缔革命学说的妙法。结果怎样？在 1929 年的中国，各级教职员都有“每日最少半小时自修研究”满清所压迫的革命学说的机会？袁世凯，段其瑞，张作霖等等又何尝不认压迫言论自由是对付敌人的妙方，所谓民权报的记者编辑，所谓北大的代理校长，何尝没有亡命逃难过。但是，请看今日之域中，竟是谁家之天下？

Some may argue that the past failures in suppressing freedom of speech were coincidental or just an exceptions in China’s modern history. Well then let us look at the history of the West.

有人或者认前此压迫言论的失败，是中国进代史上偶然的和例外的事。我们且看看西洋的历史。

In AD 303, was there not an emperor named Diocletian in Rome? Didn’t he have a minister named Galerius? Weren’t they notorious for their massacre of Christians? At the time, Christians dared to criticize Rome’s family and social systems, advocate for the “heresies” of the Kingdom of God and refuse to idolize Caesar. As a result, Diocletian and Galerius enacted harsh laws to destroy all churches, confiscate all church properties, burn all religious texts, and imprison and kill all Christians. The Roman authorities were determined to suppress freedom of speech as well as freedom of belief. However, their edicts changed at a moment’s notice, and they could not kill off all the Christians. As Galerius lay dying, he had to admit the failure of the suppressive policy and make peace (see The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon).

三零三年的时候，罗马不是有位 Diocletian 皇帝？皇帝不是还有位 Galeirus 大臣？他俩不是以屠杀耶教徒著名吗？那时耶教徒胆敢拒绝偶像 Caesar，胆敢批评罗马的家庭及社会制度，胆敢鼓吹上帝天国的邪说。于是 Dioetian 和 Galeriue就法密如网，打毁一切教堂，没收一切教产，焚烧一切教经，囚杀一切教徒。在罗马当局方面，总算有绝大的决心，压迫言论及信仰自由了。但是命令朝出夕撕，教徒杀不胜杀。到了 Galerius 临死，只好自认压迫政策失败来讲和（参看Gibbons：The Decline And The Fall of Roman Empire）。

Furthermore, two decades later, when Constantine the Great ascended to the throne, Christianity eventually became the official religion of the Roman Empire. To seek to enter heaven and pay homage to God, Constantine even received baptism and became a believer on his deathbed in AD 337. This all resulted from the Roman emperors’ suppression of freedom of speech on religion.

岂止如此。二十年后，Constantine The Great 做皇帝的时候，耶稣教终究成了罗马国教。Constantine 临死的时候（三三七）还要先受洗礼，成为信徒，以便天堂参见上帝。这是罗马皇帝压迫宗教上的言论自由的结果。

By the fourth and fifth centuries, the Church had solidified its position, and the Pope had greatly strengthened his authority. However, a group of elderly pastors has lost sight of how their predecessors, who once had the “foresight and insight” to suppress others’ freedom of speech, later endured suppression and brutal martyrdom themselves. So, this group of devoted descendants emerged to rally against heresies. They employed the very same suppressive tactics once used by Roman emperors against their predecessors to suppress what they deemed heretical beliefs. In the fifteenth century, they unearthed and burnt the remains of Wycliffe (1320-1384), and burnt John Huss alive. Later, with the rise of Martin Luther in the early sixteenth century, teachings of so-called heretical beliefs faced even greater suppression. This eventually resulted in the Protestant Reformation. Today, how does the power of Protestantism compare to that of Catholicism? Has the suppression of discourse ultimately been successful? History has a cyclical nature. It is curious that those descendants often forget the past stories of their predecessors.

到了四五世纪以后，教会的地位站稳了，教皇的权力增大了。一班长老牧师就忘记了他们的“先知先觉”如何的被人压迫，如何的惨死殉道。于是这班“后知后觉”忠实徒子徒孙就打起排除异端，取缔邪说的旗子来了。他们就以罗马皇帝对付他们“先知先觉”的方法，来压迫他们眼光里的异端邪说了。到了十五世纪的时候，就把Wycliff（一三二零至一三八四）掘骨烧灰，把John Huss 生焚而死。等到十六世纪初年马丁路德出来以后，所谓异端邪说的学说，又压迫不胜其压迫了。后来，终造成历史上的宗教革命：如今，在宗教方面，新教的势力比旧教又怎样？压迫言论成功了吗？历史是有循环性。后知后觉，总容易忘记先知先觉的往事，亦云怪矣。 

Let us delve further into the history of political suppression of free speech in various countries. By the end of the 18th century, after the extravagance of Louis XIV (1638-1715) and Louis XV (1710-1774), France had fallen into a dire state. The people were living in poverty and resources were exhausted, leading to widespread grievances and criticism. Louis XV strictly prohibited dissenting voices, with figures such as Voltaire being exiled or imprisoned, and books criticizing current affairs being banned or burned. The Lettres de Cachet were abused to imprison individuals without trial for serving the monarchy’s own interests, resulting in the Bastille overflowing with prisoners. These suppressive actions contributed to the French Revolution. In 1815, Louis XVIII (1755-1824) was restored to the throne. In 1824, Charles X (1757-1836) succeeded him and became the king. Both emperors heavily relied on foreign support while putting conservative officials in important positions, resulting in a regressive political climate. In 1830, Charles X enacted the so-called “July Ordinances,”  the first command of which prohibited freedom of the press. This action sparked a protest from Thiers, a journalist from the Nation newspaper, ultimately triggering the Revolution of 1830.

我们再看各国政治史压迫言论自由的经过。法国经过路易十四路易十五两代的奢侈，到十八世纪的末叶，已成民穷财尽的景况，怨声载道，谤议四起。路易十五曾经大兴文字狱，Voltaire 这流人物，或放或囚；批评时政这类书籍，或禁或烧，Lettres de Cachet 惟取惟求，Bastille 满谷满仓，结果如何，终于造成法国大革命。一八一五年路易十八复辟，一八二四年查里士第十继续王位，两位皇帝一方面仰仗国外奥援，一方面重用迂腐旧臣，又造成反动的政治。至一八三零年查里士第十公布所谓“七月大法” July Ordinances 内中第一道命令，就是禁止人民的出版自由，因此引起 “Nation ”报记者Thiers 的抗议，因此引起法国历史上一八三零年的大革命。 

After Charles was ousted in 1830, Louis Philippe became the Emperor of France. The issue of eligibility for parliamentary elections sparked resistance among the French people. In response, Louis Philippe (1773-1850) resorted to the tactics employed by his ancestors. On February 22, 1848, the people were calling for an assembly to discuss electoral eligibility reforms. The government used force to intimidate those people, leading to the February Revolution of 1848. I wonder, when has the suppression of free speech ever been successful?

一八三零年查里士被赶以后，路依菲力蒲Louis Philippe 起来做法国皇帝。因为国会选举资格问题，又引起国人反抗。菲力蒲对付的方法，仍不外祖宗的故智。一八四八年二月二十二日，人民要在巴黎招集大会，讨论改良选举资格问题，政府先期以武力干涉集会恐吓，结果又造成法国历史上一八四八年二月的大革命。试问，压迫言论自由的方法，那一次成功？ 

Let us take a look at the history of the United Kingdom. The two major revolutions in British history, in 1641 and 1688, were primarily caused by the suppression of free speech. Charles I (1600-1649), as we know, dissolved Parliament three times, in 1625, 1626, and 1629, with the intention of suppressing people’s freedom of speech during the early years of his reign. In 1640, when he summoned Parliament once again, Pym (1584-1643), with a group of MPs, delivered impassioned speeches that immediately resulted in another dissolution of Parliament. In 1641, a new Parliament was called with stricter qualifications for MPs. However, this Parliament presented

the so-called “Grand Remonstrance,” which essentially exposed over two hundred charges against the monarchy to the public. Charles I perceived this group of MPs as unruly and personally led troops into the House of Commons, and attempted to arrest the five leaders of the Commons, for the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech. This ultimately led to the Parliamentarian Revolution in 1641. Charles II was fortunately welcomed back to England to assume the throne in 1660. James II succeeded him in 1685. However, both monarchs caused controversy due to religious issues, and they resorted to the same tactics employed by their ancestors. The only response they could conceive to subsequent unrest was to dissolve Parliament and interfere with the discourse. As a result, James II abdicated and fled in 1688, leading to the Revolution of 1688. I wonder, when has the suppression of free speech ever been successful?

我们再看看英国的历史。英国历史的两次大革命（一六四一及一六八八年）简直可以说是压迫言论自由有以促成的。查里士第一，我们是知道的，在登位的初年，因为压迫人民的言论自由，一连解散了三次国会（一六二五，一六二六，一六二九）。等到一六四零再召集国会，又以Pym 及一班议员大放厥词，马上把国会解散。一八四一年又提高议员资格，召集新国会，国会又提出所谓“Grand Remonstrance”，实际等于向国民公布皇帝罪案二百余条。查里士第一以为一班议员太放肆了，亲率军队，侵入议院，想逮捕国会为首的五位议员，以达压迫言论自由的目的，结果，激成一六四一年的议会革命。一六六零年查里士第二侥幸被人迎回到英国来做皇帝，詹姆斯第二在一六八五年继续皇位，两位皇帝又因为宗教问题，引起争议。查理士第二及詹姆士第二对付的方法又系祖宗的故智。唯一的办法，解散国会，干涉言论。结果，詹姆士第二在一六八八年弃位而逃，促成英国历史上一六八八年的革命。试问，压迫言论自由，那次成功了？ 

The Alien and Sedition Act, enacted during the rule of the Federalist Party in 1798, stands out as the most notable example of the suppression of free speech in the United States. The contents of the Act include: (1)The prohibition of any individual or collaborative actions that defy the government’s authority; (2) The suppression of freedom of speech in politics. This was a cunning political tactic employed by the Federalists, who were alienated and exploited their political influence to silence the anti-Federalists. The passing of the act triggered resistance from figures like Madison and Jefferson, and even a united outcry from the American people. Consequently, the Federalist Party faced internal discord and eventually saw their power crumble. I wonder, when has the suppression of free speech ever been successful?

美国压迫言论自由的故事，最大的要算一七九八年联治派执政时所通过的Alien and Sedltion Act。案之内容：（一）取缔人民单独或联合的对政府一切抗命的行动；（二）取缔人民在政治上的言论自由。这是联治派Federalists众叛亲离利用

Furthermore, freedom of speech was suppressed in Russia prior to 1915. However, where is Nicholas II (1868-1918) now? The red flag has ultimately risen over Russia. Could the Marxist and Leninist communist ideology be eradicated through suppression of free speech alone?

一九一五年前俄国压迫言论自由的经过，更是我们亲眼所看见的。如今Nicholas Ⅱ那里去了？红旗到底挂满了俄国，马克思和列宁的共产学说，单凭压迫言论自由的方法，打消的了吗？ 

A journalist named Frank I. Cobb (1869-1923), working for New York World newspaper, delivered a speech that went as follows:

美国的纽约世界报有个记者（Frank I Cobb）他有这一段演说： 

“I have been invited here tonight to talk about the value and danger of free speech. The greatest danger in this world arises from ‘suppression.’ The danger of suppressing free speech is even more significant than the danger of free speech itself. If suppressing discourse were an effective approach, then the Bourbons would still be occupying the throne in France; the Romanoffs would remain the monarchs of Russia; Spain would still hold the status of a great empire; the Hapsburgs would continue their reign over the Holy Roman Empire; and the Federalists would retain power in Washington D.C. ”

“本晚我是被请来讲言论自由的价值及危险。人世最大的危险，就从‘压迫’上发生出来。压迫言论自由的危险，比言论自由的危险更危险。假使压迫言论是好方法，布邦皇室Bourbons应仍居法国的皇位，浪曼诺夫皇室Romanoffs 仍为俄国的君主，西班牙仍为大帝国，赫浦斯伯皇室Hapsburgs 仍统治神圣的罗马帝国，联治党Federalist仍在华府执政。” 

He further emphasized, “Let us always bear in mind that the people are not possessions of the government, but rather, the government is entrusted to serve the people! Let us never forget that in a representative democracy, no issue can be reasonably resolved without ample and unrestricted discussion. Finally, let us always remember that the stability of our political, economic, and social systems hinges not on the capabilities of judges and jailers, but on the self-governing capacity of the people. The latter stands as the very core and essence of democratic politics.”

他又说： “记到，人民不属于政府，政府属于人民！记到，没有充分的且极自由的讨论，在代议的民治国家，没有一事可以得到合理性的解决的。最后，记到，政治及经济的安定，社会制度的稳固，不靠法官及狱吏的本事，实赖人民的自治能力。后者是民主政治的本质及灵魂。” 

This statement could serve as a motto for those in China who suppress freedom of speech.

这一切话，可以做中国压迫言论自由者的座右铭。

V

In the previous text, I have pointed out that Mr. Sun Yat-sen was an advocate of free speech. Then I elaborated on the scope of free speech, and proved the futility of those who suppress it. I did not explain the benefits of free speech, for they are widely recognized and do not require further exposition.

上文，我已指出了中山先生是拥护言论自由者，解释了言论自由的范围，证明了压迫言论自由者最后的失败。言论自由本身的利益，我没有说明，这实为童幼皆知的事，没有说明的必要，亦说不胜说。

For instance, had the Qing Dynasty succeeded in suppressing freedom of speech, where could we find the masterpiece “Three Principles of the People and Five-power Constitution”(三民五权)？What a loss it would have been for our country and even for humanity! This is a fact that loyal comrades would certainly not deny.

例如：假使满清压迫言论自由成功了，今日我们到什么地方去寻三民五权这部经典？这是人类及国家如何的一种损失？忠实同志们当然不否认这点的。

Mr. Sun Yat-sen’s propositions and doctrines could not be eliminated by using the previous Qing dynasty’s tactics of suppressing freedom of speech. Today, accordingly, we cannot protect these propositions and doctrines by suppressing freedom of speech. This is a fact that loyal comrades would certainly not deny either.

孙中山先生的学说及主张，从前满清压制言论自由的方法，不能消灭他，如今当然也不靠压迫言论自由来保护。忠实同志们，当然亦不否认这点。

Indeed, from the viewpoint of loyal comrades, the Qing Dynasty’s killing of revolutionaries, censorship of the press, and destruction of books were foolish actions. This is a fact that loyal comrades should acknowledge, too.

诚如此，前清的杀革命党，封报馆，烧书籍，在一班忠实同志们眼光里，是笨伯所做的事。忠实同志们，亦应该承认这点。 

Just as we now reflect on the past, so too will future generations reflect on our present.

后之视今，亦犹今之视昔！

December 1

（十二月一日）

Appendix

附录

As a result of Hu Shi’s warning, The Regulations on the Study of Party Principles for Faculty and Staff from All Levels of Schools was passed by the 44th Executive Meeting of the Central Committee on October 21, 1918.

因警诫胡适而引起之

『各级学校教职员研究党义暂行条例』

十八年十月廿一日中央第四十四次常会通过

Article I: In order to implement the education of party principles, faculty and staff from all levelsof schools nationwide shall systematically study party principles and strive for a deep understanding in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.

第一条 本党为贯彻党义教育起见，全国各级学校教职员应依照本条例之规定，对于本党党义作系统的研究，求深切的认识。

Article II: The study of party principles for faculty and staff from all levels of schools is divided into four stages, with the specific study criteria as follows:

• In the first stage, the study includes “Sun Yat-sen’s Theory,” “Military Spirit Education,” and “The Three Principles of the People.”
  • In the second stage, the study includes “Outline of Principles for the Establishment of the Republic of China,” “The Five-Power Constitution,” “Preliminary Civil Rights,” and “The Commencement of Local Self-Government Act.”
• In the third stage, the study focuses on the “Industrial Scheme.”
• In the fourth stage, the study continues with the “Industrial Scheme.”

第二条 各级学校教职员研究党义，其研究程序分为四期，兹订研究标准如下：

第一期研究「孙文学说」「军人精神教育」「三民主义」

第二期研究「建国大纲」「五权宪法」「民权初步」「地方自治开始实行法」

第三期研究「实业计划」

第四期研究「实业计划」

Article III: Each study period lasts for a semester, during which faculty and staff shall conduct at least half an hour of self-study per day and a minimum of one group study session per week.

第三条 每期研究期间以一学期为限，平均每日至少须有半小时之自修研究，每周至少须有一次之集合研究。

Article IV: In cases where the number of faculty and staff from schools is insufficient to conduct group studies, they may collaborate with neighbouring schools to organize joint meetings for studying party principles, thereby benefiting from group discussions. However, they may discuss through postal communication if the participants are insufficiently numerous and the transportation is inconvenient.

第四条 学校教职员人数过少不便集会研究时，得与邻近学校联合组织党义研究会，期收共同研究之效益，但如因人数过少交通不便者得通信讨论。

Article V: Faculty and staff from all levels of schools nationwide shall engage in group studies on party principles and discuss various educational issues, and report the outcomes of these discussions to the Minister of Education and the local party headquarters for subsequent submission to the Central Training Department for review.

第五条 全国各级学校教职员应集合研究党义时，兼讨论实施教育之各种问题，并将讨论结果报告教育行政长官及当地高级党部，汇呈中央训练部备考查。

Article VI: Faculty and staff from schools of all levels nationwide, who behave outstandingly shall be rewarded accordingly. Specific assessment regulations shall be formulated accordingly.

第六条 全国各级学校教职员研究党义成绩之优秀者应分别奖励，其考核条例另订之。

Article VII: Any matters not covered within the regulations shall be presented to the Standing Committee of the Central Executive Committee by the Central Training Department for further amendments. 

第七条 本条例如有未尽事宜，由中央训练部提请中央执行委员会常务会议修正。之。

Article VIII: The regulations shall be implemented upon decision by the Standing Committee of the Central Executive Committee.

第八条 本条例由中央执行委员会常务会议议决施行。