To Those Who Suppress Freedom of Speech：Insights gained from Studying Party Principles 告壓迫言論自由者： 研究黨義的心得

To Those Who Suppress Freedom of Speech：

Insights gained from Studying Party Principles

告壓迫言論自由者：

研究黨義的心得

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 (胡適, 1891-1962) wrote such articles as ‘Knowing is Difficult While Doing is Also Challenging’  (zhinanxingyibuyi ‘ 知難，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

目前留心國事的人，大概把視線都集中在西北與東南兩方面，都認為這些自相殘殺的內戰，是中國目前極重要的事端，都認這些內戰有極可注意的價值。其實，百年後讀史者，翻到民國十八年這幾頁史的時候，尋得著一條綱目，提到這些自相殘殺的事件否，仍為問題。我預料後人在民國十八年的歷史上，除了俄人侵入滿州這奇辱極恥外， 定還可以尋得出這樣一段故事： “十八年時有胡適其人，做了‘知難，行亦不易’，‘人權與約法’ 一類的文章，批評黨義，觸犯黨諱，被黨員認為污辱總理，大逆不道， 有反革命罪。黨政府的中央執行委員會議決由教育部向胡適加以警誡。 同時中央執行委員會於十月廿一日常會通過‘全國各級學校教職員研究黨義條例’八條，通令全國各級教職員，對於黨義，‘平均每日至少須有半小時之自修研究’”。

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 蔣總司令, 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 (馮玉祥, 1882-1948) and Zhang Fakui (張發奎, 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?

我預料編史及讀史的人，一定重視這件故事。這並不是說在十八年的中國，胡適先生的地位的高貴，比得上蔣總司令等等，更不是“人權約法”這種反革命的口號，有馮玉祥張發奎們反革命的大炮的響亮。不過個人或團體，利用政治勢力，壓迫言論自由，這一類的事歷史家對之從來不肯放鬆，讀史的人對之，也從來沒有把他看得比武人互相斯殺的事更小。譬如說，秦始皇做皇帝十九年之久，當此十九年中，打仗殺人的事，自然很多，史家就沒有件件都記載出來。焚書坑儒，偶語棄市，這一端，史家是大書特書的。秦到如今，已一千七百餘年了，試問，中國有幾個忘記了秦始皇焚書坑儒這段歷史？

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.

如今舊事重提，說到胡適先生觸犯黨諱的公案，我不是想來判斷什麼是非──這是後人讀史者的權利。在我，其實很感謝這案件的發生，因此，中央執行委員會才肯為一班教職員們討論出自修研究學問的方法，因此我才可以從學校里得到“研究黨義條例” 這件公文，因此，我才逼迫著努力起來做條例上第二條第一期的工夫，因此，我每日半小時自修黨義的結果，才有這點點心得，才敢鼓起膽量來做這篇文章。

II

Mr. Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhongshan孫中山, 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

孫中山先生是擁護言論自由的。壓迫言論自由的人，是不明了黨義，是違背總理的教訓。倘使違背總理教訓的人是反動或反革命，那麼，壓迫言論自由的人，或者是反動或反革命。 

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

這些話不是杜撰的。在黨義上確有證據。

In the 30th year of the Guangxu (光緒) 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《中國問題真解決》) (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:

清光緒三十年（一九 Ο 四），孫先生曾做過“中國問題真解決”一篇文章（見中山書局出版的中山全書第四卷）。這篇文章，孫先生把滿清的罪孽宣布於世界。他舉出滿清罪狀十條，內有這兩項：

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

第二條：抑遏吾人智識之發展 

Point Six) Prohibiting freedom of speech

第六條：禁止言論自由

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.”

因為滿清有這樣“抑遏智識發展”，“禁止言論自由”的罪惡，所以孫先生向世界宣言“欲得平和，必加強暴”，所以他在同一篇文章里說：“中國革命時機，刻已熟矣”。這是孫先生擁護言論自由的證據，同時就是我本著“教職員研究黨義條例”做自修工夫的一點心得。

。

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:

民國十三年國民黨在廣州開全國代表大會，於是有第一次代表大會宣言。宣言里對內政策第六項說：

“確定人民有集會，結社，言論，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.”

民國十三年孫先生尚在世。第一次大會就是孫先生招集的。宣言里的一切政策，當然是孫先生的政策。這又是孫先生擁護言論自由的證據，同時就是我本著“教職員研究黨義條例”讀中山全書得來的一點心得。

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 中山全書)?

如今一班忠實同志們，認先總理的一切主張及計劃，是天經地義，先總理傳下來的一言一字，都是不可移易的真理。敢討論總理學說的是大逆不道；敢批評總理主張的，罪不容誅。這不知與第一次宣言里對內政策的第六項“確定人民有言論自由權”的原則，是否相合？這不知是否黨義上的遺教？這又不知是否中山全書里尋得出來的辦法？

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“每日半小時自修研究黨義”的結果，在孫先生的英文實業計劃（The International Development of China 系商務印書館一九二 Ο 年出版）里，發現這樣一段話：

“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灤河), 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)

“這計劃的各部，不過是一個外行人（layman）根據很有限制的資料想出來的一個粗簡的大綱或政策。經過科學的研究及詳細的調查，修正及改良是不可避免的。例如，關於在青河灤河兩口之間修筑北方大港的計劃，著者以為港口應位在東方，但經過專家實地調查後，發現港口應在西方。所以，這計劃應待專家的指正。”

（見原書序文第二節）

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.

孫先生很謙恭地承認自己在實業上是外行，完全承認專家的知識，承認他的計劃“經過科學的研究及詳細的調查，修正及改良是不可避免的”，這就是孫先生在世時對他的主張及學說的態度，這是偉大人物在他的主張上及學說上應有的態度。

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?

孫先生在他的實業計划上的態度是如此，在他其餘的主張及學說上，當然想亦如此。實業上有專家，心理上亦有專家，政治上亦有專家，一切的學說上都有專家。他的實業計劃，經過科學的研究及詳細的調查，可以修正；其他心理建設，政治建設等等， 經過科學的研究及詳細的調查，當然亦可以修正。這是科學的態度，這是偉大人物對他的主張及學說上應有的態度。孫先生在世的時候，於他的主張及學說，他請專家來批評，他請專家來討論，只要討論與批評的人，有較好的意見，他隨時修正他自己的主張。北方大港的港口專家認為應在西方的孫先生不能堅持應在東方（港口的更正是美使芮恩詩博士派技師測量後改正的）。在其他方面的計劃亦如是，東西的位置，亦不能倒置。所謂先總理的學說及主張，不許討論，不許批評，在中山全書上有什麼根據？

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.”

“永無錯誤”（Infallibility）這句話，只有幾個淺陋無識，心懷窄狹，不明了基督教義的教皇才敢說，才肯說。耶穌本身沒有這樣的態度。實際上，他們說這句話的時候，根本就成了耶穌的叛徒。實際上，說“永無錯誤”，既此既是他們的錯誤；既此既是他們“永遠的錯誤”。

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.

上面這段話，不過說明兩點：（一）孫先生在他的主張及計划上是歡迎批評和討論的；（二）孫先生是擁護言論自由的。我本段的結論：壓迫討論及批評的人，是壓迫言論自由，壓迫言論自由，是亡清的罪惡，是中山先生所反對的。壓迫言論自由的人，是違背中山先生的教訓的。

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.”

這裡，或者有人要認我誤解“言論自由”了。他們要說“言論自由”有“言論自由”的範圍，不是什麼都可言，什麼都可論。因此，進一步來討論言論自由的範圍。

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

言論自由，就是“有什麼言，出什麼言，有什麼論，發什麼論”的意思。言論的本身， 絕對不受何種干涉。行政官吏用命令禁止言論，這當然是非法的行動，是違背言論自由的原則。就是立法機關或司法機關拿法律的招牌來範圍言論，也是違背言論自由的原則。

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.

“法律以外無自由”，是句欺人的話。單單說，“自由”兩字，是空泛無意義的。具體的舉出某種自由來，就是說某事已成特權，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：

言論自由這名詞，就是指法律不得干涉言論而言的。言論自由這名詞，起於英國。英國承認言論自由的法典，第一次發現於一六八九年十二月公布的人權條文（The Bill of Rights）。條文里有這樣一句：

“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.”

“國會內一切演說，辯論，及議事的自由，不受院外一切法庭及任何地點的彈劾及追問（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.

這是很明白的，言論自由，是指不受院外法庭及任何地點的彈劾及追求而言，是指不受法律的干涉而言的。直到如今，英國議員在院內的言論，是在法庭法律勢力範圍以外。

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:

嚴格說起來，人權條文上所保證的只有英國議員的言論自由。普通人民的言論自由是在憲法上沒有保障的。普通人民的言論自由是靠英國的“common law”。普通人民言論自由的保障載在憲法上的，先例是美國。美國憲法的修正案第一條原文如下：

“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.”

“國會不得制定法律，規定宗教或禁止人民信教自由，或取締人民的言論，印刷，集會及請願之自由。”(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:

這是很明白的，言論自由，是指不受法律干涉的自由。是指國會不得制定法律，取締人民的言論而言。所以“言論自由”的真義應如此：

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.

言論的本身是絕對不受法律限制的。言論自由的範圍是世界上無事不可言，世界上無事不可論的。只要言論者肯負言論的責任，他有什麼言，盡可出什麼言，有什麼論，盡可發什麼論。譬如說，在天文方面，他盡可倡天是四方，地是八角的學說；在算術方面，他盡可倡三加二為四，四減二為三的理論；在政治方面，他盡可以宣傳君主，他盡可以鼓吹共產，他盡可以贊成三萬人組織內閣，他盡可以提議五個人組織國會。因為有什麼言，出什麼言，有什麼論，發什麼論，這是言論自由的根本原則。至於他言論的價值及真理，那與言論自由是兩件事。

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).

上面這段話，不是我故作詭論的。英國政治學者拉斯克 Laski 有這樣一段話： “我的主張是，在國家（state）方面，國民應絕對讓他自由發表他私人所有或與旁人考慮結果所有的意見。他可以宣傳社會現狀的缺點。他可以主張用武力革命的方法去改造現狀。他可以偶像現在的制度是理想中的完滿者。他可以說凡與一己持異議的人的意見，均應取締。他可以由私人單獨或聯合他人去發表他的意見，無論取哪種形式發表他的意見，他是不受任何干涉。進一步，他有權利採用任何出版的方法，宣布他的意見，他可以發刊書本，或小冊，或報紙；他可以採用演講的方式，他可以到大會去報告。他能做任何或所有一切上列的事項， 在進行上同時他得到國家完全的保障，這才是自由上一種根本的人權”（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.

其實，拉斯克這個言論自由的解釋，不是空的理想。有許多已經是英國的事實了。只要言論不是憑空說謊，不是無故造謠，不是蓄意誹謗，不是存心誣陷，英國沒有法律能夠干涉到人民的言論的。英國的皇帝，英國的國會，英國的內閣，英國的法庭，故不能叫要說什麼話的人不說什麼話，或叫不說什麼話的人說什麼話（參看 Dicey 的 Law of The Constitution）。英國政府可以干涉憑空說謊，無故造謠，蓄意誹謗， 存心誣陷，這是英國的（Law of Libels）。但這是言論者的人格問題，言論上的責任問題。

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.

言論自由與說謊、造謠、誹謗、誣陷是兩件事。即使說謊、造謠、誹謗、誣陷，亦不是政府隨時隨意可以用命令去警誡或取締的，是要先經過法庭方面陪審員決定某人確有說謊、造謠、誹謗，誣陷的事實，而後國家的法律，才可以行使他的威權。換言之，英國的法律，不能干涉言論，只能迫言論者負言論的責任而已。英國的公園裡就可以宣傳無政府，英國的議院里就可以演講共產黨，英國沒有什麼黨的主張是不許批評的，英國沒有什麼人的學說是不許討論的。

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天字號) is not allowed, and a Earth organization (dizihao地字號) is subordinate to the Heaven organization, then criticizing the Earth organization must also not be allowed. Similarly, if a Human organization (renzihao人字號) is connected to the Earth organization, and a Harmony organization (hezihao和字號) 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”是絕對的，是整個的。“自由”二字不能有什麼度數，不能分什麼多少。假使說“言論自由”應有么量或多少的限制，假使說某甲的主張是不許討論的, 某乙是某甲的信徒，勢必至某乙的主張亦不許討論。某丙是某乙的信徒的朋友，勢必至某丙的主張亦不許討論，某丁是某丙的信徒的朋友的朋友，勢必至某丁的主張亦不許討論。假使說天字號這個團體是不許批評，地字號這個組織是原於天字號的，勢必至地字號的組織亦不許批評，人字號是與地字號有關係的，和字號是與人字號有關係的，勢必至人字號和字號這一切組織都不許批評。這種限制，這種取締，勢必至無可討論，無可批評而止。結果，天下事沒有絕對的自由，就成為絕對的沒有自由。

“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).

拉斯克說得好：“凡對於社會制度的批評，都是多少的問題。假使禁止鼓吹革命，勢必至取締說現狀不是神聖。假使我根本咬定俄國共產黨是政治上的萬惡，勢必強認教授俄國人的英文是一種共產的宣傳”。

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.

所以說言論自由，是有什麼言，出什麼言；有什麼論，發什麼論。無事不可言，無事不可論。天下事沒有絕對的自由，就成為絕對的不自由。

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.

這種言論自由的解釋，在一班執政者看來，必以為狂妄怪謬，必認為暴亂危險。必以為如此放任，邪說異端，必成為洪水猛獸般的禍害。這點，不是言論自由之範圍的問題，乃為壓迫言論之效力問題。因此，進一步與壓迫言論自由者討論壓迫言論之效果。

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）

真正好的主張及學說，不怕對方的攻擊，不怕批評和討論，取締他人的言論自由，適見庸人自擾。對方的攻擊，果能中的，取締他人的言論自由，是見敵而怯，適足以示弱，適足以速亡。本身真有好的主張及學說，對方攻不倒。對方真有好的主張及學說，我亦壓迫不住。自由批評，自由討論，絕對的言論自由，固然是危險，實際上壓迫言論自由的危險，比言論自由的危險更危險。

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?

人類史上，壓迫言論自由的經驗舉不勝舉，有哪次，在壓迫者的方面，沒有弄到極凄慘的結果？

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 (宣統) Emperor would still be wearing his crown and dragon robe. Or at least, the country would be under the rule of Hongxian (洪憲) Emperor, or under the rule of Zhang Xun (張勳, 1854-1923), Zhang Zongchang (張宗昌, 1881-1932) or Zhang Zuolin (張作霖, 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 (袁世凱, 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 《民權報》) and acting principals of Peking University were all forced to flee. However, if we look around today, whose world is it now?

何必遠索上古中古的史事。假使壓迫言論自由是制服敵人的好辦法，如今中國的首都一定還在北京，如今宣統一定還在頭戴皇冠，身著龍袍。縱不然，亦應是洪憲皇帝的天下，縱不然，亦應是張勳(Zhang Xun)19，張宗昌(Zhang Zongchang)20，張作霖(Zhang Zuolin)21的天下。在壓迫言論自由上，他們當然要算前輩，要算“先知先覺”了。反過來看，中山先生革命的成功，滿清“壓迫知識發展”，“禁止言論自由”，間接的幫忙不少。前清何嘗不以為壓迫言論自由，是取締革命學說的妙法。結果怎樣？在 1929 年的中國，各級教職員都有“每日最少半小時自修研究”滿清所壓迫的革命學說的機會？袁世凱，段其瑞，張作霖等等又何嘗不認壓迫言論自由是對付敵人的妙方，所謂民權報的記者編輯，所謂北大的代理校長，何嘗沒有亡命逃難過。但是，請看今日之域中，竟是誰家之天下？

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.

有人或者認前此壓迫言論的失敗，是中國進代史上偶然的和例外的事。我們且看看西洋的歷史。

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).

三零三年的時候，羅馬不是有位 Diocletian 皇帝？皇帝不是還有位 Galeirus 大臣？他倆不是以屠殺耶教徒著名嗎？那時耶教徒膽敢拒絕偶像 Caesar，膽敢批評羅馬的家庭及社會制度，膽敢鼓吹上帝天國的邪說。於是 Dioetian 和 Galeriue就法密如網，打毀一切教堂，沒收一切教產，焚燒一切教經，囚殺一切教徒。在羅馬當局方面，總算有絕大的決心，壓迫言論及信仰自由了。但是命令朝出夕撕，教徒殺不勝殺。到了 Galerius 臨死，只好自認壓迫政策失敗來講和（參看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.

豈止如此。二十年後，Constantine The Great 做皇帝的時候，耶穌教終究成了羅馬國教。Constantine 臨死的時候（三三七）還要先受洗禮，成為信徒，以便天堂參見上帝。這是羅馬皇帝壓迫宗教上的言論自由的結果。

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.

到了四五世紀以後，教會的地位站穩了，教皇的權力增大了。一班長老牧師就忘記了他們的“先知先覺”如何的被人壓迫，如何的慘死殉道。於是這班“後知後覺”忠實徒子徒孫就打起排除異端，取締邪說的旗子來了。他們就以羅馬皇帝對付他們“先知先覺”的方法，來壓迫他們眼光里的異端邪說了。到了十五世紀的時候，就把Wycliff（一三二零至一三八四）掘骨燒灰，把John Huss 生焚而死。等到十六世紀初年馬丁路德出來以後，所謂異端邪說的學說，又壓迫不勝其壓迫了。後來，終造成歷史上的宗教革命：如今，在宗教方面，新教的勢力比舊教又怎樣？壓迫言論成功了嗎？歷史是有循環性。後知後覺，總容易忘記先知先覺的往事，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.

我們再看各國政治史壓迫言論自由的經過。法國經過路易十四路易十五兩代的奢侈，到十八世紀的末葉，已成民窮財盡的景況，怨聲載道，謗議四起。路易十五曾經大興文字獄，Voltaire 這流人物，或放或囚；批評時政這類書籍，或禁或燒，Lettres de Cachet 惟取惟求，Bastille 滿谷滿倉，結果如何，終於造成法國大革命。一八一五年路易十八復辟，一八二四年查里士第十繼續王位，兩位皇帝一方面仰仗國外奧援，一方面重用迂腐舊臣，又造成反動的政治。至一八三零年查里士第十公布所謂“七月大法” July Ordinances 內中第一道命令，就是禁止人民的出版自由，因此引起 “Nation ”報記者Thiers 的抗議，因此引起法國歷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趕以後，路依菲力蒲Louis Philippe 起來做法國皇帝。因為國會選舉資格問題，又引起國人反抗。菲力蒲對付的方法，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會，討論改良選舉資格問題，政府先期以武力干涉集會恐嚇，結果又造成法國歷史上一八四八年二月的大革命。試問，壓迫言論自由的方法，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?

我們再看看英國的歷史。英國歷史的兩次大革命（一六四一及一六八八年）簡直可以說是壓迫言論自由有以促成的。查里士第一，我們是知道的，在登位的初年，因為壓迫人民的言論自由，一連解散了三次國會（一六二五，一六二六，一六二九）。等到一六四零再召集國會，又以Pym 及一班議員大放厥詞，馬上把國會解散。一八四一年又提高議員資格，召集新國會，國會又提出所謂“Grand Remonstrance”，實際等於向國民公布皇帝罪案二百餘條。查里士第一以為一班議員太放肆了，親率軍隊，侵入議院，想逮捕國會為首的五位議員，以達壓迫言論自由的目的，結果，激成一六四一年的議會革命。一六六零年查里士第二僥倖被人迎回到英國來做皇帝，詹姆斯第二在一六八五年繼續皇位，兩位皇帝又因為宗教問題，引起爭議。查理士第二及詹姆士第二對付的方法又系祖宗的故智。唯一的辦法，解散國會，干涉言論。結果，詹姆士第二在一六八八年棄位而逃，促成英國歷史上一六八八年的革命。試問，壓迫言論自由，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?

美國壓迫言論自由的故事，最大的要算一七九八年聯治派執政時所通過的Alien and Sedltion Act。案之內容：（一）取締人民單獨或聯合的對政府一切抗命的行動；（二）取締人民在政治上的言論自由。這是聯治派Federalists眾叛親離利用

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?

一九一五年前俄國壓迫言論自由的經過，更是我們親眼所看見的。如今Nicholas Ⅱ那裡去了？紅旗到底掛滿了俄國，馬克思和列寧的共產學說，單憑壓迫言論自由的方法，打消的了嗎？ 

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

美國的紐約世界報有個記者（Frank I Cobb）他有這一段演說： 

“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. ”

“本晚我是被請來講言論自由的價值及危險。人世最大的危險，就從‘壓迫’上發生出來。壓迫言論自由的危險，比言論自由的危險更危險。假使壓迫言論是好方法，布邦皇室Bourbons應仍居法國的皇位，浪曼諾夫皇室Romanoffs 仍為俄國的君主，西班牙仍為大帝國，赫浦斯伯皇室Hapsburgs 仍統治神聖的羅馬帝國，聯治黨Federalist仍在華府執政。” 

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.”

他又說： “記到，人民不屬於政府，政府屬於人民！記到，沒有充分的且極自由的討論，在代議的民治國家，沒有一事可以得到合理性的解決的。最後，記到，政治及經濟的安定，社會制度的穩固，不靠法官及獄吏的本事，實賴人民的自治能力。後者是民主政治的本質及靈魂。” 

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

這一切話，可以做中國壓迫言論自由者的座右銘。

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擁護言論自由者，解釋了言論自由的範圍，證明了壓迫言論自由者最後的失敗。言論自由本身的利益，我沒有說明，這實為童幼皆知的事，沒有說明的必要，亦說不勝說。

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”(三民五權)？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：假使滿清壓迫言論自由成功了，今日我們到什麽地方去尋三民五權這部經典？這是人類及國家如何的一種損失？忠實同志們當然不否認這點的。

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.

孫中山先生的學說及主張，從前滿清壓制言論自由的方法，不能消滅他，如今當然也不靠壓迫言論自由來保護。忠實同志們，當然亦不否認這點。

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.

誠如此，前清的殺革命黨，封報館，燒書籍，在一班忠實同志們眼光里，是笨伯所做的事。忠實同志們，亦應該承認這點。 

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

後之視今，亦猶今之視昔！

December 1

（十二月一日）

Appendix

附錄

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.

因警誡胡適而引起之

『各級學校教職員研究黨義暫行條例』

十八年十月廿一日中央第四十四次常會通過

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.

第一條 本黨為貫徹黨義教育起見，全國各級學校教職員應依照本條例之規定，對於本黨黨義作系統的研究，求深切的認識。

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.”

第二條 各級學校教職員研究黨義，其研究程序分為四期，茲訂研究標準如下：

第一期研究「孫文學說」「軍人精神教育」「三民主義」

第二期研究「建國大綱」「五權憲法」「民權初步」「地方自治開始實行法」

第三期研究「實業計劃」

第四期研究「實業計劃」

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.

第三條 每期研究期間以一學期為限，平均每日至少須有半小時之自修研究，每周至少須有一次之集合研究。

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.

第四條 學校教職員人數過少不便集會研究時，得與鄰近學校聯合組織黨義研究會，期收共同研究之效益，但如因人數過少交通不便者得通信討論。

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.

第五條 全國各級學校教職員應集合研究黨義時，兼討論實施教育之各種問題，並將討論結果報告教育行政長官及當地高級黨部，匯呈中央訓練部備考查。

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.

第六條 全國各級學校教職員研究黨義成績之優秀者應分別獎勵，其考核條例另訂之。

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. 

第七條 本條例如有未盡事宜，由中央訓練部提請中央執行委員會常務會議修正。之。

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

第八條 本條例由中央執行委員會常務會議議決施行。