Some people say the Han Han affair is yet another diversion of public attention: there are so many major matters concerning the national economy and people’s livelihoods worth following, yet internet users are gathered around such a boring little incident. In my view, although Fang Jiaozhu’s performance was boring, paying attention to this event is by no means unimportant. Because for our present environment, this question is no less secondary than any other: what exactly is freedom of speech?
Many people will say that even if Fang Zhouzi said something wrong, he should not be punished by law, because to protect freedom of speech, one cannot punish someone for their speech. This sounds plausible enough, but the premise of this claim is as if Fang Zhouzi were really carrying out some academic critique. Yet if Fang Zhouzi’s remarks were never free speech to begin with, then there is no such thing as “protecting freedom of speech.” In my view, sanctioning Fang Zhouzi is precisely protecting freedom of speech.
Several years ago I already discussed what freedom of speech is; looking back, that article was basically fine, with nothing obviously in need of correction. Now I will add a few more lines, as a sort of footnote:
In any case, everyone has freedom of speech, just as everyone has life; the difference lies in whether this freedom is protected by the state and society. For example, the laws of some countries protect wild animals, while the laws of other countries do not protect wild animals. This does not mean that there are no wild animals in the latter countries; on the contrary, there are wild animals there too, and perhaps even more of them, which is precisely why one can speak of a legal system that does not protect wild animals. Now we too all have freedom of speech, except that what we still lack is an environment that protects freedom of speech.
Saying that freedom of speech should be protected does not mean that every form of speech ought to be protected. Protecting freedom of speech is not the same as protecting speech; “free” is not abstract and empty, but concrete. Freedom of speech is one mode of speech. For instance, “wild animals” are one form of animal. If an animal has already been highly domesticated, if from birth it is fated to end up on the dining table, then it is not called a wild animal.
As for whether domesticated animals should also be protected, that is another matter. Whether or not you treat all animals alike, you still have to distinguish between these two modes of being, wild and domesticated. So we know that catching wild animals and making them live like domesticated animals is not protection of wild animals. If one wants to speak of protecting wild animals, one must first distinguish wild animals from other animals. If the so-called protection of wild animals is, in substance, to treat wild animals by means of captive breeding, then that probably is not truly protecting wild animals. — Similarly, to protect freedom of speech, one first needs to distinguish free speech from other kinds of speech. If the so-called protection of freedom of speech is in substance to view speech in an unfree manner, then it is simply going in the opposite direction.
Freedom is not laxity, but letting oneself be oneself—my writing can be used to target others, it can be used to make money and gain profit, but apart from these instrumental meanings, my words also possess intrinsic value. You can comment on whether Han Han’s remarks are worth publishing on Sina; you can doubt whether Han Han’s remarks are worth dealing with Fang Zhouzi; you can also judge whether Han Han’s remarks are worth such a large amount of remuneration. But besides these, you can also evaluate his remarks themselves; at that point you may ask: “Did Han Han say it well?” Only then am I treating his remarks as free speech. It is just like how we can ask: can wild giant pandas be eaten? What scientific value do wild giant pandas have? Is the image of the wild giant panda liked by children? But only when we ask: “Are wild giant pandas living well?” are we truly treating wild animals as wild animals. The freedom of speech and the freedom of life are analogous: if I care about you because you are a money-making tool, if I care how much money I can earn by keeping you alive two more days, if I protect you in order to make more money, then I have in fact not treated you as a free person in order to protect you. If one truly wants to protect the freedom of your life, the concern should not be “does keeping you alive make money,” but “are you living well?” Similarly, if one views speech as free, the concern should not be “what he says contributes to purifying Chinese society,” but simply “did he say it well?”
Thus we are now clear about who is opposing freedom of speech. Did Fang Zhouzi treat speech freely? Using the banner of “freedom of speech” to defend speech is precisely unfree speech. Free speech should defend itself; don’t bring in all that lofty talk of exposing fakes or abstract rights. You are saying this and that now, producing all kinds of “questioning”; I will now refute, one by one, each of the things you said, point out the loopholes and contradictions in them, and then what about you? You just ignore these words? You simply shift the topic, start over, and launch round after round of fresh attacks—but are you protecting your own speech? If, in your eyes, speech is merely a tool for exposing fakes, a weapon for attack, if even you yourself do not protect your own freedom of speech, then how can you demand that others protect you? It is like saying: I’ve domesticated a pack of wolfdogs, taking them everywhere to bite people, but when others try to resist, I pull out the Wildlife Protection Law and say that because they are wild animals you are not allowed to strike them—does that make sense? It is simply outrageous beyond words.
On the other hand, what Han Han came under attack for was precisely the freedom of his speech. Han Han’s speech was free, so we can ask: “How well did Han Han say it?” But Fang Zhouzi was not saying that Han Han wrote badly or incorrectly; he was saying: these words were not written by Han Han at all! Those words were no longer being regarded as free; instead, they were treated as written for creating stars or making money. Fang Zhouzi was not commenting on Han Han’s writing; he was, on the contrary, denying the very significance of commenting on Han Han’s writing. If his attack succeeded, the question “How well did Han Han say it?” would itself be completely abolished! This is also why Han Han became so furious, because what he suffered was a desecration that every scholar or writer who respects freedom of speech absolutely cannot tolerate: namely, the negation of freedom of speech. And this attack happened to come from someone who disregards freedom of speech, and, even more precisely, it was carried out wantonly under the shelter of the banner of “freedom of speech.” How could anyone bear that!
Though angry, Han Han’s response was still calm and appropriate. Han Han said: “He is very good at playing these tricks; everything is chosen only for what benefits him, not in a scientific and fair way, all merely so that he can bring his opponent down, stopping at nothing. But I am different. I know that Fang Zhouzi, including Fang Zhouzi’s family, also has quite a few dirty little secrets; some of his actions are exactly the things he himself is attacking. I can’t say this too clearly here. But I believe some netizens know. However, in this debate, I have not said a single word about it. I believe that if I also bit back at him, it would at least not be good for his reputation. Because I feel that this is his past affairs, or his family’s affairs, and has nothing to do with the discussion. So regarding Fang Zhouzi’s bad deeds, I have never mentioned a single word. On the contrary, he relied only on conjecture and even dragged my father into it. I feel very disappointed.” — We can see that Han Han still tried his best to respond to Fang Zhouzi’s attack in terms of free speech: whatever Fang Zhouzi said, Han Han responded to that; he did not dig up irrelevant old scores to defend against the speech of the present.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply