2009年6月7日，《波士顿环球报》的专栏女作家 Yvonne Abraham在该报撰文谈及柴玲起诉卡玛一案，说，天安门“运动的一个领袖如今就在波士顿这个地方，对着民主的支柱狠踢了一脚。”“柴玲在利用美国法律制度攻击她当年的同学为之献出生命的自由。”
在贵报"Filmmakers don't know truth of Tiananmen''（制片人不知道天安门的真实）一文，即方政先生6月14日致波士顿环球报专栏作家Yvonne Abraham 的信中，他以1989年天安门广场被官方镇压的全体受害者的名义说话。作为一个因参加这次运动而羁狱将近三年，而后流亡国外的受害者，我不同意方政先生对卡玛的影片《天安门》的指责。
June 20, 2009
columnist Yvonne Abraham, Fang Zheng claims to speak for all victims of the government crackdown at Tiananmen Square (“Filmmakers don’t know truth of Tiananmen,’’ Letters, June 14). A victim myself (nearly three years’ imprisonment), I object to his characterization of the film “The Gate of Heavenly Peace.’’
His assertion that the filmmakers mistranslated Ling Chai, a leader of the 1989 demonstrations, is absurd. As a native Chinese speaker, I find disturbing her choice of words - that they were hoping for bloodshed. The verb “qidai,’’ which she used when speaking of bloodshed, expresses an unambiguous hope. No native speaker would use “qidai’’ to describe an event that he or she does not wish to see occur. Moreover, the context of Chai’s full statement about bloodshed reinforces this sense of hoping. Any translation that does not convey the intention inherent in “qidai’’ (Zheng sees it as “anticipate’’ rather than “hope’’) hides the unmistakable Chinese meaning of Chai’s statement.
Chai is using a lawsuit involving trademark infringement to punish the filmmakers for presenting an honest account of history that humanizes her rather than uncritically casting her as an infallible leader. That Yvonne Abraham has brought this case to public attention serves us all well.
《波士顿环球报》专栏女作家 Yvonne Abraham
By Yvonne Abraham
Globe Columnist / June 7, 2009
Beijing lesson unlearned
By Yvonne Abraham
What you might not have heard about is how a leader of that crushed movement is trying to put the boot into a pillar of democracy right here in Boston.
Ling Chai, sometimes called commander in chief of the 1989 demonstrations, now lives in Massachusetts and heads a successful software company, Jenzabar Inc. In the years since she fled China, she has spoken passionately about the importance of free speech.
And yet Jenzabar is using the courts to bring two filmmakers to near-ruin because their website contains excerpts from, and links to, articles critical of Chai and her firm.
First, some background. In the years since she arrived in the United States, debate has surrounded Chai. Some of her contemporaries, as well as some historians, say that Chai and other student leaders made mistakes in the last hours of the standoff with the Chinese government and that their decision to remain in Tiananmen Square led to more deaths. It's an allegation bolstered by Chai's own words, according to a translation of an interview she gave in those chaotic final days.
The interview is included in an award-winning documentary, "The Gate of Heavenly Peace.'' In it, Chai says: "How can I tell [our followers] that we actually are hoping for bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to butcher the people brazenly. Only when the square is awash in blood will the people of China open their eyes.''
Chai has long said that comment was mistranslated and taken out of context, and some other student leaders support her view.
Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon stand by their film, and other Chinese leaders support them. They also maintain a website, with updates on Chai that refer to stories and columns on Jenzabar, some unflattering, including one published in the Globe.
Jenzabar sued the filmmakers' company, Long Bow Films, for defamation - just for directing readers to the articles Chai and her company say are offensive and inaccurate. A Suffolk Superior Court judge wisely threw the defamation charge out. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to say - and cite - even things you don't like, after all.
But the case has dragged on because Jenzabar is also contending that just by using the company's name as a tag on its website, Long Bow is guilty of trademark infringement - that somebody googling Jenzabar might land on the Long Bow site and get confused.
"The idea that somebody would be confused is so remote as to not pass the giggle test,'' said Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases. Even the judge said Jenzabar is unlikely to win. And yet Chai perseveres.
Why? There is more than one way to skin free speech. Jenzabar has buckets of money. Hinton and Gordon don't. Chai's suit has cost them 70 grand so far. Even though she will probably lose the court battle, she could win the war by shutting Long Bow down.
"It has drained a lot of our resources,'' Hinton said. "We may be driven into bankruptcy before we see our day in court.''
There's more. Last week, Jenzabar attorneys asked a judge to prevent Long Bow from updating their website on the continuing court case. On Thursday, the judge knocked them down, saying "fear of bad publicity'' isn't grounds for a gag order.
Lawyers for both sides declined comment.
"Long Bow has gratuitously maligned Ling Chai for decades, '' said Rob Gray, spokesman for Jenzabar. "And now that she has the resources to fight back, they don't like it.''
But the problem isn't that Chai is fighting back. It's how she's fighting back. She's using the justice system to attack the very freedoms for which her fellow students gave their lives.
Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. Her e-mail address is email@example.com.
Yvonne Abraham 在她的文章中(“北京的教训没学到“ 6月7日城市版专栏) 把柴玲描绘成一个负面形象，而没有提到她大量的优点。同时，作者也没有提到学生领袖们对《天安门》一片对我们不准确的报道所提出的反对意见。
Filmmakers don't know truth of Tiananmen
June 14, 2009
YVONNE ABRAHAM ("Beijing lesson unlearned," Metro, June 7) paints a negative picture of Ling Chai without mentioning her many positives, and without sufficiently delving into the objections of student leaders to the way we were inaccurately portrayed by filmmakers Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon in their movie "The Gate of Heavenly Peace."
I admire Chai for escaping with her life after 10 months of hiding in China following the Tiananmen Square massacre, and for starting a new and successful life in America. Coming here with no English, she learned the language and business. Now she is helping our movement by donating significant funds and speaking out against the Chinese government on the 20th anniversary of the massacre.
Abraham perpetuates the myth that Chai, as a leader of the 1989 demonstrations, was "hoping for bloodshed." Chai's language was mistranslated by the filmmakers, and taken out of context. It is properly translated as "anticipate" rather than "hope," something the Tiananmen leaders have been pointing out for years but that the filmmakers have ignored to better promote their perspective.
Those of us who were at Tiananmen - I lost my legs to a Chinese tank - know the truth a lot better than some filmmakers who weren't there and risked nothing.