茉莉注：事情的起因是：
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。”
6月14日，方政在《波士顿环球报》读者来信中，指责“Abraham在继续宣扬一个神话，说天安门运动的领袖柴玲曾经‘期待流血’。柴的话被制片人错译并断章取义。正确的译法应该是‘anticipate’，而不是‘hope for’。”
方政先生是茉莉所敬佩的六四受害者。二十年来，他所遭受的苦难，是我们永远不能忘记的。但是，方政先生到美国后，在“波士顿环球报”上发表的这封读者来信，其中的观点是茉莉不敢苟同的。为了追求真实和公正，茉莉也以读者来信的方式，在该报做出回应。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
天安门反思----回应方政先生
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。
方政先生说制片人误译了八九学运"领袖"之一柴玲的话，我认为这种说法是荒谬的。作为一个道地的中国人，我觉得柴玲的措词相当刺耳。她在那段话里明确地谈到"期待流血"。"期待"一词在中文中所表达的意愿非常清楚，即言者愿意看到他或她所指望的事情发生。以中文为母语的人不会用"期待"来表达他或她不情愿看到的事情。而且，柴玲谈论流血的整段话的上下文，也强化了"期待"一词所带有的希望之义。如果译文表达不出这种意愿，（如方政先生认为的那样，"期待"不应当译为"hope''而应当译为 "anticipate''），那就违背了柴玲这段话的中文原意。
对八九学运的各种策略和领袖人物进行开诚布公的探讨和争论，对我们来说是必要的和应当的。在影片中出现的柴玲，不是不容置疑的"领袖"，而是有各种普通人性弱点的凡人。我认为，柴玲以"侵犯商标"起诉卡玛，是借这个幌子来报复制片人对历史的真实表述。
Yvonne Abraham的文章引起公众对这样一桩无理诉讼的关注，这是符合公众利益的。
茉莉写于瑞典Sundsvall
2009年6月18日
英文稿发表时有删节：
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/06/20/tiananmen_reconsidered/
Tiananmen reconsidered
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.
Mo Li
Sundsvall, Sweden
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
《波士顿环球报》专栏女作家 Yvonne Abraham
北京的教训没学到
By Yvonne Abraham
Globe Columnist / June 7, 2009
你最近大概听说了不少有关天安门广场的报道，因为本周四是中国人民争取民主的示威运动惨遭政府镇压的二十周年纪念日。
但是你大概没有听说，这个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。
曾被称做是1989年运动的总指挥的柴玲，如今在麻州居住，是一个成功的软件公司——尖子班——的总裁。在逃离中国之后，她多次慷慨激昂地宣扬言论自由的重要性。
然而“尖子班”却在利用法庭把两个制片人逼入绝境，因为他们的网站刊载了一些批评柴玲及其公司的文章摘录和链接。
先介绍一下背景。（说了有关柴玲的争议，《天安门》中柴玲有关流血的谈话，长弓网站上引述的有关柴玲的负面消息，其中也包括《波士顿寰球报》的文章， 等。）
“尖子班”起诉长弓电影公司诽谤，仅仅是因为长弓把读者引向了柴玲及其公司认为是具侵犯性和不准确的一些文章。一个Suffolk高等法院的法官英明地拒绝受理这一诽谤指控。因为无论如何，美国宪法的第一修正案保障了人民说话---以及引用他人话语----的权利，哪怕是你不喜欢听的那些话。
但是他们的案子却继续拖了下去，因为“尖子班”还指控说，仅仅因为在其网站的索引(Tag)中使用了其公司的名字，长弓就犯了商标侵权法----因为在网上搜索“尖子班”的某人可能被吸引到长弓的网站，从而被误导。
这是胡扯。
“所谓某人可能被误导的说法是如此荒唐，它连做笑话都不够格”，一位专长于有关宪法第一修正案官司的律师Harvey Silverglate说。就连法官都已经表示“尖子班”胜诉的可能性不大，但是柴玲仍然执意把官司打了下去。
为什么呢？因为要剥夺言论自由不止一种办法。“尖子班”有的是钱，卡玛(Hinton)和Gorton则没有。柴玲的诉讼至今为止已经花了他们七万美金。即使柴玲极可能输掉官司，她也可能因为逼迫长弓关门而成为实际胜利者。
“这场官司浪费了我们的大量资源”，卡玛说：”我们可能在法庭宣告我们胜诉之前就被迫破产。”
还有更过分的，上星期，“尖子班”的律师要求法庭禁止长弓在其网站上公布官司诉讼的材料。本周四，法官拒绝了他们，表示“担心公众形象受损”丝毫不能构成“禁言”的任何理由。
双方的律师都拒绝评论。
“数十年来（原文如此），长弓肆意丑化柴玲”，“尖子班”的发言人Bob Gray说，“现在柴玲有资源反击了，他们当然就不高兴了。”
然而问题不在于柴玲是否反击，问题在于她如何反击。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。
－－－－
英文原文：
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.
That's bosh.
"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 abraham@globe.com.
－－－－－－－－－－－－
方政致波士顿环球报译文：
《波士顿环球报》读者来信
制片人不知道天安门真相
2009年6月14日
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。
我敬佩柴玲在天安门广场的屠杀之后，在中国逃亡10个月，然后在美国开始了新的生活，并有所成就。她从不会英文，到掌握了语言，学会了经营公司。如今，她为我们的运动提供了大量的捐款，又在六四20周年纪念日声讨中国政府。
Abraham在继续宣扬一个神话，说天安门运动的领袖柴玲曾经“期待流血”。柴的话被制片人错译并断章取义。正确的译法应该是“anticipate”，而不是“hope for”。多少年来，天安门领袖们不断向制片人指出这个问题，但制片人为了有利于宣扬自己的观点，对此毫不理睬。
我们这些亲历了天安门运动的人－我本人被中共的坦克压断了双腿－我们比那些当时既不在场又没有冒任何风险的制片人更了解真相。
方政
英文原文：
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.
Fang Zheng
![[ads_url_inside]](http://pub.creaders.net/html/site_ad_images/2006101818055593.gif)
