斯諾登:我的自傳中文版遭遇中國審查

德國之聲 中文網

(德國之聲中文網)流亡俄羅斯的斯諾登(Edward Snowden)在11月12日发推特稱,其自傳體新書《永久記錄》的中文版遭遇審查,這"違反了合同"。他呼籲中國政府允許出版商印刷原版的未經審查的版本,並稱"我們將在幾周內免費在線分享真正的版本"。這條推文是斯諾登用簡體中文发的,他還為自己的普通話不好而道歉。

此外,斯諾登還用英文发表了更多推特,更詳細地闡述了這一事件。他表示,自己看到了被刪節的版本,拿到了"一些最糟糕的例子"。他表示,會將這些片段重新翻譯成中文,"揭示審查者想要隱瞞的東西"。

斯諾登在推特上貼出了中文版第16章146頁和152頁、第18章第183頁和184頁、第25章250頁、第26章261頁和262頁的內容。根據斯諾登貼出的文字截屏,這些內容有關於公民自由、威權社會的,也有關於中國的。

以第

16

152

頁為例,根據斯諾登的推特,該部分的英文內容為:

"The point of my researching this widely dispersed material was to do more than merely on how China was hacking us, however. My primary task was to provide a summary of the IC's assessment of China's ability to electronically track American officers and assets operating in the region.

Everyone knows (or thinks they know) about the draconian Internet measures of the Chinese government, and some people know (or think they know) the gravamen of the disclosures I gave to journalists in 2013 about my own government's capabilities. "

該部分的中文翻譯為:

不過,我搜尋、研究如此廣泛材料的目的不僅是為了研究中國如何網絡襲擊我們。我的主要目標是提供情報界對中國電子跟蹤美國官員以及地區運行資產的能力的評估。

每個人都知道(或自以為知道)中國政府嚴厲的互聯網措施,但對我在2013年向記者披露的、有關我自己政府這方面能力的內容,卻只有部分人知道(或自以為知道)。

在斯諾登貼出的中文版本中,這一段被縮減為:

"不過,我搜尋如此大量且分散的資料,不僅是為了研究中國……

……有些人知道(或自以為知道),美國的監控能力無比強大,這是我2013年交給記者的文件裡披露的內容。"

再以第

18

183

頁關於阿拉伯之春的內容為例

。該頁用紅筆勾出了三處省略號。其中一處是解釋"阿拉伯之春"中人們為何開始抗議,內容是關於專制主義、威權主義的。其對應的英文內容是:

"The crowds were calling for an end to oppression, censorship, and precarity. They were declaring that in a truly just society, the people were not answerable to the government, the government was answerable to the people. Although each crowd in each city, even on each day, seemed to have its own specific motivation and its own specifc goals, they all had one thing in common: a rejection of authoritarianism, a recommitment to the humanitarian principle that an individual's rights are in born and inalienable.

In an authoritarian state, rights deprive from the state and are granted to the people, In a free state, rights deprive from the people and are granted to the state. In the former, people are subjects, who are only allowed to own property, pursue an education, work, pray, and speak because their government permits them to. In the latter, people are citizens, who are agree to be governed in a covenant of consent that must be periodically reviewed and is constitutionally revocable, It's this crash, between the authoritarian and the liberal democratic, that I believe to be the major ideological conflict of my time-not some concocted, prejudiced notion of an East-West divide, or of a resurrected crusade against Christendom or Islam.

Authoritarian states are typically not governments of laws, but governments of leaders, who demand loyalty from their subjects and are hostile to dissent. Liberal-democratic states, by contrast, make no or few such demands, but depend almost solely on each citizen voluntarily assuming the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of everyone else around them, regardless of their race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexuality, or gender. Any collective guarantee, predicated not on blood but on assent, will wind up favoring egalitarianism-and though democracy has often fallen far short of its ideal, i still believe it to be the one form of governance that most fully enables people of difference backgrounds to live together, equal before the law.

This equality consists not only of rights but also of freedoms. In fact, many of the rights most cherished by citizens of democracies aren't even provided for in law except by implication. They exit in that open-ended empty space created through the restriction of government power. For example, Americans only have a "right" to free speech because the government is forbidden from making any law restricting that freedom, and a "right" to a free press because the government is forbidden from making any law to abridge it. They only have a "right" to worship freely because the government is forbidden from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, and a "right" to peaceably assemble and protest because the government is forbidden from making any law that says they can't. "

這部分的中文翻譯為:

人們要求結束壓迫、審查和動蕩。 他們表示,在一個真正公正的社會中,不是人民對政府負責,而是政府對人民負責。盡管每個城市的每個群體、甚至每天似乎都有著其特定的動機和特定的目標,但他們都有一個共同之處:拒絕專制;要求重新承諾人道主義原則,在該原則中,個人權利是人們與生俱來的、不可剝奪的。

在威權國家中,權利來自國家,由國家授予人民;在自由國家中,權利來自人民,由人民授予國家。 在前者中,只有在政府允許下,人們只能擁有財產,接受教育,可以工作、祈禱和发言。 在後者中,人們是公民,他們在達成契約的前提下同意接受治理,而該契約必須定期得到審查,並且可以通過憲法收回。我認為,威權主義國家和自由民主國家之間的這種沖突,正是我們這個時代的主要意識形態沖突,而不是對東西方鴻溝或者對基督教世界、伊斯蘭重新发起聖戰的偏見。

威權國家通常不是法律政府,而是領袖政府,他們要求子民保持忠誠,並對異議聲音持敵對態度。相比之下,自由民主國家不會或者很少提出這樣的要求,而幾乎完全取決於每個公民自願承擔保護周圍其他人自由的責任,而不論他們的種族、民族、信仰、能力、性取向以及性別。任何不以血緣而以共識為基礎的集體保證,都將最終傾向於平等主義--盡管民主常常遠未達到其理想狀態,但我仍然相信,它是最充分地讓具有不同背景的人們能夠實現法律面前平等地生活的一種治理形式。

這種平等不僅包括權利,也包括自由。 實際上,民主國家的公民最珍視的許多權利,甚至並沒有在法律章節中出現。它們是通過限制政府權力而創造出的開放空間而實現的。例如,美國人享有言論自由的"權利",因為政府被禁止制定任何限制自由的法律,他們享有新聞自由,因為政府被禁止制定任何法律限制新聞自由。他們有"權利"進行禮拜,因為政府被禁止制定任何有關宗教信仰的法律,而他們有和平集會和抗議的"權利",因為政府被禁止制定任何法律說不能這樣做。

這4段完全沒有在中文版出現,而是以"……"代替。

"我不是為了錢才寫這本書的"

斯諾登也在推特上向人們发出呼籲:"如果你懂簡體中文以及另外一種《永久記錄》的翻譯語言,請貼在該帖子的下面,看看是不是可以幫助補全中文版缺失的段落。

他表示,可能還有很多我們尚且不知道的改動,但是"讓我們現在就開始訂正這些(審查)修訂吧,謝謝你們幫助中國讀者!"

他在最後補充說,因為美國政府的官司,他不會從該書中文版本中賺一分錢,但"沒關系,我不是為了錢才寫這本書的"。

2013年,斯諾登洩露了有關西方政府大規模監控項目的機密文件,因此流亡海外。此前,他曾多次在采訪中對威權主義的興起提出警告。他在今年9月17日推出自傳《永久記錄》(Permanent Record)。

作者: 德國之聲 中文網