“我去戴口罩”——美国大学教授辱华遭停课
密苏里大学教授口罩玩笑激起众怒（英文报道）
概述：这个老师上网课，在师生互相介绍时询问有没有外国人，一个中国学生说有而且自己来自武汉，老师说：“让我先戴上口罩”，同时作势要离开戴口罩。老师因为种族主义的排外言论被学校停课，在网上发声谴责的大多是美国本地学生。有人在推特称认识当事人，并称对方对老师的玩笑不以为然。
概述：这个老师上网课，在师生互相介绍时询问有没有外国人，一个中国学生说有而且自己来自武汉，老师说：“让我先戴上口罩”，同时作势要离开戴口罩。老师因为种族主义的排外言论被学校停课，在网上发声谴责的大多是美国本地学生。有人在推特称认识当事人，并称对方对老师的玩笑不以为然。
86 个评论
[url=/article/item_id-481218#][/url]
[quote][url=/article/item_id-481218#][/url][url=/article/item_id-481217#][/url]
[url=/article/item_id-481218#]
我覺得如下摘錄是有價值的：
Cohen v. California, by Justice Thurgood Marshall:
[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [Citations.] To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'
也就是說，言論自由是中性的，跟內容無關，內容不能成為禁止言論的理由，否則，言論自由作為一個整體原則將會被完全失去
除非有以下幾個exceptions：
1. "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action" （只是advocating violence受到保護，更不要說hate speech）
2. 受爭議的所謂False statements of fact， 這一點目前判例不完善，但是我個人徹底反對這一點（edit：除非一些極其有限的特例比如誹謗）作為exceptions，簡單理由是，公權力不能決定什麼算fact，只有中共國可以
3. 其他一些跟sex有關的
exceptions只會越來越多，如果我們心中的言論自由變了，或者被混淆，言論自由在法律上也會越來越滑坡，那麼距離中共國就無限接近了。
[quote][url=/article/item_id-481218#][/url][url=/article/item_id-481217#][/url]
[url=/article/item_id-481218#]
我覺得如下摘錄是有價值的：
Cohen v. California, by Justice Thurgood Marshall:
[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [Citations.] To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'
也就是說，言論自由是中性的，跟內容無關，內容不能成為禁止言論的理由，否則，言論自由作為一個整體原則將會被完全失去
除非有以下幾個exceptions：
1. "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action" （只是advocating violence受到保護，更不要說hate speech）
2. 受爭議的所謂False statements of fact， 這一點目前判例不完善，但是我個人徹底反對這一點（edit：除非一些極其有限的特例比如誹謗）作為exceptions，簡單理由是，公權力不能決定什麼算fact，只有中共國可以
3. 其他一些跟sex有關的
exceptions只會越來越多，如果我們心中的言論自由變了，或者被混淆，言論自由在法律上也會越來越滑坡，那麼距離中共國就無限接近了。
