PragerU 诉 YouTube

中英对照文本

译校：FungChuh

The most important lawsuit in America right now—and perhaps the free world—is Prager University v. YouTube.

如今对美国最重要的官司，或许对自由世界也是，是 PragerU 诉 YouTube。

 

You might consider this a grandiose statement, especially since I'm the lead attorney for PragerU. I assure you, it's not.

你可能觉得这是个夸张的说法，尤其是我成了 PragerU 的首席代表律师。我向你保证，这不是夸张。

 

That's because this case is about the most fundamental freedom Americans have: freedom of speech, as enunciated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

这是因为这次案件关乎美国人所拥有的最基本自由：美国宪法第一修正案中阐明的言论自由。

 

All our freedoms—the very concept of freedom—springs from this right. Lose it, and we're no longer free—not as individuals, and not as a nation.

我们的所有自由——自由这一概念本身——源于这一权利。失去它，我们就不再自由——不仅是对个人而言，对于一个国家也是。

 

I'm not willing to accept that. PragerU doesn't accept that. And you shouldn't, either. 

我不愿接受。PragerU 不接受。你也不应该接受。

 

Okay, so how did we get into this situation? A little background. 

好了，那么我们是怎么来到这一境地的？一点背景信息。

 

PragerU is what is called a 501(c)(3)—a non-profit educational media company. It's known primarily for its five-minute videos. In 2016, viewers began to notice that certain PragerU videos were no longer available. YouTube had placed them on its 'restricted' list, which prevents the videos from playing on computers using content filters to screen out violence and pornography.

PragerU 属于 501(c)(3) 组织，一个非营利教育媒体公司。主要以其 5 分钟视频著名。在 2016 年，观众开始注意到部分 PragerU 视频无法访问。YouTube 将它们列入「限制」列表，阻止这些视频在使用了内容筛选器屏蔽暴力与色情内容的计算机上播放。

 

PragerU assumed this was simply a case of 'bad algorithms.' But YouTube said no—each 'restricted' video had been reviewed by a walking, talking human. The list included such diverse titles as 'Are the Police Racist?' by Heather Mac Donald, 'Israel's Legal Founding' by Alan Dershowitz, and even a video on the Ten Commandments by Dennis Prager. 

PragerU 以为这只是「糟糕算法」的关系。但 YouTube 说不是——每一支「受限制」视频都是由活生生的人审查过的。列表上囊括的视频多种多样，如海瑟·麦当劳演讲的《警察种族歧视吗？》，艾伦·德肖维茨演讲的《以色列的合法建立》，甚至还有一个丹尼斯·普拉格十诫系列的视频。

YouTube deemed each one unsuitable for young people, treating these videos the same as they would, say, for ones containing pornography or excessive violence. Keep in mind, this is PragerU we're talking about—as Main Street as you can get! 

YouTube 认为每一个都不适合年轻人，他们对待这些视频就像对待那些，比方说，包含色情内容或过度暴力的。注意，我们说的是 PragerU——再老少咸宜不过的了。

 

And that, ultimately, turns out to be the issue. 

最终，这就是问题所在。

 

PragerU's center-right content—many of their videos, by the way, have no political theme at all—offends YouTube's sensibilities. In other words, the videos aren't being restricted to protect young people from inappropriate content; they're being restricted to protect young people from ideas YouTube disagrees with.

PragerU 的中立右倾内容——顺便一提，他们的许多视频根本无关政治——冒犯了 YouTube 的敏感性。换而言之，这些视频被限制不是为了保护年轻人远离不适当内容；他们被限制是为了保护年轻人远离 YouTube 不同意的观点。

 

We didn't want to sue. We tried to reach an accommodation. But when YouTube wouldn't take the 'offending' videos off their restricted list—there are now 100 on that list—we had no other option. YouTube was infringing on our right to free speech. We filed in federal court in late 2017, and thereafter in California state court.  

我们本不想起诉。我们尝试达成和解。但是当 YouTube 不愿将那些「冒犯性」视频撤出限制列表——如今有 100 个视频在列表上——我们别无选择。YouTube 是在侵犯我们的言论自由权。我们在 2017 年末向联邦法院提起诉讼，之后还有加州州立法院。

 

Wait a second, you might say—YouTube, which is owned by Google, is aprivate company. Can't they do anything they want?

等一下，你或许会说——YouTube 由 Google 拥有，是一家私营公司。它们不是想做什么就做什么吗？

 

The answer is: Yes…and no.

答案：是……也不是。

 

Yes, if they are a publisher. No, if they are a public forum. 

是，如果它们是出版商。不是，如果它们是公共论坛。

 

So what's the difference? This gets right to the nub of the matter. 

那么区别是什么？这就正中问题的要点了。

 

A publisher chooses the content that resides on its site. The New York Times is a perfect example. You can't write a story and just expect the New York Times to publish it. The Times chooses what appears on its pages or website. And if they publish a story that contains a malicious lie, or violates copyright law, they can be sued. PragerU is also a publisher. It decides what material gets placed on its website. Most sites are publishers. 

出版商能选择在其网站上出现的内容。纽约时报是最好的例子。你不能写了篇文章就指望纽约时报出版它。时报选择什么出现在它的页面或网站上。如果它们出版了一篇包含恶意谎言或违反版权法的文章，它们会被起诉。PragerU 同样也是出版商。它决定什么素材能出现在它的网页上。大多数网站都属于出版商。

 

In contrast, a public forum—which can be a physical location, like the classic town square or a shopping mall, or a virtual location, like a website—is a place that must allow individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights. 

相反，一个公共论坛——它可以是实际场所，例如典型的城镇广场或购物中心，或者虚拟场所，例如一个网站——是一个必须允许个人和组织行使他们言论自由权的地方。

 

YouTube is an example of a public forum. In fact, YouTube describes itself a public forum. You make a video. YouTube hosts it. And anyone with an internet connection can watch it. Facebook is also a public forum, and so is Twitter.

YouTube 就是公共论坛的例子。实际上，YouTube 称自己是一个公共论坛。你做了一支视频。YouTube 上传它。所有连接到互联网的人都能观看它。Facebook 也是一个公共论坛，还有 Twitter 也是。

 

Here's why this is so important: 

以下是为什么这很重要：

 

A public forum under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans and passed by Congress in 1996—is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. If someone posts a video about how to build a bomb or writes a threatening comment, the public forum website cannot be held legally responsible for that content. 

一个在《通讯规范法》第 230 条保护下的公共论坛——这条法令由民主党和共和党共同发起并于 1996 年被国会通过——不需要为放在其网站上的内容负责。如果某人发了支关于如何制造炸弹的视频或写恐吓评论，公共论坛网站不会对该内容负法律责任。

 

That's a good thing. It gives YouTube and other public forums the chance to host a wide variety of material, from nature videos to political diatribes, without fear of being sued. And it worked. 

这是件好事。它给了 YouTube 和其他公共论坛机会上传品类多样的素材，从自然风光视频到政治抨击，而不用担心被起诉。它奏效了。

 

And then, it didn't.

而之后，它又不奏效了。

 

A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers. 

几年前，社交媒体巨头们——Google，Facebook，YouTube 和 Twitter——开始表现得不像公共论坛，而更像出版商。

 

They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote 'a true diversity of political discourse,' and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria. 

它们不再遵守第 230 条，其特别要求这些网站增进「真正的政治讨论多样化」，并开始用它们自己的政治与社会标准评判内容。

 

In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher. 

换句话说，社交媒体巨头们想两全其美：它们想要作为公共论坛的保护又想要作为出版商的编辑控制权。

 

We're fine if they're a publisher. And we're fine if they're a publicforum. 

如果它们是出版商，我们没意见。如果它们是公共论坛，我们也没意见。

 

They just can't be both. 

它们不能两样都是。

 

If we win our legal action, YouTube will have to return to the way things were when they started. That's freedom.

如果我们的法律行动取得胜利，YouTube 将必须回到它们一开始的做法。那就是自由。

 

But if we lose, YouTube gets to act as a publisher while pretending to be a public forum. That would mean much less freedom. 

但如果我们输了，YouTube 就能像一个出版商那样行事又假装自己是个公共论坛。那将意味着非常少的自由。

 

And then, eventually, no freedom. Because the most powerful internet sites on earth will determine what you see—and what you don't. 

到最后，没有自由。因为地球上大部分影响力大的网站将决定你能看什么，你不能看什么。

 

I'm Eric George, Managing Partner, Browne George Ross, for Prager University.

我是艾瑞克·乔治，布朗乔治罗斯律师事务所的合伙经营人，为 PragerU 制作。