Who can criticize on academic comments? (By Mr. He Weifang)

[studentyoung]

(执掌司法权柄者要时时意识到司法权的有限性，它不能包打天下，它要尊重其他行业的评价准则，它应对社会演进抱一份相对平和的心态。)

(The law-officers must be always aware of the limit of jurisdiction, i.e. it can’t solve all the problems under the sun, it must also respect the criterions in other businesses, and judges must keep a peaceful mind to the social evolution.)

谁来评论学术评论？(贺卫方)

Who can criticize on academic comments?

http://gzdaily.dayoo.com/gb/content/2006-05/08/content_2497050.htm

贺卫方

by Mr. He Weifang

北京大学法学院教授

The law professor in the law school of Beijing University

(translated by studentyoung)

1. 对于宣科诉吴学源及《艺术评论》杂志社一案，无论是担任一审的丽江市中级人民法院，抑或是担任二审的云南省高级人民法院，都认定吴学源和《艺术评论》杂志社因为发表《纳西古乐是什么东西？》一文而侵犯了宣科的名誉权。两家法院都申明它们不介入学术之争：“法院对于学术问题不作法律上的裁判”（一审），“对正常的学术争论，法律不作干预”（二审），与此同时又都界定吴文超越了学术批评的界限，借学术评论对于宣科的人格进行了攻击和贬损。法院作出侵权成立的判断似乎也就顺理成章了。

As for the case on Mr. Xuan Ke appealed of Mr. Wu Xueyuan and the magazine “Comment on Arts”, no matter the Lijiang’s municipal intermediate people’s court, which was the first instance court, or the Yunnan’s provincial higher people’s court, which was the second instance court, both judged that Mr. Wu Xueyuan and the article “What is Naxi ancient music?” (by Mr. Wu Xueyuan) released by the magazine “Comment on Arts” have infringed upon Mr. Xuan Ke’s right of reputation. Both two courts declared that they didn’t get involved in academic arguments, “Courts can’t make any legal judgment on academic arguments ” (in the first instance); “As for common academic arguments, laws should not be interfered in.” (in the second instance); meanwhile they both ruled that Mr. Wu’s article has surpassed the critical limit in academic field and Mr. Wu has taken the advantage of the academic comment to attack and disparage Mr. Sun Ke’s personality. Therefore, it seems so natural for the courts made the judgment of the infringement of reputation.

2. 但是，这里的逻辑似乎有个很大的缺陷，法院一方面宣称超然于学术论争之外，另一方面，又宣布吴文的一些言辞“明显超出了学术评论的范畴，并针对上诉人宣科的人格提出质疑，违背了作为学术争论应遵循的公正评价的原则，丧失了学术评论应有的正当性，已构成对宣科的名誉侵权，应承担侵权赔偿的民事责任。”（二审判决）合议庭的法官们似乎完全忽略了，判断学术评论言辞是否超越学术评论的范畴本身也是一个学术事项。这涉及到学者们对于特定行为的复杂评价，涉及到不同学者的修辞学偏好，也涉及到特定话语的语境差异所带来的意义不同。另外，就接受方而言，这种意义不只涉及学者群体，也必然会牵涉到不同的社会阶层、人群的理解。

But there is a big error in this logic, i.e. on one hand the courts declared that it should not get involved in academic argument; on the other hand, they declared that some words in Mr. Wu ‘s article “clearly surpassed the domain of academic arguments, and even questioned especially on the appellant Mr. Xuan Ke’s personality, which has already violated the principle of just comment in the academic arguments.” (the sentence in the second instance). But the justices in the collegiate bench seem totally neglect that it is also the academic business to decide whether it has surpassed the domain of academic comments. This involves scholars’ complex comments on the given behavior, scholars’ differences on rhetorical preference and the different meanings in given linguistic environments. Besides, as for receivers, this sense not only involves scholars, but also the different understanding among different classes and different groups.

3. 语言是多么复杂的一个东西啊！语言变乱导致无从理解，钱钟书先生妙用古诗加以形容：语言让人相互理解，于是“君家门前水，我家门前流”；可恰好是语言也令人误解，所以“盈盈一水间，脉脉不得语”。为什么误解？语言的意义往往取决于发出者和接受者之间的某种预设的一致性。“秀才遇见兵，有理说不清”，不是理本身的问题，而往往是语言在不同的人心中所激发的感受或反应不同，没有共享的理解前提，就无从达到和谐的交流。“感时花溅泪，恨别鸟惊心”，花瓣上的露水闪光，小鸟的唧唧喳喳，在另外一个诗人———或者在同一个诗人不同的心境下———完全可以成为欢快喜悦的意象。这也是现代解释学要努力加以解释的大问题。两级法院的六位法官只消读一下维特根斯坦，读一下索绪尔，就会意识到他们进入了一个怎样昏暗迷离的世界了。

However, just how complicated a language can be! A language can be so disordered that it is beyond your understanding. Mr. Qian Zhongshu once, with some poem, described vividly how a language make people to understand each other, “The water in front of your gate is running in front of my gate”; while just the same language lead them misunderstand, too, so “the limpid water sets us apart, and we are both speechless at this moment.” Why misunderstand? The linguistic meaning is usually subject to whether or not the sender and the receiver can be in the same given line. “While a scholar meets with a scolder, the reason becomes unclear.” It is not a problem on the reason itself, but even the same words might arouse different feelings or reactions in different people. And no communication can work harmoniously if not the two are not in the same understanding line. “While in sadness, even the flowers are shedding tears; while in the parting moment, even the birds’ crying seem so depressing.” The dews tinkling on the petals or birds babbling to another poet or the same poet in another mood can be described as another happy picture. This is the big problem for hermeneutics to describe. The six judges in the two courts could understand what a gloomy and blurry world they get to, if they read some works by Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein or Mr. Ferdinand de Saussure.

4. 本案里，吴学源用了一些言辞，表达了他对宣科以及纳西古乐的看法，这类看法究竟表达的是怎样的意义，大抵上也是见仁见智的。宣科以为已经构成对他的伤害，音乐界的众多高人却明确地说那是完全正当的评论，法学教授认为批评言辞所指向的并非人格，而是行为（《艺术评论》2005年第2期），有些人或许还会以为吴学源是变相地为宣科做广告呢……我们看到了语言的变乱，歧异的理解导致沟通的障碍与人间的仇恨，而法院的判决不仅加剧了这种仇恨，而且也使自己成为仇恨的对象。

In this case, Mr. Wu Xueyuan uses some words to express his views on Mr. Xuan Ke and Naxi ancient music, and what kind of meaning in his views is a matter of opinion. Mr. Xuan Ke thought that it has hurt him, while so many experts in musical circle have pointed out that Wu’s comment is right; law professors think that the critical words don’t point to the personality but the behavior (the release of the article in the second version on “Comment on Arts” in 2005); some others might think that Mr. Wu Xueyuan take the chance to advertise for Mr. Xuan Ke…. Here we can see the language become disordered. Differences in understanding lead to misunderstanding or even the hatred among people, and the sentences from the courts not only deteriorate the hatred but also make courts themselves a target to be hated.

5. 简单地说，吴学源的文章是一篇学术评论，其中所揭露的宣科言说是否歪曲了纳西音乐的本来面目固然属于学术范畴，而吴文所使用的语言究竟是否“超越了学术评论的范畴”本身也是一个学术问题———不只是一个音乐史的问题，而且又带出了语言学特别是社会语言学的问题。对于其间微妙模糊之处，学术界也只能尝试着给出某些分析，法官们更不能不顾自家那点可怜的音乐史和语言学知识，胆大心粗，鲁莽灭裂，贸然下判。

Generally speaking, Mr. Wu Xueyuan’s article is an academic comment, in which he discloses that Mr. Xuan Ke’s words have distorted the original appearance of Naxi ancient music. It totally is within the academic field, and whether the language Mr. Wu used has surpassed the “academic field” is also an academic question, which is not only a question on the history of music, but also a question on linguistics especially on sociolinguistics For the subtle and blurry points in it, even the experts in the academic field can just try to give some analysis, so the judges should have taken their limited knowledge on the history of music and linguistic knowledge into consideration and should have not made such careless, reckless and destructive sentences.

6. 难道说司法权就不能涉足于这类纷争么？当然不是。我们只是主张，法院在决定是否受理一起纠纷时，不能仅仅看民事诉讼法相关条文的表面字句，更要注重一起纠纷的可司法性。也就是说，它是可以通过法官运用法律的知识和技能，尤其是法律的推理加以裁判的。执掌司法权柄者要时时意识到司法权的有限性，它不能包打天下，它要尊重其他行业的评价准则，它应对社会演进抱一份相对平和的心态。宣科言行究竟如何评价，吴文是否超越学术范畴，还是把它交给学究们去讨论，让社会去选择，让历史来回答吧。

Isn’t that there is nothing for laws to do in this kind of disputes? Of course not! We just insist that when a court accepts and hears a case, the judges should not just take what the words in civil laws into account, but it should be more important to pay attention to whether a case has judiciable property, i.e. whether it can be judged by judges’ knowledge and skills on law, especially be judged by legal reasoning. The law-officers must be always aware of the limit of jurisdiction, i.e. it can’t solve all the problems under the sun, it must also respect the criterions in other businesses, and judges must keep a peaceful mind to the social evolution. How to evaluate Mr.Xuan Ke‘s words and behavior, or whether Mr. Wu’s article has surpassed the academic field, should be left for scholars to discuss, for people choose and for history to answer.