A27 · Society and Justice 社會與正義
How Free Should We Be? 我們應該有多自由？
Seat belts, drugs, hateful pamphlets, and a contract to sell yourself. Mill’s one very simple principle, the cases that strain it, Berlin’s two kinds of freedom, and Laozi’s ruler who governs by leaving people alone.
安全帶、毒品、充滿仇恨的小冊子，還有一份把自己賣掉的契約。彌爾那條「非常簡單的原則」、讓它吃力的那些案例、柏林的兩種自由，以及老子那位「不去管人民」的統治者。
The last two lessons gave reasons for having rules and for sharing things fairly. Both give other people power over us. This lesson asks where that power must stop: which parts of a life are nobody’s business but one’s own, and why.
前兩課給出了要有規則、要公平分配的理由。兩者都讓別人有了支配我們的權力。這一課問的是：那個權力必須在哪裡停下來？一個人的生活裡，哪些部分除了他自己，誰也管不著？為什麼？
中文翻譯Every paragraph has a Chinese translation. Tap 中譯▾ under a paragraph to open that one, or use Show Chinese · 顯示中譯 at the top to open them all. 每一段都有中譯：點段落下方的「中譯」只開那一段，或按上方的「顯示中譯」一次全部打開。
The essay · 課文
How Free Should We Be? 我們應該有多自由？
01Where to draw the line 線要劃在哪裡
A government that can stop a thief can also stop a reader, a drinker, or a preacher. Every society therefore has to decide which of the things people do it will leave alone. The decisions are familiar ones. May the law require a motorcyclist to wear a helmet? May it forbid an adult to take a drug that harms only himself, or a newspaper to print what most people find disgusting? For most of history the answer was that rulers may forbid whatever is bad for the people or offensive to the gods. In 1859 John Stuart Mill argued, in a short book called On Liberty, that this answer is wrong.
一個能攔住小偷的政府，也能攔住一個讀書的人、喝酒的人或傳道的人。所以每一個社會都得決定：人們做的事情當中，哪些它不去管。這些決定都是我們熟悉的。法律可以規定騎機車的人戴安全帽嗎？可以禁止一個成年人服用只傷害他自己的藥物嗎？可以禁止報紙刊登多數人覺得噁心的東西嗎？在歷史上大部分的時間裡，答案是：凡是對人民不好的、或冒犯神明的，統治者都可以禁止。1859 年，約翰・史都華・彌爾在一本叫做《論自由》的小書裡主張：這個答案是錯的。
02One very simple principle 一條非常簡單的原則
Mill proposed what he called “one very simple principle.” It reads: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” We may argue with a man who is ruining his health, plead with him, or avoid his company. We may not force him. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
彌爾提出了他所謂的「一條非常簡單的原則」。它是這樣寫的：「對一個文明社群的任何成員，可以違反他的意願而正當地行使權力的唯一目的，是防止對他人的傷害。他自己的好處，不論是身體上的還是道德上的，都不是充分的理由。」對一個正在毀掉自己健康的人，我們可以跟他爭論、懇求他，或是避開他。我們不可以強迫他。「對於他自己，對於他自己的身體與心靈，個人是最高的主權者。」
Two features of the principle are easy to miss. It applies to social pressure as well as to law. Mill feared what he called the tyranny of the majority, by which he meant the power of neighbors and employers to make an unusual person’s life impossible, and he thought it reached further than any police. And the principle gives a necessary condition for interference. Harm to others makes interference permissible, but whether to interfere remains a further question. Competition harms the losing shopkeeper, and no one proposes to forbid it.
這條原則有兩個特點很容易漏看。它既適用於法律，也適用於社會壓力。彌爾害怕他所謂的「多數的暴政」；他指的是鄰居與雇主讓一個不尋常的人活不下去的那種力量，而他認為那比任何警察都管得更深。此外，這條原則給的是干涉的必要條件。對他人的傷害，使干涉成為可以容許的；至於要不要干涉，仍然是進一步的問題。競爭傷害了輸掉的那位店主，而沒有人提議禁止競爭。
03Why leave people alone 為什麼不去管人
Mill was a utilitarian, and he does not appeal to natural rights. He argues that liberty makes human life go better. The case is clearest for speech. If we silence an opinion, it may be true, and we lose the chance of “exchanging error for truth.” No one who silences is infallible. If the opinion is false, we still lose, because a truth that is never challenged comes to be held “as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” People repeat it without knowing why it is so. “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” And most opinions in dispute are partly true, so that each side needs the other to correct it. Hence his most quoted sentence: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
彌爾是功利主義者，他並不訴諸自然權利。他論證的是：自由使人的生活過得更好。這個論證在言論上最清楚。如果我們壓制一個意見，它可能是真的；那我們就失去了「以真理換掉錯誤」的機會。沒有哪一個壓制別人的人是不會錯的。如果那個意見是假的，我們還是有損失；因為一個從來不受挑戰的真理，會被人當作「死的教條，而不是活的真理」來持有。人們複述它，而不知道它為什麼是這樣。「只知道自己這一邊的理由的人，對這一邊也所知甚少。」而大多數有爭議的意見，都有一部分是真的；所以每一邊都需要另一邊來糾正它。於是有了他最常被引用的那個句子：「假如全人類除了一個人之外，都持同一個意見，而只有那一個人持相反的意見；那麼人類要那一個人沉默，並不比那一個人（假如他有權力的話）要全人類沉默更為正當。」
The same reasoning covers ways of living. No one knows in advance what kind of life is best for human beings, so there should be “different experiments of living.” A person who lets custom choose for him needs no faculty, Mill says, but “the ape-like one of imitation.” Choosing for oneself is how judgment and character are exercised, and a people that is not allowed to choose will stop improving.
同樣的推理也涵蓋生活的方式。沒有人事先知道哪一種生活對人最好；所以應該有「不同的生活實驗」。彌爾說，一個讓習俗替他選擇的人，除了「像猿猴那樣的模仿能力」之外，不需要任何別的能力。自己做選擇，判斷力與品格才得到鍛鍊；而一個不被允許選擇的民族，會停止進步。
04Hard cases 難題
The principle is simple to state and hard to apply, and Mill knew it. He distinguished an opinion from an incitement. The view that corn dealers starve the poor may be printed freely, but it may be punished “when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer.” He allowed one case of protecting a person from himself. A man who sees another about to step onto an unsafe bridge may seize him, since he “does not desire to fall into the river.” And he held that the law should refuse to enforce a contract by which a person sells himself into slavery: “The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.”
這條原則說起來簡單，用起來困難；彌爾自己知道。他把「意見」與「煽動」分開。「糧商害窮人挨餓」這個看法可以自由刊印；但是「當它被口頭傳達給一群聚集在某位糧商門前的激動群眾時」，就可以懲罰。他容許一種「保護一個人免於傷害自己」的情況。看見別人正要踏上一座不安全的橋，可以把他一把抓住；因為他「並不想要掉進河裡」。他還主張，法律應該拒絕執行一份把自己賣為奴隸的契約：「自由的原則，不能要求他有『不自由』的自由。」
Critics have pressed two points. The first is that almost nothing harms only oneself. The drinker has a family and the injured rider needs a hospital bed. Mill answered that we should punish the neglect of a definite duty, such as failing to support one’s children, and leave the drinking alone. The second is that the word harm is asked to do too much work. Should deep offense count as harm? Mill said no for opinions, but he accepted laws against public indecency. In the 1950s the English judge Patrick Devlin argued that a society may defend its shared morality as it defends itself against treason. The legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart replied, in Mill’s spirit, that disgust is no proof of harm.
批評者緊追兩點。第一：幾乎沒有什麼事是只傷害自己的。喝酒的人有家人；受傷的騎士需要一張病床。彌爾回答說：我們應該懲罰的是對某個明確義務的疏忽，例如不扶養自己的孩子；至於喝酒，就別去管它。第二：「傷害」這個詞被要求做太多的事了。深深的冒犯算不算傷害？就意見而言，彌爾說不算；但他接受禁止公然猥褻的法律。1950 年代，英國法官派屈克・德富林主張：一個社會可以捍衛它共有的道德，就像它防衛叛國一樣。法哲學家哈特以彌爾的精神回應說：厭惡並不是傷害的證明。
05Two kinds of freedom 兩種自由
In 1958 Isaiah Berlin pointed out that Mill’s question is only one of two that go by the name of freedom. Negative liberty is the absence of interference: how many doors are open to me. Positive liberty is self-mastery: who is in control. An addict whom no one stops has the first and lacks the second. Berlin thought the positive idea the more dangerous in politics. Once a ruler claims to know what my true self wants, he can coerce me and call it liberation, and Rousseau had spoken of forcing a man to be free. Others replied that negative liberty alone is a thin thing to someone too poor or too ignorant to walk through any of the open doors.
1958 年，以撒・柏林指出：頂著「自由」這個名字的問題有兩個，彌爾的問題只是其中之一。消極自由是沒有干涉：有多少扇門對我開著。積極自由是自我主宰：誰在掌控。一個沒有人攔阻的成癮者，有第一種而沒有第二種。柏林認為，在政治上，積極的那個觀念比較危險。一旦統治者宣稱他知道我「真正的自我」要什麼，他就可以強制我，而把這叫做解放；盧梭就說過要「強迫一個人自由」。其他人則回應：對一個太窮或太無知、以致走不進任何一扇敞開的門的人來說，只有消極自由，是很單薄的東西。
06The ruler who does nothing 什麼也不做的統治者
China has an older tradition of governing by leaving alone. The Daodejing says that the more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people become, and that the more laws are published, the more thieves there are. Its sage says: “I do nothing, and the people transform themselves.” Yet Laozi is no Mill. The same book advises the ruler to empty the people’s minds and fill their bellies, and praises the ancients who kept the people simple and did not enlighten them. Laozi wanted a government that did not meddle and a people that did not argue. Mill wanted the argument above all. The Legalist Han Fei drew the opposite conclusion from both: in the state of an enlightened ruler there are no books, and “the law is the teaching.” The disagreement among the three is one that every government still has to settle.
中國有一個更古老的「以不管來治理」的傳統。《道德經》說：「天下多忌諱，而民彌貧」；「法令滋彰，盜賊多有」。它的聖人說：「我無為而民自化。」然而老子並不是彌爾。同一本書勸統治者「虛其心，實其腹」，並且稱讚古人「非以明民，將以愚之」。老子要的，是一個不多事的政府，與一群不爭辯的人民。彌爾最想要的，偏偏是爭辯。法家的韓非則從兩人那裡得出相反的結論：「明主之國，無書簡之文，以法為教。」這三個人之間的分歧，是每一個政府到今天都還得做出決定的。
Thought experiment · 思想實驗
Try it: you are the lawmaker 親手做一次：你來立法
Nine cases. For each, decide whether the law should forbid it or leave it alone. After each answer you will see how Mill decided and why. At the end you will see which principles you were using.
九個案例。每一個，請決定法律應該禁止它，還是不去管它。每次作答之後，你會看到彌爾怎麼判、為什麼。最後你會看到你自己實際上在用哪些原則。
Standard form · 標準形式
The argument, laid out 論證攤開來
Mill’s argument for freedom of opinion, from chapter 2 of On Liberty. Click a step to see what can be said against it.
彌爾在《論自由》第二章為意見自由所做的論證。點任何一步，看看別人可以怎麼反對它。
Primary text · 原典
In their own words 原典怎麼說
The paragraph that states the harm principle, and the chapter in which Laozi’s sage explains why he does nothing.
陳述傷害原則的那一段；以及老子的聖人解釋自己為什麼「無為」的那一章。
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), chapter 1; Daodejing, chapter 57 彌爾《論自由》第一章；《道德經》第五十七章 · Mill in the original English and spelling (public domain); the Daodejing translated for this series from the Wang Bi text
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. […] In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
那條原則就是：人類不論是個別地還是集體地，有理由干涉他們當中任何一個人的行動自由，唯一的目的是自我防衛。對一個文明社群的任何成員，可以違反他的意願而正當地行使權力的唯一目的，是防止對他人的傷害。他自己的好處，不論是身體上的還是道德上的，都不是充分的理由。不能因為這樣做對他比較好、因為這會使他更幸福、因為在別人看來這樣做是明智的甚至是對的，就正當地強迫他去做或不做某件事。……在只關乎他自己的那一部分，他的獨立性在權利上是絕對的。對於他自己，對於他自己的身體與心靈，個人是最高的主權者。
The next sentences, which are quoted less often, exclude children and what Mill calls “backward states of society,” for which he thought despotism legitimate. He worked for thirty-five years for the East India Company. Readers must decide whether the exception is a flaw in the principle or only in the man.
接下來的幾句比較少被引用：它們把孩子排除在外，也把彌爾所謂「落後的社會狀態」排除在外；他認為對後者，專制是正當的。他在東印度公司工作了三十五年。讀者必須判斷：這個例外是原則的瑕疵，還是只是這個人的瑕疵。
The more prohibitions there are in the world, the poorer the people become. The more sharp tools the people have, the more disordered the state. The more skills men acquire, the more strange things appear. The more laws and orders are made known, the more thieves and robbers there are. Therefore the sage says: I do nothing, and the people transform themselves. I love stillness, and the people set themselves right. I undertake nothing, and the people grow rich of themselves. I have no desires, and the people return of themselves to simplicity.
天下多忌諱，而民彌貧；民多利器，國家滋昏；人多伎巧，奇物滋起；法令滋彰，盜賊多有。故聖人云：「我無為而民自化，我好靜而民自正，我無事而民自富，我無欲而民自樸。」
The four results the sage hopes for are order, uprightness, wealth, and simplicity. Diversity of opinion is not among them. Laozi’s case against interference is that it makes things worse. Mill’s is that a person has a claim to run his own life even when he runs it badly.
聖人期望的四個結果是：化、正、富、樸。意見的多樣並不在其中。老子反對干涉的理由是：它使事情更糟。彌爾的理由是：一個人有資格經營自己的人生，就算他經營得不好。
Both sides · 正反兩面
Objections and replies 反駁與回應
People do not choose as Mill imagines. They are hasty, ill-informed, and weak-willed, and they regret their choices. A state that knows this and does nothing is negligent.
人並不像彌爾想像的那樣做選擇。他們倉促、資訊不足、意志薄弱，而且為自己的選擇後悔。一個明知如此卻什麼也不做的國家，是怠忽職守。
This is the modern case for paternalism, and psychology supports its premise. Mill’s bridge example already allows interference where a person lacks information and there is no time to warn him. What he resists is the step from “people make mistakes” to “officials should choose for them,” since officials are people too, with less knowledge of the life in question and less interest in it. A middle course keeps the choice and changes the setting: warnings, waiting periods, and defaults that can be refused.
這是現代為家長主義提出的理由；心理學支持它的前提。彌爾的那個橋的例子，已經容許在「一個人缺乏資訊、又來不及警告他」的時候加以干涉。他所抗拒的，是從「人會犯錯」跨到「官員應該替他們選」的那一步；因為官員也是人，而且對那個人的生活知道得更少、在乎得也更少。有一條中間路線：保留選擇，改變情境——警語、等待期，以及可以拒絕的預設選項。
The harm principle protects the strong. A worker “freely” accepts a dangerous job because the alternative is hunger. Leaving people alone means leaving them to whoever has power over them.
傷害原則保護的是強者。一個工人「自由地」接受一份危險的工作，因為另一個選項是挨餓。不去管人，就是把他們留給任何一個對他們握有權力的人。
This is the objection from positive liberty, and Mill half accepted it. He supported laws limiting working hours and requiring education, and in later life called himself a socialist of a kind. The honest reply is that On Liberty answers one question, when the majority may coerce an individual. It does not address the question of what a person needs in order to be able to use his freedom. A complete view has to answer both.
這是從積極自由而來的反駁；彌爾接受了一半。他支持限制工時與強制教育的法律，晚年還自稱是某一種社會主義者。誠實的回應是：《論自由》回答的是一個問題，也就是多數人什麼時候可以強制一個個人。它沒有處理另一個問題：一個人需要什麼，才有能力使用他的自由？一個完整的看法，兩個都得回答。
Mill’s ideal of the independent individual who questions everything is one way of life among others. A society that prizes harmony and respect for elders is not thereby less civilized.
彌爾的理想——凡事都質疑的獨立個人——只是許多種生活方式當中的一種。一個重視和諧與敬老的社會，並不因此就比較不文明。
The objection has force, and it has been made from Confucian and from religious standpoints. Mill can concede much of it. The harm principle does not require anyone to be an individualist. It forbids making people conform by force. A person may live by tradition, and in a free society his doing so is a choice he could have refused. Whether a tradition remains the same thing once it is one option among many is a real question, and Mill, who wanted every custom tested, would not have minded the answer.
這個反駁有力量；儒家的與宗教的立場都提出過它。彌爾可以承認其中的大部分。傷害原則並不要求任何人做個人主義者。它禁止的是用強制力使人順從。一個人可以依循傳統而活；在一個自由的社會裡，他這樣做，是一個他本來可以拒絕的選擇。一個傳統一旦成為眾多選項之一，是否還是原來那個東西，是個真問題；而希望每一種習俗都受到檢驗的彌爾，不會介意那個答案。
Terms of art · 哲學術語
The vocabulary of the subject 這門學問的用語
Power may be used over a person against his will only to prevent harm to others.
只有為了防止對他人的傷害，才可以違反一個人的意願而對他行使權力。
L. pater ‘father’
Interfering with a person’s choices for his own good.
為了一個人自己的好處，而干涉他的選擇。
The view that the law may forbid conduct because it is immoral, whether or not it harms anyone.
一種看法：法律可以因為某種行為不道德而禁止它，不管它有沒有傷害任何人。
The oppression of individuals by prevailing opinion, through law or through social pressure.
主流意見經由法律或社會壓力，對個人的壓迫。
Freedom as the absence of interference by others.
把自由理解為：沒有他人的干涉。
Freedom as self-mastery: being in control of one’s own life.
把自由理解為自我主宰：掌控自己的人生。
L. incitare ‘to urge on’
Urging others to an unlawful act in circumstances where they are likely to do it.
在別人很可能照做的情境下，慫恿他們去做不法的事。
Ch. 無為 wúwéi
Laozi’s term for acting without forcing, and for governing without meddling.
老子的用語：不強求地行動，不多事地治理。
Advanced English · 高級英文
Words and phrases worth keeping 值得帶走的字與片語
Every society has to decide what it will leave alone.
每一個社會都得決定，哪些事它不去管。
Which parts of a life are nobody’s business but one’s own?
一個人的生活裡，哪些部分除了他自己誰也管不著？
We may plead with him. We may not force him.
我們可以懇求他。我們不可以強迫他。
Two questions go by the name of freedom.
頂著「自由」這個名字的問題有兩個。
Laozi wanted a government that did not meddle.
老子要的是一個不多事的政府。
This is hard to square with what he says about offensive opinions.
這跟他對「冒犯人的意見」的說法很難一致。
Critics have pressed two points.
批評者緊追兩點。
You drew every line where Mill drew it.
你每一條線都劃在彌爾劃的地方。
Such laws are defended on the ground that hate speech harms its targets.
這類法律的辯護理由是：仇恨言論傷害了它所針對的人。
Laws that cannot answer the question have a bad record.
答不出這個問題的法律，紀錄並不好。
Reading check · 理解測驗
Did it land? 讀懂了嗎
1. According to the harm principle, when may power be used over a person against his will?
2. Why does Mill think a false opinion should not be silenced?
3. What does the corn dealer example distinguish?
4. What is the difference between negative and positive liberty?
5. How does Laozi’s case for leaving people alone differ from Mill’s?
Write · 你怎麼想？
Choose one law in your country that protects adults from themselves, such as a helmet or seat belt law. Defend it against Mill, or defend Mill against it, in 150 words.
選一條你們國家裡保護成年人免於傷害自己的法律，例如安全帽或安全帶的規定。為它辯護以對抗彌爾，或者為彌爾辯護以對抗它。寫 150 個字。
Mill thought social pressure a greater threat to liberty than law. Describe a case you have seen in which opinion, with no law involved, kept someone from living as he or she wished. Was the pressure justified?
彌爾認為，社會壓力對自由的威脅比法律還大。描述一個你見過的情況：沒有任何法律介入，輿論卻使某個人無法照自己的意願生活。那個壓力有正當理由嗎？
“The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.” Explain what Mill means, and say whether the same reasoning would justify forbidding addictive drugs.
「自由的原則，不能要求他有『不自由』的自由。」解釋彌爾的意思；並且說明，同樣的推理能不能為「禁止會上癮的藥物」提供理由。
Dharma and the West · 佛法與西方哲學
A view from the Dharma 佛法怎麼看
On Mill’s question the Buddha is close to Mill. He founded no state and gave laypeople no laws. The five precepts are undertaken by choice and are not enforced by anyone. He told the Kālāmas not to go by tradition or scripture or by the thought “The ascetic is our respected teacher,” and to accept a teaching only “when you know for yourselves” what it leads to. He held that no one can be made good from outside: “You yourselves must do the work, the Realized Ones just show the way.” And again: “Purity and impurity are personal matters, no one can purify another.” A Buddhist argument for the harm principle would rest on this last point. Virtue that is forced on a person has no value as virtue.
在彌爾的那個問題上，佛陀很接近彌爾。他沒有建立國家，也沒有給在家人立法。五戒是自願受持的，沒有任何人來強制執行。他告訴卡拉瑪人：不要因為傳統、經典，或因為想到「這位沙門是我們尊敬的老師」就接受；只有「當你們自己知道」一個教導會導向什麼的時候，才接受它。他主張沒有人能從外面被弄成善的：「你們必須自己努力；如來只是指路的人。」又說：「清淨與不清淨都在於自己；沒有人能使另一個人清淨。」佛教為傷害原則提出的論證，會以最後這一點為根據。被強加在一個人身上的德行，作為德行沒有任何價值。
On Berlin’s second question the Buddha goes much further than Mill. Mill calls a person free when no one stops him from doing what he desires. The Buddha asks whether the desire is free. One discourse puts it this way: “The world is wanting, insatiable, the slave of craving.” A person driven by craving, anger, and confusion has no outside master and is still unfree. The word for the goal of the path, vimutti, means release. This is positive liberty in its strongest form, and it avoids the danger Berlin saw in the idea. No one can be forced into it, since the release is something a person has to see for himself. A verse of the Dhammapada says, “One is indeed the lord of oneself, for who else would be one’s lord?” (Dharma and Western Philosophy D18).
在柏林的第二個問題上，佛陀走得比彌爾遠得多。彌爾說，沒有人攔著一個人去做他想要的事，這個人就是自由的。佛陀問的是：那個「想要」是自由的嗎？有一部經這樣說：「世間不足，不知滿足，是渴愛的奴隸。」一個被貪、瞋、癡驅使的人，外面沒有主人，卻仍然不自由。這條道路的目標叫做 vimutti，意思是解脫。這是最強形式的積極自由；而它避開了柏林在這個觀念裡看到的危險。沒有人能被強迫進入它，因為解脫是一個人必須自己看見的東西。《法句經》有一首偈說：「自己才是自己的依怙，還有誰能做自己的依怙？」（佛法與西方哲學 D18）。
Go further · 延伸
People and reading 人物與延伸閱讀
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) ↗Five chapters. Read 1 and 2 first, then the hard cases in 5. 五章。先讀第一、二章，再讀第五章的難題。
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Positive and Negative Liberty” ↗Berlin’s distinction and the debate that followed. 柏林的區分，以及隨後的爭論。
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Paternalism” ↗The modern argument about protecting people from themselves. 關於「保護人免於傷害自己」的現代論辯。
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ↗Holmes’s opinion, four pages long, with the sentence about the theater. 霍姆斯的意見書，四頁長，有關於戲院的那個句子。
- 《道德經》第三、十七、五十七、六十五、八十章 ↗The political chapters, including the two that sit badly with a liberal reading. 談政治的幾章，包括跟自由主義式的解讀很不相容的那兩章。
- Kesamutti Sutta (To the Kālāmas), AN 3.65 ↗The Buddha on what to accept and why. 佛陀談該接受什麼、為什麼。