在柴玲針對卡瑪長達七年的惡意訴訟中，方政和茉莉先後給報紙寫信。這兩封信都成為法庭證據。

茉莉致波士頓環球報談“期待流血”事情的起因是：

2009年6月7日，《波士頓環球報》的專欄女作家 Yvonne Abraham在該報撰文談及柴玲起訴卡瑪一案，說，天安門“運動的一個領袖如今就在波士頓這個地方，對着民主的支柱狠踢了一腳。”“柴玲在利用美國法律制度攻擊她當年的同學為之獻出生命的自由。”

6月14日，方政在《波士頓環球報》讀者來信中，指責“Abraham在繼續宣揚一個神話，說天安門運動的領袖柴玲曾經‘期待流血’。柴的話被製片人錯譯並斷章取義。正確的譯法應該是‘anticipate’，而不是‘hope for’。”

方政先生是茉莉所敬佩的六.四受害者。二十年來，他所遭受的苦難，是我們永遠不能忘記的。但是，方政先生到美國後，在“波士頓環球報”上發表的這封讀者來信，其中的觀點是茉莉不敢苟同的。為了追求真實和公正，茉莉也以讀者來信的方式，在該報做出回應。

天安門反思----回應方政先生

在貴報"Filmmakers don't know truth of Tiananmen''（製片人不知道天安門的真實）一文，即方政先生6月14日致波士頓環球報專欄作家Yvonne Abraham 的信中，他以1989年天安門廣場被官方鎮壓的全體受害者的名義說話。作為一個因參加這次運動而羈獄將近三年，而後流亡國外的受害者，我不同意方政先生對卡瑪的影片《天安門》的指責。

方政先生說製片人誤譯了八九學運"領袖"之一柴玲的話，我認為這種說法是荒謬的。作為一個道地的中國人，我覺得柴玲的措詞相當刺耳。她在那段話里明確地談到"期待流血"。"期待"一詞在中文中所表達的意願非常清楚，即言者願意看到他或她所指望的事情發生。以中文為母語的人不會用"期待"來表達他或她不情願看到的事情。而且，柴玲談論流血的整段話的上下文，也強化了"期待"一詞所帶有的希望之義。如果譯文表達不出這種意願，（如方政先生認為的那樣，"期待"不應當譯為"hope''而應當譯為 "anticipate''），那就違背了柴玲這段話的中文原意。

對八九學運的各種策略和領袖人物進行開誠布公的探討和爭論，對我們來說是必要的和應當的。在影片中出現的柴玲，不是不容置疑的"領袖"，而是有各種普通人性弱點的凡人。我認為，柴玲以"侵犯商標"起訴卡瑪，是借這個幌子來報復製片人對歷史的真實表述。

Yvonne Abraham的文章引起公眾對這樣一樁無理訴訟的關注，這是符合公眾利益的。

茉莉寫於瑞典Sundsvall

2009年6月18日

英文稿發表時有刪節：
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/06/20/tiananmen_reconsidered/

Tiananmen reconsidered

June 20, 2009

columnist Yvonne Abraham, Fang Zheng claims to speak for all victims of the government crackdown at Tiananmen Square (“Filmmakers don’t know truth of Tiananmen,’’ Letters, June 14). A victim myself (nearly three years’ imprisonment), I object to his characterization of the film “The Gate of Heavenly Peace.’’

His assertion that the filmmakers mistranslated Ling Chai, a leader of the 1989 demonstrations, is absurd. As a native Chinese speaker, I find disturbing her choice of words - that they were hoping for bloodshed. The verb “qidai,’’ which she used when speaking of bloodshed, expresses an unambiguous hope. No native speaker would use “qidai’’ to describe an event that he or she does not wish to see occur. Moreover, the context of Chai’s full statement about bloodshed reinforces this sense of hoping. Any translation that does not convey the intention inherent in “qidai’’ (Zheng sees it as “anticipate’’ rather than “hope’’) hides the unmistakable Chinese meaning of Chai’s statement.

Chai is using a lawsuit involving trademark infringement to punish the filmmakers for presenting an honest account of history that humanizes her rather than uncritically casting her as an infallible leader. That Yvonne Abraham has brought this case to public attention serves us all well.

Mo Li

Sundsvall, Sweden

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
《波士頓環球報》專欄女作家 Yvonne Abraham

北京的教訓沒學到

By Yvonne Abraham

Globe Columnist / June 7, 2009

你最近大概聽說了不少有關天安門廣場的報道，因為本周四是中國人民爭取民主的示威運動慘遭政府鎮壓的二十周年紀念日。

但是你大概沒有聽說，這個運動的一個領袖如今就在波士頓這個地方，對着民主的支柱狠踢了一腳。

曾被稱做是1989年運動的總指揮的柴玲，如今在麻州居住，是一個成功的軟件公司——尖子班——的總裁。在逃離中國之後，她多次慷慨激昂地宣揚言論自由的重要性。
然而“尖子班”卻在利用法庭把兩個製片人逼入絕境，因為他們的網站刊載了一些批評柴玲及其公司的文章摘錄和鏈接。

先介紹一下背景。（說了有關柴玲的爭議，《天安門》中柴玲有關流血的談話，長弓網站上引述的有關柴玲的負面消息，其中也包括《波士頓寰球報》的文章，　等。）
“尖子班”起訴長弓電影公司誹謗，僅僅是因為長弓把讀者引向了柴玲及其公司認為是具侵犯性和不準確的一些文章。一個Suffolk高等法院的法官英明地拒絕受理這一誹謗指控。因為無論如何，美國憲法的第一修正案保障了人民說話---以及引用他人話語----的權利，哪怕是你不喜歡聽的那些話。

但是他們的案子卻繼續拖了下去，因為“尖子班”還指控說，僅僅因為在其網站的索引(Tag)中使用了其公司的名字，長弓就犯了商標侵權法----因為在網上搜索“尖子班”的某人可能被吸引到長弓的網站，從而被誤導。

這是胡扯。

“所謂某人可能被誤導的說法是如此荒唐，它連做笑話都不夠格”，一位專長於有關憲法第一修正案官司的律師Harvey Silverglate說。就連法官都已經表示“尖子班”勝訴的可能性不大，但是柴玲仍然執意把官司打了下去。

為什麼呢？因為要剝奪言論自由不止一種辦法。“尖子班”有的是錢，卡瑪(Hinton)和Gorton則沒有。柴玲的訴訟至今為止已經花了他們七萬美金。即使柴玲極可能輸掉官司，她也可能因為逼迫長弓關門而成為實際勝利者。

“這場官司浪費了我們的大量資源”，卡瑪說：”我們可能在法庭宣告我們勝訴之前就被迫破產。”

還有更過分的，上星期，“尖子班”的律師要求法庭禁止長弓在其網站上公布官司訴訟的材料。本周四，法官拒絕了他們，表示“擔心公眾形象受損”絲毫不能構成“禁言”的任何理由。

雙方的律師都拒絕評論。

“數十年來（原文如此），長弓肆意醜化柴玲”，“尖子班”的發言人Bob Gray說，“現在柴玲有資源反擊了，他們當然就不高興了。”

然而問題不在於柴玲是否反擊，問題在於她如何反擊。柴玲在利用美國法律制度攻擊她當年的同學為之獻出生命的自由。

－－－－

英文原文：

Beijing lesson unlearned

By Yvonne Abraham

What you might not have heard about is how a leader of that crushed movement is trying to put the boot into a pillar of democracy right here in Boston.

Ling Chai, sometimes called commander in chief of the 1989 demonstrations, now lives in Massachusetts and heads a successful software company, Jenzabar Inc. In the years since she fled China, she has spoken passionately about the importance of free speech.

And yet Jenzabar is using the courts to bring two filmmakers to near-ruin because their website contains excerpts from, and links to, articles critical of Chai and her firm.

First, some background. In the years since she arrived in the United States, debate has surrounded Chai. Some of her contemporaries, as well as some historians, say that Chai and other student leaders made mistakes in the last hours of the standoff with the Chinese government and that their decision to remain in Tiananmen Square led to more deaths. It's an allegation bolstered by Chai's own words, according to a translation of an interview she gave in those chaotic final days.

The interview is included in an award-winning documentary, "The Gate of Heavenly Peace.'' In it, Chai says: "How can I tell [our followers] that we actually are hoping for bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to butcher the people brazenly. Only when the square is awash in blood will the people of China open their eyes.''

Chai has long said that comment was mistranslated and taken out of context, and some other student leaders support her view.

Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon stand by their film, and other Chinese leaders support them. They also maintain a website, with updates on Chai that refer to stories and columns on Jenzabar, some unflattering, including one published in the Globe.

Jenzabar sued the filmmakers' company, Long Bow Films, for defamation - just for directing readers to the articles Chai and her company say are offensive and inaccurate. A Suffolk Superior Court judge wisely threw the defamation charge out. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to say - and cite - even things you don't like, after all.

But the case has dragged on because Jenzabar is also contending that just
by using the company's name as a tag on its website, Long Bow is guilty of trademark infringement - that somebody googling Jenzabar might land on the Long Bow site and get confused.

That's bosh.

"The idea that somebody would be confused is so remote as to not pass the giggle test,'' said Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases. Even the judge said Jenzabar is unlikely to win. And yet Chai perseveres.

Why? There is more than one way to skin free speech. Jenzabar has buckets of money. Hinton and Gordon don't. Chai's suit has cost them 70 grand so far. Even though she will probably lose the court battle, she could win the war by shutting Long Bow down.

"It has drained a lot of our resources,'' Hinton said. "We may be driven into bankruptcy before we see our day in court.''

There's more. Last week, Jenzabar attorneys asked a judge to prevent Long Bow from updating their website on the continuing court case. On Thursday, the judge knocked them down, saying "fear of bad publicity'' isn't grounds for a gag order.

Lawyers for both sides declined comment.

"Long Bow has gratuitously maligned Ling Chai for decades, '' said Rob Gray, spokesman for Jenzabar. "And now that she has the resources to fight back, they don't like it.''

But the problem isn't that Chai is fighting back. It's how she's fighting back. She's using the justice system to attack the very freedoms for which her fellow students gave their lives.

Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. Her e-mail address is abraham@globe.com.

－－－－－－－－－－－－
方政致波士頓環球報譯文：

《波士頓環球報》讀者來信

製片人不知道天安門真相

2009年6月14日

Yvonne Abraham 在她的文章中(“北京的教訓沒學到“ 6月7日城市版專欄) 把柴玲描繪成一個負面形象，而沒有提到她大量的優點。同時，作者也沒有提到學生領袖們對《天安門》一片對我們不準確的報道所提出的反對意見。

我敬佩柴玲在天安門廣場的屠殺之後，在中國逃亡10個月，然後在美國開始了新的生活，並有所成就。她從不會英文，到掌握了語言，學會了經營公司。如今，她為我們的運動提供了大量的捐款，又在六.四20周年紀念日聲討中國政府。

Abraham在繼續宣揚一個神話，說天安門運動的領袖柴玲曾經“期待流血”。柴的話被製片人錯譯並斷章取義。正確的譯法應該是“anticipate”，而不是“hope for”。多少年來，天安門領袖們不斷向製片人指出這個問題，但製片人為了有利於宣揚自己的觀點，對此毫不理睬。

我們這些親歷了天安門運動的人－我本人被中共的坦克壓斷了雙腿－我們比那些當時既不在場又沒有冒任何風險的製片人更了解真相。

方政

英文原文：

Filmmakers don't know truth of Tiananmen

June 14, 2009

YVONNE ABRAHAM ("Beijing lesson unlearned," Metro, June 7) paints a negative picture of Ling Chai without mentioning her many positives, and without sufficiently delving into the objections of student leaders to the way we were inaccurately portrayed by filmmakers Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon in their movie "The Gate of Heavenly Peace."

I admire Chai for escaping with her life after 10 months of hiding in China following the Tiananmen Square massacre, and for starting a new and successful life in America. Coming here with no English, she learned the language and business. Now she is helping our movement by donating significant funds and speaking out against the Chinese government on the 20th anniversary of the massacre.

Abraham perpetuates the myth that Chai, as a leader of the 1989 demonstrations, was "hoping for bloodshed." Chai's language was mistranslated by the filmmakers, and taken out of context. It is properly translated as "anticipate" rather than "hope," something the Tiananmen leaders have been pointing out for years but that the filmmakers have ignored to better promote their perspective.

Those of us who were at Tiananmen - I lost my legs to a Chinese tank - know the truth a lot better than some filmmakers who weren't there and risked nothing.

Fang Zheng