《论自由·第二章·思想与讨论的自由》第41节
If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. It would, therefore, be irrelevant and out of place to examine here, whether the doctrine of Tyrannicide deserves that title. I shall content myself with saying, that the subject has been at all times one of the open questions of morals; that the act of a private citizen in striking down a criminal, who, by raising himself above the law, has placed himself beyond the reach of legal punishment or control, has been accounted by whole nations, and by some of the best and wisest of men, not a crime, but an act of exalted virtue; and that, right or wrong, it is not of the nature of assassination, but of civil war. As such, I hold that the instigation to it, in a specific case, may be a proper subject of punishment, but only if an overt act has followed, and at least a probable connection can be established between the act and the instigation. Even then, it is not a foreign government, but the very government assailed, which alone, in the exercise of self-defence, can legitimately punish attacks directed against its own existence. Thomas Pooley, Bodmin Assizes, July 31, 1857. In December following, he received a free pardon from the Crown.
注释摘要
这一段话出现在第二章临近末尾的一个脚注中，讨论的语境是密尔刚刚写完他对思想讨论自由的整套论证之后，立刻碰上了1858年英国政府起诉几位出版者的案子。这些起诉的由头，不是寻常的政治批评，而是有人传播了一种被认为极不道德的政治学说：诛杀暴君合法。密尔在这个注里，拿自己的主张来触碰这个最难接受言论自由的例子，以此来检验他刚刚建立的那个原则到底能不能站住。在全章的…