據說，來自中國西安、就讀於美國Steven Institute of Tech的博士研究生翟天天因與教授口角時聲稱【大不了火燒校園】雲雲，被美國檢方控以“恐怖分子”罪，現已鋃鐺入獄、在押候審。

強調一下“據說”。柞裏子最近在網上發表的涉及美國的文字連續遭崇美之徒的攻擊，被指為證據不足、出於想像等等。特此聲明：下文所雲，以“據說”這類為據，沒有經過調查。但凡覺得“據說”雲雲證據不足、出於想像者，敬請止步，不必枉費功夫。

美國官方、輿論一向以言論與信仰自由的旗手自居。

無可否認，美國在這方麵比很多國家做得更好。

不過，做得更好不等於無可指摘，也不等於達到了美國官方與輿論自以為達到了的水平。

比如，美國官方與輿論一向鼓吹言論與信仰自由是一種普世價值。然而，美國移民局的入境條例上卻分明有過鼓吹與信仰國共產黨主義者不得入境的規定。（說“有過”，因為據說現在文字沒了，而原則依舊。）

美國公民是有權鼓吹與信仰共產主義的，共產黨在美國是合法的政治組織。自己人行，外人不行。說明什麽？說明美國政府其實並不視言論與信仰的自由具有普及全世界的價值。或者，從另一角度看，美國政府其實視外人為另類，不得享受美國公民能夠享受的自由。

自從9·11事件以後，美國社會顯然在言論與信仰自由的尺度上有所退縮、有所退步。2001年10月26日，小布什總統簽署經國會兩黨絕大多數通過的UAS Patriot Act。自此以後，因言論而被扣上“恐怖分子”的罪名者，翟天天並非第一例，相信也不會是最後一例。

“恐怖分子”究竟如何定義？

從維基百科找到這麽一段：

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state.).^[8][9] A less politically and emotionally charged, and more easily definable, term is violent non-state actor^[10] (though the semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists," while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists").^{[citation needed]}

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[11] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[12]

看完之後的感覺是：滑不溜湫，難以把握。一時激動，出言不慎，尤其是身為外人者，皆可遭愛國分子或小人羅織為“恐怖分子”，就像國人應當熟悉的“反革命分子”罪名一樣。

翟天天一案的結果將如何？難以預測。

不過，無論結果如何，皆足以為戒。

為誰之戒？無人不可。

尤其適用於天真、老實、執著、愚昧地迷信美國的言論自由、信仰自由無國界、無限製、無所不容、無所不可的崇美派。