為何美國人已對洩密無感？

In April, secret documents allegedly photographed by a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard began making their way into the mainstream media. Many were briefings prepared by military intelligence services, and much of it dealt with the Russia-Ukraine war. They offered Americans a rare window into the government’s most valuable intelligence on one of Europe’s deadliest conflicts since World War II.

4月時，據稱由一名麻州空軍國民兵成員翻拍的祕密文件，開始流向主流媒體。內容多是由軍方情報單位準備的簡報資料，大部分是關於俄烏戰爭。這些文件提供給美國人一扇難得的窗口，可以窺見這場二次大戰以來歐洲最致命衝突之一的最寶貴政府情報。

We’ve been here before. In 2010, WikiLeaks began churning out hundreds of thousands of secret documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that had been leaked by an Army private, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare that such disclosures “tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.” Three years later, Edward Snowden, a National Security Agency contractor, leaked another batch of highly classified documents. President Barack Obama warned then that if anybody who disagreed with the government could choose to reveal its secrets, “we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy.”

過去我們碰過這種情況。2010年，維基解密開始大量釋出一名陸軍二等兵洩漏的數十萬份祕密文件，內容有關在伊拉克和阿富汗的戰事，促使時任國務卿希拉蕊．柯林頓聲稱此類洩密「撕裂責任政府的正當運作結構」。三年後，美國國家安全局外包雇員史諾登洩漏另一批高度機密文件。時任總統歐巴馬警告，如果任何不贊同政府的人都可選擇揭露政府機密，「我們將無法保障國人安全或執行外交政策」。

This time the reaction has been quite different. The Pentagon did say that the latest disclosures — widely known as the “Discord Leaks” — present a “very serious risk to national security.” But there has been curiously little public interest in the spilled secrets.

這一次反應則大不相同。五角大廈的確曾說，最近這波洩密—以「Discord洩密案」之名廣為人知—造成「非常嚴重的國家安全危機」。但耐人尋味的是，公眾對洩漏出的機密卻興致缺缺。

Reaction to the indictment of Donald Trump has followed a similar pattern, though the case revolves around a former president’s handling of classified files, not leaked secrets.

川普起訴書引發的反應也有類似模式，雖說該案是圍繞這位前總統對機密檔案的處置方式，而非洩漏機密。

There’s nothing especially surprising in the public fascination with Teixeira, nor with earlier lead actors in major security leaks such as Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange. But why has this trove of information generated less excitement than previous leaks?

公眾對泰謝拉著迷，就像對先前重大國安洩密案主角史諾登、曼寧、亞桑傑等人一樣，並不特別令人驚訝。但為何相較過去洩密案，這批情資激起的興趣不大？

One reason cited by intelligence experts is that the Ukraine war is being reported in minute detail, and the batch of raw intelligence does not substantially change the overall perception of the state of affairs.

情報專家認為，原因之一是烏克蘭戰爭正受到鉅細靡遺地報導，而該批原始情報並沒有大幅改變對於事態的整體看法。

Another factor in the lackluster public reception may be that the leaks aren’t politically scandalous. Though their disclosure is worrisome to intelligence agencies, embarrassing to U.S. diplomats and irritating to foreign leaders, there are no revelations of gross dereliction or covert iniquities, as have dropped in past leaks.

另一項公眾反應意興闌珊的因素，可能是外洩文件不具政治上的醜聞性質。雖然此次洩密使情報單位憂心、令美國外交人員尷尬且讓外國領導人氣惱，但沒有像過去的洩密案一樣，揭示嚴重的失職或隱蔽的不當行為。

And for all the dire warnings from Clinton, Obama and others a decade ago, the far more voluminous and potentially harmful information leaked by Manning and Snowden did not wreck America’s ability to function in the world.

而且儘管希拉蕊．柯林頓、歐巴馬等人10年前提出諸多嚴重警告，曼寧和史諾登所洩漏的情資更加繁浩、更具潛在傷害力，並未毀掉美國在全球行事的能力。

抗議禁書令 伊利諾州通過禁「禁書」令

Taking a new tack in the ideological battle over what books children should be able to read, Illinois will prohibit book bans in its public schools and libraries, with Gov. J.B. Pritzker calling the bill that he signed Monday the first of its kind.

美國伊利諾州在兒童該讀什麼書的意識形態之爭發起新一波攻勢，禁止公立學校及圖書館實施禁書令。伊利諾州長普里茨克說，他周一簽署的這項法案是這類法律中的第一個。

The law, which takes effect next year, was the Democratic-controlled state’s response to a sharp rise in book-banning efforts across the country, especially in Republican-led states, where lawmakers have made it easier to remove library books that political groups deemed objectionable.

這項法律明年生效，這是民主黨主政州針對遍及全國的禁書運動一記回擊。禁書運動在共和黨主政州尤為熱烈，這些州的議員讓引起政治團體反感的書籍更容易從圖書館下架。

“While certain hypocritical governors are banning books written by LGBTQ authors, but then claiming censorship when the media fact-checks them, we are showing the nation what it really looks like to stand up for liberty,” Pritzker, a Democrat, said at a bill-signing event at the Harold Washington Library Center in Chicago.

民主黨的普里茨克在芝加哥哈洛德華盛頓圖書中心的法案簽署典禮上說：「某些虛偽的州長下令禁止LGBTQ（女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀、跨性別者、對性別疑惑者）作者寫的書，卻稱媒體對他們進行事實查證是言論審查；我們將向全國展示捍衛民主的真實樣貌」。

The law directs public libraries in the state to adopt or write their own versions of a library bill of rights such as the American Library Association’s, which asserts that “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”

這條法律指示該州公立圖書館採用或訂定自己的圖書館權利法案，例如美國圖書館協會的權利法案就寫入「不應以黨派或教義為由，禁止或移除館內資料」。

Libraries that don’t comply could lose state funding, according to the bill.

根據該法案，不遵守的圖書館將失去州政府的經費支援。

Pritzker appeared to call out, although not by name, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican who has staked his 2024 presidential candidacy in part on his status as a driver of conservative policies addressing cultural issues. DeSantis supported state laws aimed, at least in part, at limiting access to some reading materials in public schools.

普里茨克雖未指名道姓，但疑似指涉共和黨的佛羅里達州州長德桑提斯。德桑提斯以強調文化議題的保守政策推動者自居，並以此作為角逐2024年美國共和黨總統候選人的部分本錢。德桑提斯支持的州法當中，至少有部分主張限制公立學校的閱讀材料。

Other states, including Georgia and Kentucky, have followed suit with laws that could make it easier to lodge complaints about specific books and influence library or education boards, according to EveryLibrary, a political action committee that tracks proposed book regulation laws nationwide.

追蹤美國各地圖書管制法規發展的政治行動委員會「各地圖書館」資料顯示，包括喬治亞州及肯塔基州，美國其他州已陸續仿效佛州立法，讓檢舉特定書籍並影響圖書館或教育委員會變得更容易。