从加拿大小说家到船只清洁工：加洛韦如何在网络大批斗中陨落（观点，中英对照）
《环球邮报》近期一文再现史蒂文·加洛韦（Steven Galloway）一位曾载誉而归的小说家、前UBC大学教授的悲剧经历。导致他陷入人生低谷的是一项从未被证实的性侵指控，即在被独立调查所认定的证据不足，不以支持的一项指控。但这一调查结果却来的太晚，加洛韦届时已经被逐出加拿大的文学圈，而对他提出的指控者也深陷旷日持久的诉讼不能自拔。有部分加洛韦的投诉者也在事后表示，他们当初是在极端困惑与压力之下才参与对加洛韦的投诉，且今天的他们对此行动深感后悔。
The Globe and Mail’s new feature sheds light on the tragic saga of Steven Galloway, a once-celebrated novelist and former professor at the University of British Columbia. The accusation that triggered his downfall—a claim of sexual assault—was never proven. An independent investigator later found insufficient evidence to support the allegations. Yet by then, Galloway had been cast out of Canada’s literary world. His accuser remains entangled in years of lawsuits, and even some complainants later expressed regret for ever stepping forward, saying they were confused and pressured during the process.
才华横溢的作家加洛韦如今靠打扫和出售船只为生，他的写作生涯已被葬送。本是一桩处理不当的校内事件，却演变成一场全国性丑闻，而在这场骚乱的背后，是一场比真相传播得更快的网络诽谤风暴。在他被停职后的短短几天内，社交媒体便给他贴上了“色狼”的标签。而那些呼吁要采取正当法律途径的作家也遭到攻击。当调查结果最终公布时，加洛韦早已名誉扫地。
A writer of remarkable talent, Galloway now makes a living cleaning and selling boats. His writing life is over. What began as a mishandled university case exploded into a national scandal. Behind the chaos was a powerful force: an online defamation storm that spread faster than the truth could catch up. Within days of his suspension, social media had branded him a predator. Writers who called for due process were attacked. By the time the investigation’s findings were made public, his reputation was beyond repair.
为什么人们会如此兴趣盎然地加入网络群殴？从人性本能角度可能会找出答案。在这个充满不确定性的世界里，愤怒为人们提供了清晰的道德边界，让他们轻易地把他人划分为“受害者”与“恶人”，并从中获得一种正义感与归属感。社交媒体的算法进一步加剧了这种心理效应：高曝光率不断奖励着愤怒，使每一次点赞与转发都成为对“道德立场”的肯定。在此网络环境中，指控本身就被视为一种美德，而保持冷静与克制反倒被看作站在“恶”一边。
Why do people so readily join digital mobs? The answer lies deep in human psychology. Outrage offers moral certainty in an uncertain world. It divides humanity neatly into victims and villains, giving participants a sense of righteousness and belonging. Social media magnifies this instinct. Its algorithms reward anger with visibility; every like and retweet feels like moral validation. In such an environment, accusation itself becomes a form of virtue, while restraint looks like complicity.
这种人类大批斗式的行动在历史上屡见不鲜，并非加洛韦一案独创。中国历史上的文革便是典型一例：数以百万计的人加入对邻里、同事的公开批斗行列，深信自己是站在道德制高点维护正义。社会迅速裂变成两个阵营，批斗者与被批斗者，而任何保持沉默或中立的姿态都被视为是犯罪。在加洛韦事件中，社交媒体再现了这种撕裂：一边是坚持“相信受害者”的群体，另一边是呼吁遵循正当司法程序的人士。双方都自认为正义在手，却都陷入了一个非黑即白、水火不容的道德深渊。而社交媒体则是把这种原始的人性本能数字化，为它提供了一个可以瞬间在全球放大的舞台。
But the impulse to purge and denounce is not new. History offers darker parallels. During China’s Cultural Revolution, millions joined public denunciations of neighbours and colleagues, convinced they were serving a just cause. Society split into two opposing camps—those who denounced and those who were denounced—and neutrality was treated as guilt. In the Galloway saga, social media created a similar division: one side defending victims, the other demanding due process. Both believed they were standing for justice, yet both became trapped in an us-vs.-them cycle driven by moral absolutism. What social media has done is to digitize that same instinct—providing a global stage that intensifies mass condemnation instantly.
加洛韦事件显示，在数字时代，民主价值是多么脆弱。在公众舆论的传播速度远超过法律程序之时，言论自由与正当司法程序这两个民主的基石则往往会彼此冲突。如何阻止互联网沦为另一座“法庭”，已经成为检验公民能否抵挡即时道德满足诱惑的重要尺度。
The Galloway case exposes how fragile democratic values can become in a digital age. Freedom of expression and due process—two cornerstones of democracy—can collide when public judgment outpaces legal process. The ability to prevent the internet from becoming a courtroom now measures how well citizens can resist the lure of instant moral gratification.
“我求求你，我已深陷痛苦，请不要再把我当成向女性施暴的典型。”
在网络风暴的巅峰之际，加洛韦向一位网络批评者发出了这样的私下恳求：“我只是想肯求一点点善意。拜托。拜托！”他的话，没有辩解，也没有反击，却赤裸地揭示了公众审判所带来的人性代价，一个遭到那些自认为是在伸张正义的人们的网络攻击者，在精神上所承受的最孤独与无助。
“I’m begging you, as a human being in pain, to stop holding me up as an example of patriarchal violence," Galloway sent a private plea to one of his online critics at the height of the storm: "I’m asking for some kindness. Please. Please.” His words, stripped of defense or defiance, reveal the human cost of collective judgment—the loneliness of being condemned by strangers who believe they are serving justice.
无论是在法庭上，还是在网络平台上，真正的正义都需要耐心、证据与谦卑，而这些正是数字世界最难给予的品质。如果说文化大革命揭示了盲目意识形态狂热的危险，那么当今的网络文化则显示出这种人类原始本能仍在屏幕与头像背后疯狂滋长。
Justice, whether in court or online, demands patience, evidence, and humility—qualities the digital world rarely rewards. If the Cultural Revolution showed the danger of blind ideological fury, today’s online culture shows how that same instinct thrives behind screens and avatars.
史蒂文·加洛韦的悲剧背后不仅仅是一位作家的个人陨落，而是对群体道德狂热之危险的警示。当指控取代证据、愤怒取代理性时，真相本身便成为牺牲品。在网络时代，维护正当程序，不再只是法官与律师的职责，它同样落在每一位公民肩上，体现在他们按下每一个“分享”键，敲入每一句评论语前的克制与思考。
The tragedy of Steven Galloway is not just a personal downfall; it is a warning about the peril of collective certainty. When accusation replaces evidence and outrage substitutes for reason, truth itself becomes the casualty. Protecting due process is no longer only the work of judges and lawyers—it is the responsibility of every digital citizen who pauses before clicking “share.”
