In Conversation with Sydney Daddy: The Ethics of Reporting, Free Speech, and the 'Er Daye' Controversy与“悉尼奶爸”畅谈举报、言论自由、“二大爷”的争议

By Timothy Huang

    查理·柯克遇刺身亡后，在美国申请政治庇护的前中国刑警、YouTube博主“二大爷”在网络上公开发表了骇人听闻的支持政治暗杀的言论，随后被另一位YouTube博主“悉尼奶爸”将相关推文内容翻译成英语发布在网上并@美国有关部门进行举报，称其违反了美国的价值观和其移民与签证管理规则对签证持有人的品格要求。他们的行为在互联网上引起了广泛争论，甚至引起了美国相关人士的关注。2025年9月18日，笔者与“悉尼奶爸”在YouTube进行了一次直播互动，畅谈举报、言论自由与“二大爷”的有关争议。本文为笔者根据采访录像整理的文字稿件。

Timothy：我们就不寒暄了啊，直接进入主题吧。大家都知道奶爸最近因为翻译了一个“二大爷”的推文，然后被推上了风口浪尖。这件事在中文圈也引起了非常广泛的争论。现在讨论的范围其实已经不止于二大爷这个事本身了。我发现很多人批评你对于二大爷的这个所谓的“举报”也好，或者是“翻译”也好，他们更多不是出于对二大爷行为本身的评判，而是出于对“举报”这个行为的评判。他们的核心观点不是说二大爷该不该被举报或遣返，而是说关于奶爸该不该去举报二大爷？奶爸该不该把他的中文推文翻译成英语，然后去@卢比奥、@Patel？请问奶爸，您认为“举报”这种行为，应该有一个先天在道德上的负面评价吗？

悉尼奶爸：首先，告密跟举报是两回事。

告密呢，就是说我们偷偷摸摸的，尤其是如果我们两个私下认识，我把本来不应该对外公布的东西公布出来了。然而，Twitter 是一个公共平台；翻译二大爷这份公开声明不是告密。其实我发现很多的平台上，当你去举报一个人的时候，他会帮你隐藏身份，告诉你“我们不会告诉对方是你举报的”。所以在有关推特或者 Facebook 上面，你要举报其实是把举报变成一种告密。而我是公开把它贴出来，反而是把“举报”这两个字变成了一种公开行为。

第二个呢，举报这个东西，其实我觉得在自由民主社会，尤其是在一个自发组织的社区，这个是非常非常多的。那天我直播时举了个例子，在澳洲这边，我们在车上面开窗往外丢东西，我们是专门有一个举报网站和一个举报号码的。你只要在后面看到这个人扔东西，把车牌号码记下来，去报告给当局，然后会罚那个人的钱。其实我觉得中国人可能会有这种观念，比如“朝阳大妈”，觉得很多朝阳大妈在后面盯着举报。但是其实在西方，尤其是在地方政府层面，就是有很多老头老太太，你会觉得多管闲事嘛，比如说我这院里晒衣服怎么了，关你什么事，但他们会觉得我们这个社区应该是什么样子的，我们对你有什么要求。尤其在美国，如果你前面的草地没弄好，很快就给人报告到 Council 去了，会要求你整改。

所以我其实觉得很多人担心这会变成一个“文革”，但是这两者差得真的是有点远。

我有一个特别有意思的分享。我们悉尼在 2014 年发生了一个著名的咖啡馆恐怖袭击案。当时我看到一个报道让我非常触动。报道说，警方没有办法获取到穆斯林社区对于身边的极端分子的信息。因为穆斯林社区大家觉得“我们都是穆斯林，所以我们在互相帮着对方、互相轻信”，即便这个人有极端倾向也不能说。当时我就触动了，我想不对呀，那你这篇报道不是鼓励在穆斯林社区里面相互举报吗？后来我慢慢把观念转变过来了：在一个民主自由社会，如果一切是公平的，而且你有相应的救济渠道、救济程序，那么公开的举报不是可耻的。事实上你可以把报警也视为一种举报。你知道在西方国家大家对于报警其实不太像中国这种——觉得好像是“打官司、告官”什么的。报警是很正常的事情，我在路上跟人发生了摩擦，车发生了剐蹭，这个人不认，我立马就可以报警。

文革的举报为什么不可以呢？第一个是因为很多时候是偷偷的；第二个是整个上层的程序是不正义的。这就像很多人说的，文革是不是因为言论太自由了？正好相反！文革就是因为你们限制了言论，只允许一小部分人可以去公开的举报、大字报，然后所有其他的反对派、右派、地主阶级全都被打掉了。只有中央所支持的人能够“大鸣大放”。对方失去了发声的权利，所以文革恰恰不是说言论太自由了，而是言论太不自由了。我的意思就是，中国人对于言论自由和举报的理解有时比较肤浅，当你放到一个民主自由社会里面，你要做一个深入的思考，你才能得出答案。

Timothy：对，我之前做了一个相关的节目，其实在里面也提到了，就是说这个行为可能更类似于一个“报警”的行为。就是我只是把这个事情——我认为它需要引起相关部门的注意——但我对于这个事情并没有一个明确的评判，该谁来管这个事你来管。

但是反对的朋友觉得，美国国务院突然出了一个东西，说如果是外国人在美国，如果你对美国的一个著名政治人物（如查理·柯克）的死亡发表庆祝型言论，美国国务院说我们要吊销你的签证。很多人觉得这是在打压言论自由。

悉尼奶爸：我认为这个有可能是涉及在打压言论自由，但是这个我说了不算，你说了不算，谁说了算？美国最高法院说了算。

Timothy：这就是我的下一个问题。关于二大爷这个事，以及卢比奥在采访里面说要把这些人取消签证、遣返回国。这到底属于一个狭义的“言论自由”问题，还是属于美国的行政管理、签证管理制度的问题？

悉尼奶爸：这个在我频道里面已经说烂了。美国政府从今年3月份就开始收缩对于外国人的言论管制。如果外国人在这一发表了很多反对美国的言论，或者支持哈马斯的言论，那么他就给你取消签证并且驱逐。美国政府给的口径是什么？来美国，你的签证是个特权（Privilege）。 美国政府可以甚至不需要任何理由——当然它还是有理由的——就是在极端情况下，我觉得你涉及违反了、触犯了美国的国家安全，就可以赶出去。我理解很多朋友觉得这个权力有点过大了。但是，我已经做过调研，全世界没有哪一个自由民主国家——美国已经算是最宽容的了——会允许本国公民跟非本国公民的言论自由权利在细节上是一样的。

远的不说，说我们澳大利亚。几年前德约科维奇到澳洲打澳网公开赛。德约科维奇因为平时有反对疫苗的言论，当时他搞了一个豁免手续，最后澳洲发现后就给他赶出去了，还把他关了几天。其实这里面多少涉及到了德约科维奇平时对于疫苗的态度。当时执政的是澳洲的自由党右派政府。这说明澳洲的言论自由这根线是画在这儿了。

大家可能在这个事件里，更多的是看美国的言论自由这根线到底会怎么画。最高法院可能会被迫必须要画这条线。以前还可以打马虎眼，现在必须要画了。包括在于“美国国旗是否允许焚烧”这个事件上，我个人认为它应该会往里面收缩。

Timothy：对，焚烧国旗那个是非常经典的案例。关于言论自由的探讨其实反映了两种观点：一种认为言论自由的法律基础是国内法（如美国宪法）；另一种观点认为言论自由属于人权保护范围，张嘴就是人权宣言、联合国的规矩。这就造成了签证这种特权能不能给行政部门去取消的这种认知的差别。

悉尼奶爸：其实在不同的国家本身这个线就不一样。美国一直属于这里面最宽松的，自由的灯塔。但我个人认为它必须要收缩。很多左右派都希望他们要收缩。左派希望把持枪权收缩一下，右派希望把出生公民权收缩一下。

Timothy：说到社交媒体时代，很多人的言论后果其实已经不局限于言论本身了。比如《查理周刊》因为冒犯性言论结果编辑被人杀害了；又或者是二大爷发推文，因为媒体发酵，导致他承受的后果不局限于言论反驳。您觉得这是对言论自由保护的挑战吗？

悉尼奶爸：我们做自媒体的都有深刻感受，我们发的任何言论都会有后果，会被人骂、被人威胁。但是，我觉得有一条后果是不能突破的——生命是很宝贵的，生命是最终极的自由。一旦就像查理周刊一样，你把他干掉了，你就没有办法再证明他是错的了。所以不管从功利角度还是道德角度，这都是一个最坚定的底线。

我去年去墨西哥观选，墨西哥其实让我挺震撼的。那几个月的选举期间有60几个候选人被谋杀，而且都有视频，当街握手时就被干掉了。我后来想，这算是我们想要的民主吗？很多人说是为了中国探索民主之路，中国人真的会想要墨西哥这样的民主吗？所以我认为，尤其是一些底层事实——让人更安全、有发展、有工作机会——这比喊口号更重要。你在穷人里面是不可能推广民主自由理念的，你只可能推广民粹理念。民主其实是需要很强的物质支撑的，其中最重要的一环就是安全。

Timothy：那我们讲一个最新的消息。美国有一个节目主持人，因为对查理柯克凶手的事散布了一些虚假信息，被停职了。从二大爷这个事开始，一直有声音说：这种反应会不会有些过分？如果这种事有尽头的话，应该停止在什么地方？是主持人被停职，还是普通公司员工被开除？

悉尼奶爸：FCC（美国联邦通信委员会）的一个总监下场谴责媒体的新闻标准，这事以前没干过，但川普任上的FCC干了好多次。

说到这个，我有的时候就会想——尤其是从中国出来的人——我们会想到中共建政以前。如果在蒋介石到了台湾以后反省说“那个时候好像我做得过于心慈手软了，过于自由了”——这是一个历史假设：如果你是蒋介石，回到1949年或者1947年，当你知道后果，你会怎么做？

Timothy：我从一个事后的角度来看，如果是1947年的蒋介石，我觉得那个问题是无解的。我对共产党的文人越痛下杀手，美国的援助走得越快，我在大陆败退得就越快。

其实我一直在想一个问题：一个国家赋予公民的言论自由，能不能威胁这个言论自由本身？我能不能号召去建立一个不保护言论自由的制度？我能不能号召去推翻第一修正案？这个问题跟号召推翻第二修正案不一样。持枪权废了就废了，但如果用言论号召废除言论自由，是不是逻辑上走不通？

悉尼奶爸：当然这只是一个逻辑上的假设。历史上有很多吊诡的时候。再举个例子，像智利的皮诺切特，他是推翻了民选的阿连德政府上台的，对左派打压非常残酷。但是也是皮诺切特把弗里德曼请到了智利，推广了自由市场，导致智利成为拉美最成功的典范。如果阿连德当时按照老毛的路子走，智利会变成什么样？但我自己也要反省。我觉得这是一个很好的机会，让我们所有人重新整理一下思路，然后有一个充分的辩论。

Timothy：对。刚才提到那个中国女生的事（注：指发表极端言论的华人），对于华人群体当中持相反观点的人，他们应该用什么样的态度去面对这样的言论？

悉尼奶爸：发声啊！就是表示华人群体是有不同意见的。我们跟她持相反意见，发声就好了呀。其实那个女生发的这种“讲老毛、必须打倒反动派”的言论，其实中国政府现在也并不喜欢拿出来。这也就是我做媒体觉得有点社会责任的地方。在澳洲的华人，至少我要让西方媒体知道，华人社会里面并不是样子的。很多人不发声是因为不敢，但我能够帮他们把声音发出来。

Timothy：问一个私人的问题。你当时翻译二大爷推文的那一刻，你心里想的是什么？

悉尼奶爸：没想什么，我觉得他是错的呀。而且很有意思，语言这个障碍其实把很多东西挡在了外面。我以前在澳洲做节目，就是在揭露一些澳洲本地的人利用语言障碍，做一些他不希望主流英文媒体知道的事情。所以我去做一些所谓的“大翻译”。很多人反对大翻译运动，觉得是家丑不可外扬，或者觉得华人自己聊什么不用让外人知道。我觉得这个不对。华人要团结，但不是基于族裔的抱团。 前两天我在接受杨涵老师采访时，杨老师认为华人根本就不需要团结。我非常推崇这个想法。左派往往认为黑人就该团结、华人就该团结，去对抗白人。我的意思是，我们不应该以某个族裔作为核心要团结的东西。如果不希望别人这么对待我，我也别用同样的方式对待其他人。所以我希望增加透明感。我的本质工作就是翻译。

Timothy：非常赞同。当一个族裔把自己内部的分歧公开化，并且拿到所在国的政治体系下去解决的时候，这会展示出他们是一个负责任的团体，愿意融入所在国，愿意与当地人交流。

悉尼奶爸：对，这才是融合呀。就是有什么话咱们摊在明面上讲。而且随着 AI 时代到来，你相信我，信息壁垒会越来越低。别再想着在自己家里面琢磨事、不告诉别人了。以后这个门槛会越来越低，可能到明年这个时候，不存在只有中文才能表达的秘密了。

Timothy：其实语言本身的壁垒还不及文化的壁垒。

悉尼奶爸：其实很无奈。但我认为只要争于参与讨论，对大家都有帮助。

In Conversation with Sydney Daddy: The Ethics of Reporting, Free Speech, and the 'Er Daye' Controversy

By Timothy Huang

        After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the former Chinese criminal police officer and YouTube blogger Deng Haiyan ‘Er Daye’ who applied for political asylum in the United States publicly made appalling remarks in support of political assassination on the Internet, and was then translated into English by another YouTuber ‘Sydney Daddy’ and posted it online and @ the relevant U.S. authorities to report it, saying that it violated U.S. values and its immigration and visa management rules on the character requirements of visa holders. Their actions have caused widespread debate on the Internet and even attracted the attention of relevant people in the United States. On September 18, 2025, the author had a live interaction with Sydney Daddy on YouTube, talking about the controversy related to reporting, freedom of speech and Er Daye case. This article is a transcript compiled by the author based on the interview video.

Timothy: Let’s dispense with the pleasantries and dive into the main topic. As everyone knows, you have recently found yourself in the eye of the storm for translating and reporting a tweet by the prominent online figure, 'Er Daye'. This has sparked a massive debate in the Chinese-speaking sphere. I’ve noticed that much of the criticism levelled against you isn’t necessarily about whether Er Daye deserved to be penalised, but rather the act of reporting itself. Critics are asking: Should you have translated his Chinese tweet into English and tagged Marco Rubio and FBI Director Patel? Do you believe that the act of 'reporting' carries an inherent moral stain?

Sydney Daddy: We need to draw a clear distinction here. There is a fundamental difference between 'grassing' (snitching) and legitimate reporting.

Grassing is when we know each other privately, and I secretly reveal information that was meant to be kept in confidence. However, Twitter is a public platform. Translating a public statement is not snitching. Furthermore, on many platforms, reporting is often anonymous—the system hides your identity. But in this case, I did it openly. By posting it publicly, I actually removed the secretive, 'sneak' element of the act.

Secondly, in a liberal democracy, reporting violations is a standard part of maintaining community order. For instance, here in Australia, if someone throws rubbish out of their car window, there is a dedicated website and hotline for reporting it. You note the number plate, report it to the authorities, and they are fined. Chinese people often view this through the lens of the ‘Chaoyang Masses’ (government informants), assuming it’s just busybodies causing trouble. But in the West, especially at the local council level, this is about community standards. If you don’t maintain your front lawn in the US, your neighbours will report you to the Council. It’s about maintaining the environment we all share.

I had a revelation following the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis (the Lindt Café siege), I read a report that stated police struggled to gather intelligence on extremists within the Muslim community because the community protected their own. They prioritised tribal loyalty over civic duty. That struck a chord with me. In a democratic society, provided the system is fair and there are channels for legal recourse, public reporting is not shameful. In fact, calling the police is a form of reporting. In the West, calling the police isn't viewed with the same trepidation as 'suing the officials' might be in China; it is a normal mechanism for resolving disputes.

Many people conflate reporting with the Cultural Revolution. But the horror of the Cultural Revolution wasn’t the reporting itself; it was the lack of due process and the fact that reporting was weaponised by the state. There is a misconception that the Cultural Revolution happened because there was too much free speech. It was exactly the bloody opposite! The Cultural Revolution occurred because speech was restricted. Only a select group - those sanctioned by the Central Committee - were allowed to post 'Big Character Posters' and make denunciations. The opposition, the so-called 'rightists' and intellectuals, were silenced. When you transpose the Chinese understanding of 'speech' and 'reporting' into a Western democratic context, you need to think deeper. In a democracy, the accused have rights and a legal system to defend themselves. That is the difference.

Timothy: Some argue that what happened with Er Daye is more akin to 'calling the police'—alerting the relevant authorities to handle the matter. However, critics worry about the US State Department’s stance: that celebrating the death of political figures (like Charlie Kirk) could lead to visa revocation. They feel this infringes on free speech.

Sydney Daddy: Whether it infringes on free speech is ultimately for the US Supreme Court to decide. However, the US government’s stance has been clear, especially since March: Entering the US is a privilege, not a right.

Timothy: That's my next question. Regarding Er Daye case, Rubio said in the interview that he would cancel these people's visas and repatriate them. Is this a matter of freedom of speech in a narrow sense, or is it a matter of the administrative and visa management system of the United States?

Sydney Daddy: In extreme cases involving national security or support for terrorism (or perceived support), the government reserves the right to revoke that privilege. I’ve researched this extensively, and almost no country grants non-citizens the same speech protections as citizens regarding their right to remain in the country. We need look no further than here in Australia. A few years ago, Novak Djokovic arrived to play in the Australian Open. Because of his anti-vaccination rhetoric, and despite having arranged an exemption, he was eventually discovered, detained for several days, and deported. This was, to some degree, related to his public attitude towards vaccines. At the time, the country was governed by the right-wing Liberal Party. This demonstrates where the line for free speech is drawn in Australia. People may be watching this incident to see exactly where the United States will draw that line. The Supreme Court may be forced to define it. Previously, they could be vague, but now they must be precise. Including the issue of whether flag burning is permitted, I personally believe the protections will retract.

Timothy: Yes, the flag-burning case is a classic example. The debate around free speech generally reflects two viewpoints: one believes the legal basis for free speech is domestic law (such as the US Constitution); the other believes free speech belongs to the realm of human rights protection, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or UN conventions. This creates a cognitive dissonance regarding whether a privilege like a visa can be administratively cancelled.

Sydney Daddy: In reality, the line differs from country to country. The US has always been the most lenient, a beacon of liberty. But I personally believe it must contract. Both the Left and the Right desire this contraction. The Left wishes to curtail gun rights, while the Right wishes to curtail birthright citizenship.

Timothy: Speaking of the social media age, the consequences of speech are no longer limited to the speech itself. For instance, the editors of Charlie Hebdo were murdered due to offensive speech; or in Er Daye’s case, the media amplification means the consequences he faces extend beyond mere rebuttal. Do you feel this challenges the protection of free speech?

Sydney Daddy: As independent media creators, we feel this acutely; any comment we make has consequences, be it abuse or threats. However, I believe there is one consequence that must not be breached - life is precious, and life is the ultimate freedom. Once you kill someone, as in the Charlie Hebdo case, you can no longer prove them wrong. Therefore, whether from a utilitarian or a moral perspective, this is the firmest bottom line. 

I visited Mexico last year to observe the elections, and I was truly shocked. During those few months of campaigning, over sixty candidates were murdered - many captured on video, gunned down in the street while shaking hands. I later wondered: is this the democracy we desire? Many say they want to explore a path to democracy for China, but would the Chinese people truly want a democracy like Mexico’s? Therefore, I believe that certain fundamental realities - safety, development, job opportunities - are more important than chanting slogans. You cannot promote liberal democratic ideals amongst the destitute; you can only promote populism. Democracy requires a strong material foundation, the most critical component of which is security.

Timothy: Let us discuss a recent update. A US show host was suspended for spreading disinformation regarding the killer of Charlie Kirk. Since the Er Daye incident began, there has been a voice asking: Is this reaction excessive? If there is a limit to this, where should it stop? Is it when a host is suspended, or when an ordinary company employee is fired?

Sydney Daddy: An FCC commissioner stepped in to condemn media standards. This is unprecedented recently, though Trump’s FCC did it frequently.

Speaking of which, I sometimes ponder - especially as someone from China - the period before the CCP established its regime. If Chiang Kai-shek, after retreating to Taiwan, had reflected and said, ‘Perhaps I was too soft-hearted, too liberal back then’ - this is a historical hypothesis: if you were Chiang Kai-shek, back in 1949 or 1947, knowing the consequences, what would you do?

Timothy: Viewing it with the benefit of hindsight, if I were Chiang Kai-shek in 1947, I feel the problem was unsolvable. The more brutally I cracked down on Communist intellectuals, the faster US aid would have been withdrawn, and the faster my defeat on the mainland would have occurred. 

Actually, I have been pondering a question: can the free speech granted by a nation threaten that freedom itself? Can I call for the establishment of a system that does not protect free speech? Can I advocate for the overthrow of the First Amendment? This is different from advocating for the repeal of the Second Amendment. If gun rights are abolished, they are simply gone; but if one uses speech to call for the abolition of free speech, is that not logically incoherent?

Sydney Daddy: Of course, that is merely a logical hypothesis. History is often paradoxical. Take another example: Pinochet in Chile. He overthrew the elected Allende government and brutally repressed the Left. Yet, it was Pinochet who invited Milton Friedman to Chile to promote the free market, making Chile the most successful model in Latin America. If Allende had continued down Mao’s path, what would Chile have become? However, I must also reflect. I think this is a good opportunity for all of us to reorganise our thinking and engage in a robust debate.

Timothy: Indeed. Regarding the Chinese girl mentioned earlier (note: referring to a Chinese national expressing extreme views), what attitude should the Chinese community that holds opposing views adopt towards such rhetoric?

Sydney Daddy: Speak up! Simply demonstrate that the Chinese community holds diverse opinions. We disagree with her, so we just need to say so. In fact, the Chinese government today does not necessarily like the kind of rhetoric she used – praising Mao and calling for strikes against reactionaries. This is where I feel a sense of social responsibility as a media figure. I want the Western media to know that the Chinese community in Australia is not a monolith. Many do not speak up out of fear, but I can help amplify their voices.

Timothy: To ask a personal question: what went through your mind the moment you translated Er Daye’s tweet?

Sydney Daddy: I didn't think much of it; I simply thought he was wrong. It is interesting how language barriers often obscure reality. I used to produce programmes in Australia exposing locals who used the language barrier to say things they wouldn't want the mainstream English media to know. That is why I engage in the so-called ‘Great Translation’. Many oppose the Great Translation Movement, feeling that one shouldn't ‘wash dirty linen in public’, or that what Chinese people discuss amongst themselves needn't be known to outsiders. I disagree. Chinese people should unite, but not merely based on ethnicity. In an interview with Yang Han the other day, he argued that the Chinese do not need to unite at all. I highly admire that thought. The Left often believes Black people should unite, Chinese people should unite, all to oppose White people. My point is, we should not use ethnicity as the core of our unity. If I don't want to be treated that way, I shouldn't treat others that way. Thus, I wish to increase transparency. My essential work is translation.

Timothy: I couldn't agree more. When an ethnic group publicises its internal divisions and resolves them within the political system of their host country, it demonstrates that they are a responsible body, willing to integrate and communicate with the locals.

Sydney Daddy: Precisely, that is true integration. It means laying our cards on the table. And believe me, with the advent of the AI era, information barriers will be lowered significantly. Do not imagine you can figure things out in private without telling anyone. The threshold is lowering; by this time next year, secrets exclusive to the Chinese language may cease to exist.

Timothy: In truth, the linguistic barrier is often less significant than the cultural one.

Sydney Daddy: It is often frustrating. Yet, I believe that as long as we strive to participate in the discussion, it is beneficial for all.