El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > matter if it is believed or not.
> You simply can not insult people without evidence.
In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly insulting people without evidence. None of these people are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is different from America's free speech. No?
> On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > wrote:
> > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > Apples and oranges.
> > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > until it > > made the news.
> > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > And > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > damage to > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > irresponsible speech.
> > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > Such > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 3:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:33 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > the > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > the > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:47 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, this cartoonist smeared Ma Ying-jeou and Hillary Clinton > > > > > > > > > > > > > so he will be punished based on his condition, jail, mental hospital, > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just paying fine. The newspapers reporting the news did not violate > > > > > > > > > > > > > the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On smearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > If he graft the image of Ma and Clinton on a live porn, it is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > misrepresents or smears. But this is not the case. This is a drawing > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > he did not say Ma had sex with Clinton. It is akin to "If Ma and > > > > > > > > > > > > Clintion > > > > > > > > > > > > are to have sex, it will be like this."
> > > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference between a person reporting someone's thought > > > > > > > > > > > > and another person reporting his own thought to the public?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you understand what several netters have meant here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, that cartoonist violated the law. The newspapers reported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the news did not violate the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If producing one copy is bad, how come producing 10,000 is not bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2a. If the painter has a dream first, is his painting not reporting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his dream? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2b. Let us say, A had a dream of Ma doing Clinton, he told B who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paints > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and published the picture in a report. Any difference?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free speech, free press should be under the law. This idiot has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When is a violation a violation?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.He has a thought of Ma doing Clintion along the line of 99 sacred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > techniques.
You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as an example, it’s James Soong going to court and filing libel suit against LTH, that’s why there’s a trial. If James Soong just let it go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will not take any action. It’s different from murder case.
Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > different from America's free speech. No?
> > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 7:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > Apples and oranges.
> > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > until it > > > made the news.
> > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > And > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > damage to > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > Such > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 3:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:47 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, this cartoonist smeared Ma Ying-jeou and Hillary Clinton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so he will be punished based on his condition, jail, mental hospital, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just paying fine. The newspapers reporting the news did not violate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On smearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he graft the image of Ma and Clinton on a live porn, it is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > misrepresents or smears. But this is not the case. This is a drawing > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > he did not say Ma had sex with Clinton. It is akin to "If Ma and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clintion > > > > > > > > > > > > > are to have sex, it will be like this."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference between a person reporting someone's thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another person reporting his own thought to the public?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you understand what several netters have meant here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, that cartoonist violated the law. The newspapers reported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the news did not violate the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If producing one copy is bad, how come producing 10,000 is not bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2a. If the painter has a dream first, is his painting not reporting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his dream? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2b. Let us say, A had a dream of Ma doing Clinton, he told B who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paints > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and published the picture in a report. Any difference?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free speech, free press should be under the law. This idiot has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine.
On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as > an example, it’s James Soong going to court and filing libel suit > against LTH, that’s why there’s a trial. If James Soong just let it > go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit > against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
> Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the > police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will > not take any action. It’s different from murder case.
> Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to include in earlier post.
In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one between Soong and LTH.
> On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> > In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > > different from America's free speech. No?
> > > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > > Apples and oranges.
> > > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > > until it > > > > made the news.
> > > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > > And > > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > > damage to > > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > > Such > > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, this cartoonist smeared Ma Ying-jeou and Hillary Clinton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so he will be punished based on his condition, jail, mental hospital, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just paying fine. The newspapers reporting the news did not violate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On smearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he graft the image of Ma and Clinton on a live porn, it is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > misrepresents or smears. But this is not the case. This is a drawing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he did not say Ma had sex with Clinton. It is akin to "If Ma and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clintion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are to have sex, it will be like this."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference between a person reporting someone's thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another person reporting his own thought to the public?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you understand what several netters have meant here.
> On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > wrote:
> > You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as > > an example, it's James Soong going to court and filing libel suit > > against LTH, that's why there's a trial. If James Soong just let it > > go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit > > against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
> > Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the > > police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will > > not take any action. It's different from murder case.
> > Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
> Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to > include in earlier post.
> In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted > as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one > between Soong and LTH.
> > On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > > > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> > > In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > > > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > > > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > > > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > > > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > > > different from America's free speech. No?
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 7:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > > > Apples and oranges.
> > > > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > > > until it > > > > > made the news.
> > > > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > > > And > > > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > > > damage to > > > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > > > Such > > > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, this cartoonist smeared Ma Ying-jeou and Hillary Clinton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so he will be punished based on his condition, jail, mental hospital, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just paying fine. The newspapers reporting the news did not violate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On smearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he graft the image of Ma and Clinton on a live porn, it is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > misrepresents or smears. But this is not the case. This is a drawing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he did not say Ma had sex with Clinton. It is akin to "If Ma and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clintion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are to have sex, it will be like this."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference between a person reporting someone's thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and another person reporting his own thought to the public?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you understand what several netters have meant here.
On Nov 6, 9:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Remember that cartoonisrt was charged with "妨害風化罪" (indecency).
1. You are changing your line. 2. Prosecuting him under the vice law is ridiculous given that there are more explicit pornographic material readily available over the internet. No. The only reason he was prosecuted is because Ma, or Clinton, was depicted in the painting.. Disrepecting Ma or Clination is not allowed. It is political motivated.
> Try naked and wake on the street and see what will happen to you.
> On Nov 6, 9:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > wrote:
> > > You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as > > > an example, it's James Soong going to court and filing libel suit > > > against LTH, that's why there's a trial. If James Soong just let it > > > go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit > > > against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
> > > Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the > > > police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will > > > not take any action. It's different from murder case.
> > > Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
> > Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to > > include in earlier post.
> > In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted > > as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one > > between Soong and LTH.
> > > On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > > > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > > > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > > > > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> > > > In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > > > > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > > > > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > > > > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > > > > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > > > > different from America's free speech. No?
> > > > > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > > > > Apples and oranges.
> > > > > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > > > > until it > > > > > > made the news.
> > > > > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > > > > And > > > > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > > > > damage to > > > > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > > > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > > > > Such > > > > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, this cartoonist smeared Ma Ying-jeou and Hillary Clinton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so he will be punished based on his condition, jail, mental hospital, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just paying fine. The newspapers reporting the news did not violate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On smearing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he graft the image of Ma and Clinton on a live porn, it is clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > misrepresents or smears. But this is not the case. This is a drawing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
By the same token, there are more people smoking pot in Taiwan but most of them wil not get caught but if you get caught, you will be charged.
This cartoonist got caught so he has been charged with "indecency". If Ma decided to file libel suit against him, he will have to pay damage to Ma's reputation, this part is same as James Soong vs LTH.
On Nov 6, 9:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > wrote:
> > Remember that cartoonisrt was charged with "妨害風化罪" (indecency).
> 1. You are changing your line. > 2. Prosecuting him under the vice law is ridiculous given that there > are more explicit pornographic material readily available over the > internet. No. The only reason he was prosecuted is because Ma, or > Clinton, was depicted in the painting.. Disrepecting Ma or Clination > is not allowed. It is political motivated.
> > Try naked and wake on the street and see what will happen to you.
> > On Nov 6, 9:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as > > > > an example, it's James Soong going to court and filing libel suit > > > > against LTH, that's why there's a trial. If James Soong just let it > > > > go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit > > > > against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
> > > > Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the > > > > police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will > > > > not take any action. It's different from murder case.
> > > > Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
> > > Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to > > > include in earlier post.
> > > In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted > > > as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one > > > between Soong and LTH.
> > > > On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > > > > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > > > > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > > > > > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> > > > > In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > > > > > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > > > > > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > > > > > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > > > > > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > > > > > different from America's free speech. No?
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > > > > > Apples and oranges.
> > > > > > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > > > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > > > > > until it > > > > > > > made the news.
> > > > > > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > > > > > damage to > > > > > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > > > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > > > > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > > > > > Such > > > > > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > > > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free speech a lot. I would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appreciate if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you answer my free speech questions with some thoughts. If you think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question is not appropriate, please explain.
> By the same token, there are more people smoking pot in Taiwan but > most of them wil not get caught but if you get caught, you will be > charged.
> This cartoonist got caught so he has been charged with "indecency". If > Ma decided to file libel suit against him, he will have to pay damage > to Ma's reputation, this part is same as James Soong vs LTH.
> On Nov 6, 9:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:21 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > wrote:
> > > Remember that cartoonisrt was charged with "妨害風化罪" (indecency).
> > 1. You are changing your line. > > 2. Prosecuting him under the vice law is ridiculous given that there > > are more explicit pornographic material readily available over the > > internet. No. The only reason he was prosecuted is because Ma, or > > Clinton, was depicted in the painting.. Disrepecting Ma or Clination > > is not allowed. It is political motivated.
> > > Try naked and wake on the street and see what will happen to you.
> > > On Nov 6, 9:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as > > > > > an example, it's James Soong going to court and filing libel suit > > > > > against LTH, that's why there's a trial. If James Soong just let it > > > > > go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit > > > > > against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
> > > > > Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the > > > > > police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will > > > > > not take any action. It's different from murder case.
> > > > > Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
> > > > Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to > > > > include in earlier post.
> > > > In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted > > > > as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one > > > > between Soong and LTH.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Everyone is equal in front of the law. For smearing, Taiwan's judicial > > > > > > > court will treat LTH and that crazy cartoonist same. It does not > > > > > > > matter if it is believed or not.
> > > > > > > You simply can not insult people without evidence.
> > > > > > In America, people say "Motherfucker Bush" and now > > > > > > "Motherfucker Obama" all the time. They are certainly > > > > > > insulting people without evidence. None of these people > > > > > > are prosecuted. In Taiwan, calling Ma a "Clintonfucker" > > > > > > with a drawing is a crime. Why? Taiwan's free speech is > > > > > > different from America's free speech. No?
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 7:32 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I can provide you case by case. LTH smeared PFP party chairman James > > > > > > > > > Soong saying James Soong playing Majong during pan-blue supporters > > > > > > > > > went on the street to protest outcome of 2004 presidential election. > > > > > > > > > Taiwan's judicial court has verdicted that LTH has to pay damage for > > > > > > > > > James Soong's reputation and apologized to James Soong in 4 major > > > > > > > > > Taiwan's newspapers.
> > > > > > > > Apples and oranges.
> > > > > > > > 1. LTH was a political figure whose words carried weight. > > > > > > > > In contrast, the painter is a nobody. No one will care what he drew > > > > > > > > until it > > > > > > > > made the news.
> > > > > > > > 2. The scenario depicted by LTH against Soong was plausible to likely. > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > it could materially affect the election. That is, there could be real > > > > > > > > damage to > > > > > > > > Soong and/or to Taiwan. Hence Taiwan has a stake in precluidng such > > > > > > > > irresponsible speech.
> > > > > > > > Ma having sex with Clinton is impossible. No one will believe that. > > > > > > > > Such > > > > > > > > picture only reveals the painter's abnormality.
> > > > > > > > > As you can see, in Taiwan free speech is under the law and smearing is > > > > > > > > > NOT part of free speech.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my point which is based on my experience in Taiwan and my > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge about Taiwan's law.
> > > > > > > > > > Please tell more about the Taiwan law on your mind and why such > > > > > > > > > > law is not in conflict with the principle of free speech.
> > > > > > > > > > > As for the trial, leave it to the judge. But based on my experience > > > > > > > > > > > and knowledge, that idiot probably will get 6 month jail term but he > > > > > > > > > > > may be able to pay fine for his jail term too.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 3:08 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > But you had siad the following: "This idiot has > > > > > > > > > > > > violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine." > > > > > > > > > > > > You also invoked the general consenus as on your side. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I thought you know the answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In Taiwan, it is common practice for Taiwan media to "mosaic" the > > > > > > > > > > > > > private parts (sex organs) or indecent area to prevent annoyance to > > > > > > > > > > > > > general public (as you can see from the link you provided). Other than > > > > > > > > > > > > > that, newspapers printing the drawing (with "mosaic") to let readers > > > > > > > > > > > > > know what's going on is fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming he had violated the law as you said, the issue is whether > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > drawing the picture is the crime or the distribution of the picture is > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > crime.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the drawing is a political drawing, say, Ma bowed to Uncle Sam's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pressure (Hillary can dress up like Uncle Sam) for American beef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dispute, that's fine. That's political cartoon. But the drawing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about Ma and Hillary having sex. That's indecency, that's smearing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, is smearing a matter of intention? That is, he intends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smear Ma or Clinton with the pictures. Let us assume that he did have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the intention. at what point the crime of smearing is achieved? If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > picture in itself is smearing, how come newspaper reproducing the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pictuie is not smearing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, Japanese right wing group also claimed that in order to liberate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E Asia from western imperialism, the killing in China was necessay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's also their "opinion", to you, "free speech"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a free speech issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure they can say that. The issue is not they said. But what the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese > > > > > > > > > > > > > > military had done on behalf of the Japanese people during the invasion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can have your own "opinion" but general consensus matters. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japanese right wing group insisted Japan did not invade China but just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "entered" China but most people do not agree with this small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ridiculous group.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Japan's problem is not about expressing. Rather it is about hiding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be sure, Japan entered China. But Japan also did a lot of bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside China. Japan is yet to acknowledge the latter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the drawing has uglified one's reputation so it is against the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law, it does not have to be the video or real picture... I believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's general consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Uglified" one's reputation. Is this your criteria concerning the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boundary between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free and non-free speech? You talk about free
these fellows are just distorting "freedom of speech" for CCPers. no matter what follows, when a word is uttered out, it is free. what called no freedom is just like killing-files in newsgroup, one's words are blockened from speaking out as all media are controlled by CCP/government. of course, someone can pick out some words issued by foreigners' slaves, this shows only that they are privileged because CCP/PRC has to kneel humiliatories to foreign economic invaders, not freedom of speech. in fact, all media in Chinkland have beening filtering out all words CCPer don't want to see, such as closing or blocking (網站)newsgroups, the obvious.
> On Nov 6, 8:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > wrote:
> In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted > as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one > between Soong and LTH.
>>On Nov 6, 8:13 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Nov 6, 7:41 pm, report2009 <repost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
