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, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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.
2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
5. He sends the picture to his friends.
6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it is news.
I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it is news?
> On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > wrote:
> > 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.
> 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > is news.
> I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > is news?
> > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:17 am, Rainbow 虹 <rainbow12345...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fucking painter should be sent to jail for smearing innocents with > false accuses. Freedom cannot be built on the suffering of others.
What if he had a dream in which Ma was doing Clintion? Of course he has no control of his dream. Could be express his dream or some would say, inspiration, in a painting? Is this smearing?
On Nov 6, 11:36 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:17 am, Rainbow 虹 <rainbow12345...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The fucking painter should be sent to jail for smearing innocents with > > false accuses. Freedom cannot be built on the suffering of others.
> What if he had a dream in which Ma was doing Clintion? Of course > he has no control of his dream. Could be express his dream or some > would say, inspiration, in a painting? Is this smearing?
In his own dreaming world, he can dream of all kinds of insulting imagination about Ma , but once he expressively publish his dream without evidence, it is amounted to insult and smear Mr Ma in public.
Therefore, the painter should been sent to jail for deliberately hurting another person's reputation.
> On Nov 6, 11:36 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:17 am, Rainbow 虹 <rainbow12345...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The fucking painter should be sent to jail for smearing innocents with > > > false accuses. Freedom cannot be built on the suffering of others.
> > What if he had a dream in which Ma was doing Clintion? Of course > > he has no control of his dream. Could be express his dream or some > > would say, inspiration, in a painting? Is this smearing?
> In his own dreaming world, he can dream of all kinds of insulting > imagination about Ma , > but once he expressively publish his dream without evidence, > it is amounted to insult and smear Mr Ma in public.
> Therefore, the painter should been sent to jail for deliberately > hurting another person's reputation.
Let us say he is incapable of express his dream in words. And he can only express his dream in painting. Would that make any difference?
Another question is when is a violation a violation. Is he violation the law the moment he had painted the picture? Or only when he releases the drawing to the public?
On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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?
> On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > is news.
> > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > is news?
> > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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.
I am sure you understand what several netters have meant here.
On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > wrote:
> > 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?
> > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > is news.
> > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > is news?
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > is news.
> > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > is news?
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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.
On Nov 6, 12:47 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > is news.
> > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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.
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.
On Nov 6, 12:47 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > is news.
> > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:44 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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.
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"?
On Nov 6, 1:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:30 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
At what point? Leave that to Taiwan judicical court decide.
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.
On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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:
> > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, 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.
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:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > > is news?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
> > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:09 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > > > is news?
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.
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:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:26 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news?
On Nov 6, 4:09 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.
Now LT Lee will say that maybe LTH had a dream that James Soong was playing mah jong :-)
> 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:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news?
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:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:36 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.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.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. He discusses Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. He draws the picture of Ma doing Clintion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. He shows his friends in his hoime his picture.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. He sends the picture to his friends.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. He exhibits the picture in his website.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. He sends his picture to a newspaper which publishes it because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can eliminate 1 and 2 above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning with 3, when does his violate the law? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can a newspaper and should a newpaper publish the picture because it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is news?
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.
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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:27 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
|
