> > 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:

> > > > > > > > > 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:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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

> ...

> read more »- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -