畫家散發馬英九希拉裏不雅圖被逮 供稱只為出名: Free speech? Free Press
ltlee1
中新網11月6日電 據台灣《聯合報》報道，台北縣議員日前在縣議會出示一張繪有馬英九、美國國務卿希拉裏裸體“交媾圖”的明信片，警方5日逮獲涉嫌繪
製及散發明信片的畫家林國武。
警方調查，林國武(47歲)從私立大學美術系畢業後，自認懷才不遇，靠派報維生，多年前他就陸續繪製李登輝、陳水扁、達賴喇嘛等人與希拉裏的不
雅動作圖。
林國武供稱，只是想靠這樣的創作內容來打響個人知名度，不雅明信片已寄出四千多封，但與當前的臺、美牛肉談判風波無關，偵訊後被依妨害風化罪嫌
移送法辦。
台北縣議員金介壽、周勝考、鄭世維、林國春、李肇南等人，週二質詢寄這封“春宮圖”明信片者的動機，懷疑是否為不滿牛肉談判結果，故意要羞辱馬
英九與希拉裏。
台北縣警局長林國棟要求儘速破案，縣刑大偵一隊依據明信片上署名的“林國武”、郵戳及所留郵政信箱查出林嫌住處，昨天持搜索票到台北市大理街，
將林嫌拘提到案。
（責任編輯：王炬鵬 )
Click the link for the picture.
abia...@my-deja.com
violated the law so he may have to go to jail or pay fine.
Rainbow 虹
false accuses. Freedom cannot be built on the suffering of others.
ltlee1
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:
>
>
>
> >http://big5.ce.cn/xwzx/shgj/gdxw/200911/06/t20091106_20361433.shtml
>
> > 中新網11月6日電 據台灣《聯合報》報道，台北縣議員日前在縣議會出示一張繪有馬英九、美國國務卿希拉裏裸體"交媾圖"的明信片，警方5日逮獲涉嫌繪
> > 製及散發明信片的畫家林國武。
>
> > 警方調查，林國武(47歲)從私立大學美術系畢業後，自認懷才不遇，靠派報維生，多年前他就陸續繪製李登輝、陳水扁、達賴喇嘛等人與希拉裏的不
> > 雅動作圖。
>
> > 林國武供稱，只是想靠這樣的創作內容來打響個人知名度，不雅明信片已寄出四千多封，但與當前的臺、美牛肉談判風波無關，偵訊後被依妨害風化罪嫌
> > 移送法辦。
>
> > 台北縣議員金介壽、周勝考、鄭世維、林國春、李肇南等人，週二質詢寄這封"春宮圖"明信片者的動機，懷疑是否為不滿牛肉談判結果，故意要羞辱馬
> > 英九與希拉裏。
>
> > 台北縣警局長林國棟要求儘速破案，縣刑大偵一隊依據明信片上署名的"林國武"、郵戳及所留郵政信箱查出林嫌住處，昨天持搜索票到台北市大理街，
> > 將林嫌拘提到案。
>
> > （責任編輯：王炬鵬 )
>
> > Click the link for the picture.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
abia...@my-deja.com
the news did not violate the law.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
> 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, 10:28 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://big5.ce.cn/xwzx/shgj/gdxw/200911/06/t20091106_20361433.shtml
>
> > 中新網11月6日電 據台灣《聯合報》報道，台北縣議員日前在縣議會出示一張繪有馬英九、美國國務卿希拉裏裸體"交媾圖"的明信片，警方5日逮獲涉嫌繪
> > 製及散發明信片的畫家林國武。
>
> > 警方調查，林國武(47歲)從私立大學美術系畢業後，自認懷才不遇，靠派報維生，多年前他就陸續繪製李登輝、陳水扁、達賴喇嘛等人與希拉裏的不
> > 雅動作圖。
>
> > 林國武供稱，只是想靠這樣的創作內容來打響個人知名度，不雅明信片已寄出四千多封，但與當前的臺、美牛肉談判風波無關，偵訊後被依妨害風化罪嫌
> > 移送法辦。
>
> > 台北縣議員金介壽、周勝考、鄭世維、林國春、李肇南等人，週二質詢寄這封"春宮圖"明信片者的動機，懷疑是否為不滿牛肉談判結果，故意要羞辱馬
> > 英九與希拉裏。
>
> > 台北縣警局長林國棟要求儘速破案，縣刑大偵一隊依據明信片上署名的"林國武"、郵戳及所留郵政信箱查出林嫌住處，昨天持搜索票到台北市大理街，
> > 將林嫌拘提到案。
>
> > （責任編輯：王炬鵬 )
>
Siansiansian
> 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.
ltlee1
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?
ltlee1
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?
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
ltlee1
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?
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
ltlee1
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.
abia...@my-deja.com
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"?
ltlee1
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.
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
ltlee1
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.
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
bmo...@nyx.net
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.
Next up LT Lee will try to claim that being arrested for yelling
"fire!" in a crowded theater is also a violation of free speech.
> On Nov 6, 9:28 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://big5.ce.cn/xwzx/shgj/gdxw/200911/06/t20091106_20361433.shtml
>
> > 中新網11月6日電 據台灣《聯合報》報道，台北縣議員日前在縣議會出示一張繪有馬英九、美國國務卿希拉裏裸體"交媾圖"的明信片，警方5日逮獲涉嫌繪
> > 製及散發明信片的畫家林國武。
>
> > 警方調查，林國武(47歲)從私立大學美術系畢業後，自認懷才不遇，靠派報維生，多年前他就陸續繪製李登輝、陳水扁、達賴喇嘛等人與希拉裏的不
> > 雅動作圖。
>
> > 林國武供稱，只是想靠這樣的創作內容來打響個人知名度，不雅明信片已寄出四千多封，但與當前的臺、美牛肉談判風波無關，偵訊後被依妨害風化罪嫌
> > 移送法辦。
>
> > 台北縣議員金介壽、周勝考、鄭世維、林國春、李肇南等人，週二質詢寄這封"春宮圖"明信片者的動機，懷疑是否為不滿牛肉談判結果，故意要羞辱馬
> > 英九與希拉裏。
>
> > 台北縣警局長林國棟要求儘速破案，縣刑大偵一隊依據明信片上署名的"林國武"、郵戳及所留郵政信箱查出林嫌住處，昨天持搜索票到台北市大理街，
> > 將林嫌拘提到案。
>
> > （責任編輯：王炬鵬 )
>
ltlee1
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.
abia...@my-deja.com
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.
bmo...@nyx.net
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 :-)
ltlee1
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.
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
report2009
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.
ltlee1
> 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?
abia...@my-deja.com
an example, it’s James Soong going to court and filing libel suit
against LTH, that’s why there’s a trial. If James Soong just let it
go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit
against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the
police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will
not take any action. It’s different from murder case.
Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
ltlee1
wrote:
> You have no clue about judicial system. Using LTH and James Soong as
> an example, it’s James Soong going to court and filing libel suit
> against LTH, that’s why there’s a trial. If James Soong just let it
> go, there would not be a trial. If Obama decided to file lawsuit
> against the person who insulted him, then there will be a trial.
>
> Same for this cartoonist, it was county legislators calling the
> police, so the police arrested that idiot. Otherwise, the police will
> not take any action. It’s different from murder case.
>
> Understand or still want to argue? Haha!
Thank you for point out one significant difference which I forgot to
include in earlier post.
In this case, the paritner was arrested and presumably prosecuted
as a criminal case. It is not considered a civil lawsuit like the one
between Soong and LTH.
abia...@my-deja.com
Try naked and wake on the street and see what will happen to you.
ltlee1
wrote:
> Remember that cartoonisrt was charged with "妨害風化罪" (indecency).
1. You are changing your line.
2. Prosecuting him under the vice law is ridiculous given that there
are more explicit pornographic material readily available over the
internet. No. The only reason he was prosecuted is because Ma, or
Clinton, was depicted in the painting.. Disrepecting Ma or Clination
is not allowed. It is political motivated.
abia...@my-deja.com
most of them wil not get caught but if you get caught, you will be
charged.
This cartoonist got caught so he has been charged with "indecency". If
Ma decided to file libel suit against him, he will have to pay damage
to Ma's reputation, this part is same as James Soong vs LTH.
Anti-DabianchenVirus
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/995a71070728ba0c?hl=en
On Nov 6, 6:38 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
skygod
no matter what follows, when a word is uttered out, it is free.
what called no freedom is just like killing-files in newsgroup,
one's words are blockened from speaking out as all media are controlled
by CCP/government.
of course, someone can pick out some words issued by foreigners' slaves,
this shows only that they are privileged because CCP/PRC has to kneel
humiliatories to foreign economic invaders, not freedom of speech.
in fact, all media in Chinkland have beening filtering out all words
CCPer don't want to see, such as closing or blocking (網站)newsgroups,
the obvious.
ltlee1 提到: