Flipping off the lady, while it probably felt great, probably wasn’t the best reaction (albeit in the presence of a language barrier I suppose it probably does do the job best haha). But getting fined for that would absolutely enrage me…
Not related to the post but I have a related flip off story… One day I’m driving around with a friend, and I’m telling a story about how I got flipped off the previous day. Of course I had to show her how it happened by holding my hand up just under the rear view mirror and flipping her off. All of a sudden the headlights of the car behind me are flashing, and I pull over. Whoops, I just flipped off an undercover cop. This dude was PISSED, and realizing what had happened, I was laughing my ass off when he walked up to the car absolutely fuming. I explained to him that I was just telling a story, and he believed it and stormed off, but he wasn’t a happy camper to say the last.
Article 309 of the ROC Criminal Code is one of the original 357 Articles that took effect back on Jan. 1 1935. It has never been amended, so the 300 yuan refers to the fine back then. At that time, the official currency of the Republic was the Silver Dollar (yuan). Another law sets the exchange rate between the old Silver Dollar and the New Taiwan Dollar as 1 yuan = NTD30.
I’m not sure about that. I suspect that many civil law countries have similar laws on their books. Defamation and public insult laws are aimed at protecting one’s character against injury. The civil law countries protect this interest more vigilantly than the Anglo-American countries, who seem more concerned to protect freedom of speech especially in the press than they are in protecting the privacy and feelings of private individuals. I think its debate to which there is not a single clear answer. Both approaches have many good arguments for them.
In the US, I was always told as a kid that “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” The implicit rule is that you can defend yourself if someone attacks you physically but not if someone attacks you verbally." US laws enshrine that value by saying that you have a right to defend yourself reasonably if you are attacked but verbal provocation or insults is never grounds for ‘defending’ oneself.
I think that in Taiwan the reality is that many people will attack you if you insult them. I suspect this is linked to the undercurrents of violence from Taiwan’s not too distant past as a lawless frontier society. In any event, the courts will punish you if you insult someone publicly because they don’t want mayhem to result from casual insults. They may even be particularly concerned about foreigners who insult people without understanding the probably consequences.
I disagree with this paternalistic approach and I think the chilling effect on free speech and healthy expression in the hurly burly of society outweigh the diminishing dangers of people turning violent after being insulted in public. But I don’t think the Taiwanese courts or public agree with me.
For that reason, I think Peter’s approach is all wrong. The more he protests and raises constitutional arguments, the more concerned the courts are going to be that this foreigner (I assume) just doesn’t get it. They will be even more determined to teach him the lesson that public insults are punished in Taiwan because they can lead to violence. If he contritely apologizes. acknowledges that he was in the wrong, and shows that he understands that insulting people is not only rude but also dangerous, the judge will look for a way to throw this case out.
The Judicial Yuan’s database shows that the Taipei District Court alone has heard more than 1200 cases involving criminal public insult since 1994, which is as far back as the database goes. There are more than 1300 cases from the Kaohsiung District Court.
Why is it being unjustly applied to foreigners? I think Taiwanese are convicted and punished of it all the time. On Sept. 16th an electrician in Kaohsiung was sentenced to 30 days of detention (convertible to a fine of NT$1000 per day) for saying in Taiwanese to a woman “幹你娘，臭雞歪” [f— yo’ mamma, you stinking c***] during a dispute over the installation of a meter.
I think it tends to be unfairly applied against the working classes in an effort by Taiwan’s prudish judges to teach the unwashed some manners, but that’s just my 2c.
If the fine is 300 yuan, then the modern version is about 300 US dollars at 1 yuan = 30 NTD.
the 300 NTD i chicken feed, and shows again that in Taiwan it’s all about the process and being seen to be doing it rather than the outcome. The public apology is almost meaningless to Westerners but all-powerful, almost sacrosanct, to Taiwanesers.
See if you can get double-or-nuthin by insulting the judge too.
Yeah, go for it. In other case I saw, a guy was drunk in the Changhwa Train station and cussing people out. He did the same when he was hauled before the judge. She gave him eight months. Note: You actually have to serve sentences of six months or more. Not commutable to fines.
Given the rough and tumble nature of Taiwan’s press, and society in general, I would say that society clearly does not agree with such a law as they value their right to say anything far more than any threat to civil order.
I find this completely unconvincing. You are saying that ROC elites had Taiwan’s turbulent history in their mind when they devised this law back in the 1930s. This cannot be true and so the underlying violent nature of Taiwanese society has no relevance to the existence of laws against public insult.
I don’t know if the public agrees. They seem very much to enjoy being able to say and hear anything. Hence the media situation here.
Saying “fuck you”, or flipping the bird are equivalent to forcefully telling someone to leave you alone. Calling someone a “stinking cunt” is grossly insulting. “Fuck you” is not an insult.
If I said “leave me the fuck alone”, even with the intention purely to add force to my words, I could be charged with public insult. This is unfair because Taiwanese judges with little or no experience in English are simply assuming that any use of fuck is an insult.
We had the absurd situation a couple years back where a foreign woman insisted she had said “forget you” but the legal eagle on the bench said no, impossible, that’s not a genuine English expression (though of course it is). So, yes, a legal system where a foreigner can be charged with public insult for saying something in a language only he or she is fluent in, is patently unfair.
In the US, there is the legal concept of “fighting words”, stemming from the Supreme Court decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. But this is not the same as merely using words that are offensive. Further court cases have helped better define the limitations of “fighting words”; e.g. burning the flag or wearing a “Fuck The Draft” T-shirt are not fighting words.
That depends on what you mean by “first amendment.” There is a constitutional article that provides for freedom of speech: [quote]The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication.[/quote]–Constitution of the Republic of China, Chapter II, “Rights and Duties of the People,” Article 11. gio.gov.tw/info/news/constitution.htm#sec2
But even though the two constitutions’ free speech provisions look textually similar (at least in translation), it’s quite possible that ROC courts interpret Article 11’s free speech provision differently from the way U. S. courts interpret the First Amendment’s free speech provision. I haven’t studied Article 11, so I don’t really know.
The main problem, other than the vagueness of the law, is that non-native speaking judges are allowed to make interpretations on English swear words based on nothing more than a casual glance in a dictionary. “Fucken” is not an insult but “fucking” is. You couldn’t make this up in a drama centered an a kangaroo court trial.
An analogous situation would be a NAACP taking a Taiwanese variety show to court in the US for spreading hate by the repeated use of the word “nigga” on their show. When shown that “nigga” is actually “nage” a normal stutter or interjection like “uh”, the judge then turns and says, “Oh no, no. My wife and I went to Beijing last summer and took a Mandarin course before we went. The pinyin is ‘nage’ not ‘nige’ so there is no way native Mandarin speakers are using an ‘i’ sound. I asked my old teacher if it is in fact ‘nage’ or ‘nige’ and he confirmed that it is ‘nage’. Since the variety show hosts are educated people I cannot believe they do not know how to pronounce their own language. Therefore they must genuinely be using the word ‘nigga’.”
What is it that I am missing here? In the original case the judge was happy to let the OP walk away with an apology and he refused to play along? Does the OP realise how insulting it is to “flip the bird” in Taiwan? I struggle to see a) why he can’t just apologise properly and walk away the better man, and b) why anyone here would be supporting him - stupid law or otherwise.
It’s an analogy, hence the preface “an analogous situation.”
In another case a foreign women was charged with saying “fuck you” to someone. She claimed that she had in fact said “forget you.” The judge didn’t buy it because apparently he was studying English at night and after consulting with his teacher concluded that “forget you” is not proper English. It should have been “forgot you”. Since the foreign woman, a native speaker, did not say what he believed to be the correct English form of the expression she was obviously lying.
The above is not an analogy but it is undeniably absurd.
Feiren: In all of those cases, were there witnesses, including the one with the electrician in Gaoxiong? Short of photographic or video evidence, how else do they prove anything?
Judging from your comments below, I’d say you’re missing most of the thread, since it was a typical Forumosa thread, a kind of mix, with a little bit of limited support that was really more on the order of remarks about the seeming oddness of the law.
I don’t have anything better to do, so here ya go, a summary, up to the page that your post is on:
Feiren merely quoted the law and threw a little cold water on the OP’s notion that the media might be interested in his case.
urodacus asked for clarification as to the meaning of “flipped the bird,” and made a joke.
jimipresley made a joke about urodacus’s joke.
sandman made a joke that was independent of urodacus’s and jimipresley’s jokes.
Chris was puzzled about the exchange rate from the old yuan to the new.
bismarck enlightened urodacus and presented his method of avoiding contretemps such as the OP’s.
tomthorne engaged in succinct irony.
Mucha Man suggested a litigious tactic for dealing with the situation, without addressing the right or wrong of the thing.
Tempo Gain counseled avoiding trouble altogether.
JuliaZ chastised the OP in terms not precisely mild, but closer to mild than to severe.
Northcoast Surfer corrected JuliaZ’s post as to word choice.
Mucha Man defended the OP, but only against JuliaZ’s chastisement.
Maoman did as much as MM, and added advice as to how to vent and still avoid trouble.
Deuce Dropper made a comment about face.
Stray Dog mildly chastised JuliaZ for a certain word written in her chastisement of the OP.
drvelocity gently questioned the wisdom of the act at issue, but allowed that he might be upset about the penalty.
the bear posted the URL to a humorous YouTube video concerning the specific act in question.
Feiren engaged in an in-depth discussion of the law at issue, closing with a critique of the OP’s proposed approach to his legal defense.
urodacus discussed the fine and the currency exchange rate again (old yuan to new), and gave obviously unwise advice, but only in order to make another joke.
Feiren related an anecdote lest anyone mistakenly take urodacus’s joke seriously.
Mucha Man defended free speech and recalled another such case, an account of which had been posted on the board some time ago.
Chris commented on “fighting words” as that term has been interpreted by U. S. courts.
I made a brief comment about Article 11 of the ROC Constitution (guaranteeing freedom of expression), but confessed ignorance as to how that article is interpreted by courts.
I’m going to make the heroic assumption that you did at least read Mucha Man’s post, the one immediately above your own.
Maybe the problem is that I’m a literalist. I can’t bring myself to say sorry unless I actually feel sorry. But there’s more actually. In the first hearing before the prosecutor (not judge) I refused to apologize for trespassing+insulting someone. I did offer to the prosecutor to apologize only for the gesture, but not for the trespassing. It was the prosecutor (and maybe the plaintiff too, don’t remember) who wouldn’t go along with that. I was certainly not going to admit to trespassing.
In the first trial (which never really got underway because the judge was so happy to have the apology solve everything and get it out of his room) I agreed to simply apologize for breaking the law. I did so. The plaintiff didn’t think my apology was worded properly as an apology to him/her. I’d say that is true. I made it quite clear I was sorry for breaking the law. If I ever run into the plaintiff in my country I’ll have a lot more to say and gesture. Yes, maybe my honesty/stubbornness is keeping this going, but I don’t care. It is this country’s problem to have a ridiculous silencing law like this still on the books wasting people’s time and money. Just as the editorial linked to in the OP says, it is a relic of the martial law - White Terror times when the government wanted legal tools to crack down on whomever they wished.
As we see, the courts here have already wasted thousands of hours on dollars on enforcing this law – a law that effectively criminalizes 99% of society, and a law that is used almost exclusively by self-righteous bullies to legally intimidate people who have really done nothing wrong. The court system should lift itself above such debasement, not pander to it.
Shame on me for not just toeing the line. I should get busy and prepare my case against everyone who has ever insulted me on Forumosa. Let’s see; I think I’ll start with fred smith; should be lot’s of evidence to show the eager judges and prosecutors.
Oh right, I know that is why you posted it…I just was expressing my utter confusion and disgust at how absurd that judge was. Lol. I couldnt just stand by and be disgusted alone, I had to post “out loud”…
Oh and CharlieJack…your reply (I dont want to quote it here becuase its so long) was EPIC. :bravo: I think you could probably use that format for every thread on this board
And, to be on topic, thank you for posting this, I will not be flicking off or swearing at anyone. I will be very careful…not like I generally go around doing that, but I have been known to do it (isnt that how American drivers say hello to each other? lol).
