nice avatar!
That’s probably been done before, right? (my new avatar)
I do have something to add. Perhaps some legal hands can advise me on this.
I was thinking today of (my revised) strategy and my initial thoughts were thus. I’d like to contact some media, request an interview regarding my case and ask them to come to my appeal trial. At the trial I’d like to show my now-huge collection of famous and fine people using the forbidden gesture. Do I have the right to do such a thing in self-defense in a criminal trial? Can I request the court give me the time to expound upon the normalcy of this gesture, say, by letting me show a slideshow? I think the media would find this an enjoyable story to cover: Unrepentant foreigner displays Presidents Ma, Bush and Obama flipping the bird before the court, Ma in an especially vile fashion.
I also think I should insist that my lawyer (since I’m paying him) request the new judge send my case up to the High Court for a constitutional interpretation, which I figure this badly written law could never withstand. Is that a good idea? (Only lawyers please respond.) I think it would make an excellent test case, involving a gesture, a busybody and a foreigner as it does.
If it is a good idea, at which point in the proceedings (if it can be called that) should I have my lawyer make such a request - before or after I present my defense(s)? I am fully aware that constitutional defenses are useless to me at this level of court, but I am also fully aware of the legal tests that A.310 was given and passed. I sincerely believe A.309 fails all the same tests that A.310 passed (see my early posts on this thread.)
Any thoughts from legal eagles?
PS. Thanks Toasty; that was very eloquently put.
I did not insult anyone. You find my opinion insulting. Big difference. You’d better learn to deal with it better instead of crying double standards like the dog person. I think you’d be better off explaining why you think it should be acceptable to flip the bird at strangers instead of crying because someone else genuinely thinks it’s stupid.
“Stupid” and “infantile” are insults, bud-- (and, frankly, so is describing my words as “crying”). I’d love to see you say either to a 6’5" MMA fighter in a bar. You couldn’t and wouldn’t and you know why.
You’re full of crap, Rob.
Not saying you’re crap, you understand–just that you’re totally full of it.
(I’m starting to see the benefits of living in RiT’s world! 
)
No they are not. They are adjectives with a specific meaning used to describe, in some cases, genuine opinions. You can cry all you want, but it won’t change the fact that these adjectives convey a very specific meaning not easily conveyable with different words that would better suit your sensitive disposition.
There’s that crying thing again. Now you’ve added some claim to my supposed disposition-- something completely off-topic and smelling like… an insult. You love insults, don’t you? And, yes, “stupid” and “infantile” ARE insults. I’ve already given you the litmus test for insults: the big mean looking guy. Go up to him in real life and call him or anything he says “infantile” and “stupid.”
Would you give him the finger?
That’s the whole point isn’t it? If the big mean looking guy has half a brain, I guarantee you he will refrain from retorting with violence.I know big mean looking guys who are quite capable of entertaining a civil discussion while exchanging offensive opinions that would, without a doubt, hurt your feelings, Toasty. A few of them make a living out of it…
Wow. More insults.
I think Rob’s just overly proud of having an opinion closer to my mother-in-law’s than to my own. Let him be. He doesn’t realize that I don’t need help to guess what my mother-in-law thinks of my actions.
If you wouldn’t give him the finger, it’s fair to say that it’s because you think it would probably be a stupid thing to do. It would be. How dare you have such an opinion.
You hypocrite!
In a heated dispute? Maybe. Would I go out of my way to call any random stranger with whom I had no quarrel whatsoever “juvenile” or “stupid?” No.
I’d draw a distinction between giving someone the finger under any circumstances, and characterizing their position as “infantile” or “stupid.” Both are insulting in their own way though.
What is freedom of speech? There’s a line somewhere of course. I think you might make an argument either way about directing insults like “fuck you” at people. Maoman makes a good point that the law is bound to lead to difficult to interpret situations. I don’t think dearpeter’s case is very complicated though. Taiwan is pretty good with regards to freedom of speech. I can’t see this as fight really worth fighting, for the principle (and the principle only, without regard to dearpeter’s ideal legal strategy from a practical standpoint.) It’s a bit odd of a law but I can live with it. There’s some sense to it at least. A different country may have different standards about such things.
The freedom to speak freely. I thought and still think that that one is fairly clear in meaning.
If any energy should be put into anything, I hope its not curbing what people may or may not say in particular, given circumstances. I’d much rather it be put into education.
Its only education after all that enables people to distinguish the ridiculous from reality.
I’m quite tired of people willingly giving up their own freedoms to their rulers for fear that they themselves are not mentally capable of examining and dealing with their own situation. Are these people thick? In need of a couple of sandwiches to finish their picnic hamper? It apparently seems so.
Get a grip people! Do you seriously think that a list of reactive measures, imposed by third parties which you have never met and which you have no relation to are sufficient in order to run your daily life?
Your argument here could be used to defend giving the bird. Nice job :bravo:
A big part of your argument lies in your assuming that giving the bird in Taiwan is always offensive. I can’t count the number of times I have seen people give each other the bird here in a playful sort of way. It’s not always an insult-I just saw someone do it yesterday at starbucks to his friend who was sitting across the room. They laughed and went and talked later, with several utterances of “gan” thrown into the mix-all distasteful, but the cops never showed up and no violence occurred. So what the legislature has decided does not necessarily reflect Taiwan society.
You’re coming off as rather silly at this point, and we all see your passive aggressive attempt at insulting by calling people “dog guy” and such. Stop while you’re only slightly behind and hopefully people will soon forget this silliness.
Dearpeter: I am no lawyer, but neither are you. I think you are best advised to let your lawyer come up with the legal strategies. He knows the system here. He knows how to work it. He might nod his head at you out of politeness, but the guy probably knows what he is doing. Let him do it-your strategies got you into this mess. Going to the media could backfire on you big time-especially if this goes to a civil suit. I’m on your side, but I think your need to try to figure this out is only going to hurt you. You’re paying this lawyer-let him do his job. 
Sure, but my point is there are limits to it in any country.
No, and I think Taiwan would be better off without this particular measure. I have no vote, not that it would matter much I guess, and I’m not about to storm the bastille over it.
Personally, I take it as a heads up and will endeavour to avoid using the finger-- or at least not be photographed doing the same. However, it is a stupid law. Let’s call it what it is. And OP is being charged under this stupid law as a form of harassment, petty revenge and extortion. The whole case is ridiculous. Enough relativism already.
What I take exception to is the way a certain poster has been an incredibly vocal advocate of this law-- or at least opponent of the OP-- and has been brash enough to say so directly to the person going through this ordeal. Harsh “adjectives (I call them insults)” have been used to describe the OP and his defence against this absurd and frivolous charge. We all have opinions about law and order. Threads exist about such diverse things as marijuana, driving offences, illegal work and more. Obviously, it’s understandable that some will have moral objections to some of those behaviours and will feel varying degrees of empathy for the people charged with such offences. But the bird? Sorry, that’s just ridiculous. I can’t believe anyone would become a vocal critic of anyone fighting such a stupid charge.
What’s the difference between saying “your actions are stupid” or “your opinion is stupid?”
You are saying that my opinion is ridiculous. If we follow the same deductions you are applying to me, a case can easily be made that you are insulting me. There’s no end to your flawed logic. It seems to me that while you’re advocating free speech, you limit your own ability to express yourself. Thats is, of course, if you care to at least play by your own rules.
Your opinion diverges greatly from mine but I don’t find it insulting to hear that you think my opinion/position is incredible, ridiculous, stupid, rude, harsh, hypocritical or whatever you want to call it. It’s fair game and I really don’t think you should cry foul when someone uses similar adjectives to describe your own opinion or actions and that of others.
We will both agree that we are allowed to have our own opinion. We will not always like to hear what other people think, but they may not like to hear what we think, either. And that’s the problem, here. Peter and a few other posters do not like to hear what I think. Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with my delivery. I could have used less offensive adjectives to express my opinion as to not offend Peter but I don’t think it would have adequately conveyed my opinion. Why? Because I don’t think what Peter did is inappropriate. I don’t think it is unfavorable. I don’t think it is a poor choice of action. I don’t think it is thoughtless. I don’t think it is improper, etc, etc. None of these adjectives, and dozens more that wouldn’t be as offending to Peter, properly convey how I feel about flipping the bird at strangers in a foreign country. Because THAT, in my honest opinion, is about as stupid as stupid gets. I used the words infantile stupidity, but I think testosterone driven stupidity is more adequate.
One last point.
It’s your opinion. Mine is different.
Great advice, John, but I think you’ll need more than just a hint to the wise. You’ll need to paint a picture. 
By the way, Toasty, the word unwise is a synonym of the word stupid. Flipping the bird is stupid, and trying to defend the gesture by explaining to a Taiwanese prosecutor that the law is ridiculous is even more stupid. As for goading Peter into following this stupid course of action as you and others are doing, well, that’s also pretty stupid, in my very own opinion.
If I wish to discuss this further, without specifics, I will start a different thread.
Them crazy half-arsed spoutings of Rob’s are the words of a right stupid prick and no mistake!
Man! But I DO love these “I’m right and you’re all wrong and nothing any of you can say will change my addled little mind” schmucks.
Dude! Your posts are those of an extremely rude bastard. At least Peter realizes that he was rude. You’re not even AWARE of what a complete dolt your posts make you sound like!
And before you come up with yet another of your stupid passive-aggressive typewanks, let me just say: “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”