Write a negative restaurant review in Taiwan and go to jail

[Charlie_Jack]

@yuli

[quote=“Charlie Jack”][…] noodles were, in fact, mentioned in the defendant’s blog post, the assertion contained in the blog “My Kafkaesque Life” notwithstanding.

There appear to have been two posts on part of the blogger who was sentenced. . . .[/quote]

This is the quote I posted earlier:

[quote]還有…我以前有去那家惡霸店家…味到小吃川味牛肉麵…吃過東西
真的…很難吃…[/quote]

Here’s my post:

Write a negative restaurant review in Taiwan and go to jail

[quote=“ScottSommers”]My problem with all this is that much of the debate was started by the original TT article. If an accurate understanding of the case had been available from the start, I doubt much of what was said in all this would have been said. In the course of this thread, it’s been pointed out that the original TT article contains errors in translation from the Libetry Times article, as well as factually irregularities about the event. But by then, everyone’s on record about where the…

This is a blog post quote from the first judgment, in pertinent part:

我以前有去那家惡霸店家…味到小吃川味牛肉麵…真的…很難吃…

Here’s the first judgment:
jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/PrintF … 5&jcheck=1

[Gao_Bohan]

@yuli

Absolutely. And about the issue at hand: it is not difficult to document that there exist some silly laws in Taiwan (I know you appreciate good documentation and don’t just make up your mind on a fact-free whim), and it is also not difficult to document that there exist silly laws all over the world.

The constant attempts at establishing moral equivalency are a bit tiresome. Criminalizing what is clearly a civil matter is wrong and detrimental to society, not “silly”. Sure, you can dig up a law from Kansas or wherever that makes it a criminal misdemeanor to water your horse at a saloon’s trough without getting permission from the barkeep. That’s “silly”. Jailing people for criticizing political opponents, not so much.

[yuli]

@Gao Bohan

The constant attempts at establishing moral equivalency are a bit tiresome.

Time to take a rest, sir?

Looking at the issue from another angle: i’ve gotten used to the moral superiority complex some “westerners” have without getting tired.

EDIT: (PS: this particular comment of mine is not directed at you personally… )

[Gao_Bohan]

@yuli

I’ve gotten used to the moral superiority complex some “westerners” have without getting tired.

Does recognizing an injustice mean one has a “moral superiority complex”? Or is it only a “complex” when Westerners recognize injustices?

Which nation has the moral high ground, the one who jails political minorities for criticizing the ruling regime (cf. Chen Shuibian’s first imprisonment during KMT rule), or one that allows for free speech, leaving defamation to the civil courts? Which nation has the moral high ground, the one that lashes or executes women for adultery, or the one that grant citizens privacy in those personal matters? Which nation has the moral high ground, the one that routinely tortures prisoners and allows forced confessions in court, or the one that treats prisoners humanely and prevents prisoners from testifying against themselves?

Or is there no such thing as the moral high ground, and everything is morally equivalent?

[yuli]

@Gao Bohan

Does recognizing an injustice mean one has a “moral superiority complex”?

Not at all… and i think a discussion about the questions you asked would be very worthwhile - but let’s do that in a diffferent thread, since the moral issues you are pointing to are not part of this thread.
This thread, on the other hand, gets a prize for its abundance of hot air, and, while we are at it, i’d like to refer those venting about the libel law in Taiwan to the page on food disparagement laws at
cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm and on that page especially the information concerning Colorado.

[Gao_Bohan]

@yuli

Not at all… and I think a discussion about the questions you asked would be very worthwhile - but let’s do that in a diffferent thread, since the moral issues you are pointing to are not part of this thread.

This one is:

Which nation has the moral high ground, the one who jails political minorities for criticizing the ruling regime (cf. Chen Shuibian’s first imprisonment during KMT rule), or one that allows for free speech, leaving defamation to the civil courts?

Criminalizing defamation is not limited to punishing food critics. The state can and in fact has used the same law to punish political dissidents, including a former president.

[quote]I’d like to refer those venting about the libel law in Taiwan to the page on food disparagement laws at
cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm and on that page especially the information concerning Colorado.[/quote]

If you’re going to post links to support your argument, perhaps you should actually read them.

[quote="COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. (Criminal) Sect. 35-31-101

sect. 35-31-101. Destruction of food prohibited"]

It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation or any servant, agent, employee, or officer thereof to destroy or cause to be destroyed, or to permit to decay or to become unfit for use or consumption, or to take, send, or cause to be transported out of this state so to be destroyed or permitted to decay, or knowingly to make any materially false statement, for the purpose of maintaining prices or establishing higher prices for the same, or for the purpose of limiting or diminishing the quantity thereof available for market, or for the purpose of procuring, or aiding in procuring, or establishing, or maintaining a monopoly in such articles or products, or for the purpose of in any manner restraining trade, any fruits, vegetables, grain, meats, or other articles or products ordinarily grown, raised, produced, or used in any manner or to any extent as food for human beings or for domestic animals.[/quote]

That has nothing to do with expressing one’s opinion on a restaurant’s food. That law is specifically worded, with detailed conditional statements, to prevent people from intentionally making false statements about the state’s agricultural markets for the purpose of disrupting the market.

I believe that criminalizing defamation is an injustice, and a symbol of a justice system geared towards protecting the power of the state rather than the citizenry. To pass it off as just “silly” is a sign of intellectual laziness, at best.

[yuli]

@Gao Bohan

If you’re going to post links to support your argument, perhaps you should actually read them.

That law is specifically worded, with detailed conditional statements, to prevent people from intentionally making false statements about the state’s agricultural markets for the purpose of disrupting the market.

Exactly. People who make claims that they can back up with evidence are not under threat by this law. Now about the libel law in Taiwan: it is quite apparent that there are people who misuse this law (especially for poltical reasons), but as the law itself is concernend, can you tell us where it threatens people who make critical claims about someone else’s business and back up their claims with evidence? Could you consider in this context these comments from previous posts:

@Mucha Man

Defamation is a potential civil offense in most places. The problem is the courts are applying it unreasonably and accepting cases that have no merit. They are also criminalizing trivial cases of defamation

@ichbinjenny

She didn’t photograph the roaches. The lawyer is quoted in the TT article as urging bloggers to include photos to back up negative comments. If there is a photo it is a fact and then not libelous.

Back to your post:

I believe that criminalizing defamation is an injustice, and a symbol of a justice system geared towards protecting the power of the state rather than the citizenry.

My sense of injustice differs from yours: i think it is quite reasonable to leave it to countries (or whatever you call the entities that make and apply laws) to decide whether or not diffamation, slander, and libel are considered a criminal offence or just a matter of civil dispute. I also do not find diversity in legal perspectives inherently objectionable. Finally, i agree with you about the issue of laws being made, used, and misused for the purpose of pretecting the power of those who have it: i am sure that is the case in many cases (and all over the world ). Finally, none of this conflicts with my view that much of this thread is hot air, that is, merely uninformed opinion and venting.

[IYouThem]

Yuli: I think my sense of injustice differs from yours, also.

If someone is the “loser” in a civil court action, I think the “loser” receives the judgment meted out, due to recognized inappropriate behavior being seen. It also verifies that the “loser” has been challenged successfully by an aggrieved party. There is also a fair amount of balance (costs, willingness to proceed, etc) between prosecution and defense in a civil court action, at least in what I understand of the procedures in some domains.

In criminal court actions, there is a qualitative, higher level of perceived antisocial, destructive or even malicious behavior, and the prosecution has the weight (to the point of imbalance) of the legal system behind it. The “loser” is branded (or upgraded to) a “criminal” - far more serious consequences than losing a civil court action.

I think that a more advanced, wiser and effectively pluralistic society has multi-level legal venues and can (and should) discriminate effectively between civil and criminal actions (among others).

Just as I know it is wrong to drive at 110km/hr on a highway that is posted at 100 km/hr, I hope I am not going to be branded a criminal for speeding. Yet, I am also aware that if my speeding were the cause of a related problem, it may be a criminal matter if it can be shown that my speeding were the cause of that related problem. I may have done something wrong by speeding, but no further problems occurred - am I a criminal?