Tuesday, June 28, 2011

比較美國: 部落客惡評麵店 賠20萬判拘役 IV
包括 Taiwan Echo 提供的文件及評論

 
刑事第八庭法官 張智雄
書記官 黃舜民 説:
然由其中:「被告說她有去吃過,說那裡覺得比較髒一點,吃起來覺得還好」等語,被告確曾對證人提及上開言詞,
則比對被告張貼於網路所使用之文字:「很難吃、不衛生、有蟑螂」等字眼,已足見前後兩者有極明顯之差異。

而被告會有此等明顯差異之不同評論,固然是因生氣之故,惟其因此而於網路登載張貼上開系爭文字,依一般經驗法則誠難謂無針對告訴人之味到小吃店生意,並具有欲減損告訴人信譽之故意明。
系爭不知道是什麼意思.
吾甚喜法官提及一般經驗法則,
然吾對汝之結論不苟同.

=====
Taiwan Echo:


此文蒐集有關劉姓部落格作者因言論被判刑的三個原始文件:劉小姐的部落格原文、一審判決書、二審(上訴庭)判決書。我把其中相關人員的部分資料隱藏。另外,判決書部份加以重新排版,並以不同顏色代表各方的說辭以利閱讀。顏色區分:

紫色:被告
藍色:法官
綠色:證人

文件請見:

台中劉姓部落格作者因言論被判刑的相關文件
http://tw-i-light.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post_27.html


我目前沒有時間寫分析文章。
在此先簡單提出一個在關鍵判決上荒謬之處。這是法官根據證人證詞,判定被告劉小姐在部落格上的文章是故意說謊要破壞餐廳的名聲:



然由其中:「被告說她有去吃過,說那裡覺得比較髒一點,吃起來覺得還好」等語,被告確曾對證人提及上開言詞,則比對被告張貼於網路所使用之文字:「很難吃、不衛生、有蟑螂等字眼,已足見前後兩者有極明顯之差異。

而被告會有此等明顯差異之不同評論,固然是因生氣之故,惟其因此而於網路登載張貼上開系爭文字,依一般經驗法則,誠難謂無針對告訴人之味到小吃店生意,並具有欲減損告訴人信譽之故意甚明。


因為證人證詞跟劉小姐寫的(以及在法庭上的供詞)有點出入,法官的推論邏輯是這樣:

如果證人說的是真的,那被告說的就是假的,所以被告說的是假的被告為什麼要說假話?就是要減損餐廳的信譽。

這樣的邏輯,實在很離譜。

比較美國: 部落客惡評麵店 賠20萬判拘役 III

 
More on this case:

I. From Taiwan Echo:

The original post of Ms Liu. Liu's blog has closed down, but the article can be found here :

惡霸...味到小吃川味牛肉麵..難道正義感有錯嗎?
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/ecebwiw282/article?mid=811&fid=-1&action=next


The verdict of the first trial, which was on 2/15/2011 can be found here:

http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/PrintFJUD03_0.aspx?jrecno=99,%E6%98%93,3930,20110215,1&v_court=TCD+%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3%E8%87%BA%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%B0%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2&v_sys=M&jyear=99&jcase=%E6%98%93&jno=3930&jdate=1000215&jcheck=1

Note that there were 2 trials. After the first trial, Ms Liu appealed. The ruling of the 2nd trial was delivered several days ago, but I don't have the case number.


Note, also, that in the first trial, there were several weirdo :

1. The judge listened to several "witnesses" --- among them the restaurant owner, who sued Ms Liu. That is, in Taiwan, you can go to the court to sue someone, and play the role of witness, too.

2. The judge called for Liu's colleage, Tsai, and asked her questions. Tsai's answer did not collaborate with the "hard to eat" part, but she answered clearly that the restaurant was greasy and dirty in both of her two visits. But obviously the judge ignored her testimony;

3. No evidence was provided to show Liu's article
in any way effected the income of the restaurant. 


II. More media coverage of the case:

Taiwanese Blogger Fined $7000 for Negative Restaurant Review
TIME
The Taiwan High Court ruled that the claims were not backed by factual evidence. The blogger, they said, should not have referred to all the dishes as "too salty," since she only had one dish, and also noted that the conditions were not as unsanitary ...

Criminal Act? Taiwan's Salty Food Bloggers Face New Threat
Wall Street Journal (blog)
That's the situation a Taiwanese blogger finds herself facing after a court in the city of Taichung sentenced her to 30 days in detention for writing a critical review of a local restaurant. Taiwan is no stranger to libel lawsuits. ...

Friday, June 24, 2011

比較美國: 部落客惡評麵店 賠20萬判拘役 II

 
謝謝 李中志教授的回應:
台灣這些也都是公開的,如果知道案號,上網就可以查到判決書,上面什麼資料都有,是司法記者自己決定略過的。
至於該判決本身,我認為這是台灣對毀謗一向從寬認定,是文化問題,未必是司法問題。
不管什麼文化, 我相信法律都必須遵守 公平, 邏輯和常識.  就好像數學在任何文化裏應該是一樣的.  不應該因為人在台灣, 數學法律都不必邏輯.   I wrote:
一個評論 (review), 從定義來看, 就只是評論者的意見. 當評論者説麵太鹹, 任何人都知道這是評論者的意見.  法官的判決卻是, 你不能只吃一次就表達麵太鹹的意見. 
為什麼不可以呢?  這是我的誠實的認知呀!
我希望媒體公布整個案情, 包括法官的名字, 讓大家來決定這法官的判決是否合乎邏輯或常識.
假如我吃第二豌麵時,  麵不夠鹹了.  那就表示我應該修正我對第一豌麵的印象嗎?  或者懷疑我是不是記錯了第一豌麵的鹹度?  
能夠容忍 做出不合法判決的法官, 不要求他們受最嚴厲的制裁, 這樣的文化是劣質的文化.  

知道本案案號的人請提供資料.

看外國人對這個案件的感想: 
yelper-jail.jpg

Yelpers Debate Boycotting Taiwan Over Blogger Imprisonment
Eater National
A Taiwanese blogger's recent 30-day jail sentence over a supposedly slanderous restaurant review on her personal site sparked a boycott discussion on Yelp, a community that takes its freedom of ill-informed, inane speech very seriously. ...

Food blogger jailed for 'salty' review
Globe and Mail (blog)
If you dare to call a restaurant's offerings "too salty" in Taiwan (especially after all we're reading these days about sodium), you could wind up behind bars, the Daily What notes. A woman with an amateur food blog of moderate success (the Taipei ...

2011-06-24: 李慶安案 1200 記念日

Thursday, June 23, 2011

比較美國: 部落客惡評麵店 賠20萬判拘役

 
首先注意到 下面提到的美國類似案件  Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A, 案子裏法官, 原告飯店, 和被告評論者全是公開的.  不像台灣,  法官, 原告飯店, 和被告評論者全部隱瞞.  台灣為什麼應該公開的東西卻隱瞞?  See https://groups.google.com/d/topic/i_love_taiwan/tjmrJEehlP4/discussion

一個評論 (review), 從定義來看, 就只是評論者的意見. 
當評論者説麵太鹹, 任何人都知道這是評論者的意見.
法官的判決卻是, 你不能只吃一次就表達麵太鹹的意見.  為什麼不可以呢?  這是我的誠實的認知呀!
我希望媒體公布整個案情, 包括法名字, 讓大家來決定這法官的判決是否合乎邏輯或常識.
It's not rare for restaurants to sue reviewers in America, but they almost never win. A 1985 ruling by the 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court in New York, in the case Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., gave critics extremely wide berth for their restaurant reviews. The judge in the case explained that American readers understand that reviews represent the opinion of the writer, and so should not be taken factually. 
Taiwanese Blogger Gets Jail Time For Negative Restaurant Review
Huffington Post
A food blogger in Taiwan was sentenced to 30 days in jail, given two years probation and fined 200,000 New Taiwan Dollars ($6928 as of 3 PM this afternoon) for writing a negative review of a restaurant in Taichung, Taiwan. The blogger, whose surname is Liu, called the food "too salty" and said that there were cockroaches in the kitchen. A regular customer read Liu's blog, and told the restaurant's owner about the review. The owner sued Liu for libel. The Taichung court that ultimately ruled on the case decided that Liu's review was libelous because it was written after just one dinner, and so was not well-informed enough for such harsh judgment. The decision is final.
It's not rare for restaurants to sue reviewers in America, but they almost never win. A 1985 ruling by the 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court in New York, in the case Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., gave critics extremely wide berth for their restaurant reviews. The judge in the case explained that American readers understand that reviews represent the opinion of the writer, and so should not be taken factually. Subsequent lawsuits in America have almost never been decided in favor of restaurants—our critics are too influential for punishment!

Thursday, June 16, 2011

馬英九的政治獻金跑哪去了? 特偵組?

 
2011/06/15大話新聞01:  KMT提名黑金.當選無效一籮筐.馬的清廉攏係假!!
by Greg197414 23 hours ago 7,241 views

Sunday, June 12, 2011

金恒煒: 司法沒救了

 
司法沒救了
 
做為正義防線的法官,在最近出爐的「台灣信任調查」中,敬陪末座,竟然落入後段班,廁身「最不信任」之列,已達到有礙觀瞻的地步。這不僅是警訊,更是可恥的象徵。

司法墮落至此,原來不是無端而至。日前宜蘭地方法院的院長黃瑞華用掛冠的方式抗議法院與司法院「官官相護」的積習,再一次彰顯司法不堪造就的可悲與可惡,只能用「司法沒救了」來形容。

黃瑞華辭職的原因是,做為院長的她不滿意宜蘭地院自律委員會將問題多多的法官陳嘉年輕處「書面勸誡」,於是改以「記申誡懲處」送司法院。不料司法院「人審會」連「勸誡」都不提,只改成口頭警告的「注意」;據說是朝中有父親撐腰。無論如何地院「自律委員會」官官相護於前,司法院「人審會」官官相護在後,甚而後來居上,當然兜頭潑了用心於改革的黃院長一盆冷水。黃院長能不走嗎?

黃瑞華的堅辭院長職,若只看成是「槓」司法院,是把問題看小了。重要的是,司法院喪失了自我改造的契機,為了機構的自我利益,司法院不惜閹割銳意改革的院長權柄,以此澆熄「自律」之火。法官們從此拿到「苛以責人、寬以律己」的免罪令,於是好官我自為之,才不管人民的觀感,也不措意信任度的江河日下。

黃瑞華的請辭信第一句就寫著:「賴院長,我錯了嗎?」黃院長要質疑的是:法官利益與人民權利相撞時,司法院要站在哪一邊?黃院長站在人民的一邊,因此認為陳嘉年在審理未成年少女遭性侵案時,沒有依規定保護受害少女,致使受害少女哭著逃出法院,並以死抗爭,再加上陳嘉年延遲送卷長達一年十個月,損及當事人權益。這個三年連續考績吃乙的恐龍法官,沒有成為司改的祭品,反而是符應人民期望的黃院長成為「司法公敵」。

黃瑞華的去職,雖然是「司法現形記」中的一章,但也讓我們看到司法界竟然還有勇者,一盞明燈襯出一片黑暗。人民只能寄望不熄的爝火,能讓司法在死亡中再生。黃院長加油。

(作者金恒煒,當代雜誌總編輯)
自由時報

Friday, June 10, 2011

司法的公然不公

 
司法大小眼 不怕人笑
◎ 吳景欽

一起發生在民國七十九年的女童遭性侵殺害事件,靠著DNA鑑定 技術的進步,終於確認為蔡姓嫌疑犯,惟此案在經過廿一年後,是否已經逾越追訴權時效,卻成為問題,檢方則回應以此案一直處於偵查中,所以沒有逾越追訴權時 效,如此明快的回應,安慰了家屬之痛,卻也讓江國慶家屬情何以堪。
根據檢方解釋,此案因一直處於偵查中,所以追訴權時效即應停止進行,即便已經過廿一年,仍未逾越時效。檢方為了實現正義,對於追訴權時效的停止與否,採取如此的解釋,值得肯定,但為何如此的標準,不能適用於江國慶案呢?
在 江國慶於一九九七年被草草槍決之後,即便家屬到處陳情,但由於造成冤罪的軍方人員,不僅仍在其位,且有人因此升官加爵,其必然會以其權勢地位,而想盡辦法 掩飾,就算家屬對相關人員提起濫權追訴罪的告訴,亦可能因罪證不足等因素,被以不起訴處分或行政簽結的方式為終結。如此的訴追障礙,只要這些人仍掌有一定 的權勢,必然會繼續遮掩,追訴權時效很難有不過之理。因此,類似江國慶案的訴追障礙,追訴權時效根本無從進行,自然也無離於時效之問題,若不解此種犯行之 特性,而仍認為追訴權時效已過,將使時效制度成為犯罪者的最佳保護傘。
在某些國家,如美國聯邦法典第三二八一條,即規定涉及死刑的案件,無 時效的問題,亞洲國家,如日本,亦在二○一○年四月刑法修正時,針對殺人等重罪,將追訴權時效的規定加以廢除。因此,追訴權時效並非絕對,檢方在面對追訴 權時效的認定時,不僅應該謹慎,以免使犯罪者有僥倖之心,更不應有因人而異的差別對待。
(作者為真理大學財經法律系助理教授)