From: jfl@navaho.eel.ufl.edu (Yu-Fung Liu)
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Reply-To: edo@ugrad.ee.ufl.edu
Organization: UF EE Department (Graduate Student)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:44:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.223604.5458@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, yang@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Der-Shung Yang) writes:
|> jfl@omaha.eel.ufl.edu (Yu-Fung Liu) writes:
|> >Madonna truly believes that she can do anything including sex in a public 
|> >performance. She also said that she has the freedom to do so?
|> Just FYI, the US Supreme Court just struck down a Minn. state law (? not sure)
|> that prohibits "hate speech" because it violates the consitutional right
|> of a person to speak freely (First Amendament). I remember that naked dance 
|> was also once a controversial topic in Supreme Court rulings. I seem to 
|> remember that the the boss of the naked dance club won, though I'm not sure.

What is the relationship between the supreme court of the US and freedom?
Are you suggest that the supreme court of the US to make final judement
for the whole world? What about countries like French, UK, Russia ... etc?
Do they have the same law, same standard, same definition, same court system?
Does US law and consitution applies to all human beings or even all animals 
in the unverise?
As a second class citizen of the UK, I am not being treated equally for so many
years. I believe that it is against the US law and consitution because Thomas
Jefferson WROTE in the consitution that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL".
Can I sue the UK government in the US and obtain justice from the SUPREME
court of the US. 
Beside, how the "hate speech" and "naked dance" cases relate to free speech?
What these two case suggest?
In the case of Madonna, she is not being treated equally in some European 
counties. Her concert was cancelled by some governemnts.
Did those European countries (west) violated her right? 
How the US or the SUPREME court of the US handle such serious crime against
Madonna. Are they going to use the B-2 bomber?

|> Anyway, there are several fundamental freedoms that are protected by most
|> modern countries. Speech freedom is one of them. I think the problem with
|> PRC (ROC as well) is the oppression of speech, esp. political speeches
|> (or expressions).

In what way you define "POLITICAL speech", "MODERN countries", "EXPRESSION", 
and "FUNDAMENTAL freedom". Did the US SUPREME court ever oppress the freedom
of someone?
If both PRC and ROC oppress freedom, why they are being treated differently?
Why PRC recieved such strong critism but not ROC? 
What make the difference, money, power or something else?
Why the SUPREME court have right to carry out the policy of forced intergration
of Americans. Why the SUPREME court of the US left out South Africa and
Taiwan? As far as I know, South Africa is the best friend of Taiwan government 
and is one of the few countries that still addmit ROC. What makes the difference?
Is it because the SUPREME court think money is more important than racism?

|> As to Madonna's case, if she can really make a big case by going all the
|> way up to Supreme Court, she might win.
                                ^^^^^
So... you are not sure.

|> >Some Americans believe that salavy is ok as soon as the majority vote
|> >to say yes. 
|> 
|> You mean "slavery"? Anyway, if you can convinece the majority to vote
|> yes and the Supreme Court thinks it's consitutional (assuming there
|> are people considering it as unconsitutional and resort to Supreme 
|> Court), then, yes, it's ok. However, the problem is first, the majority
|> will not vote "yes" (trust them:-), and second, it is unconstituional
|> because it infringes the slaves' freedom.

During the civil war, the majority of South did vote yes. They also vote
to be independent. Anyway, they choose their own president.
As a result, I can not trust them. If they never think slavery is ok,
they would never bring in slave from Africa and slavery would never 
widly accepted in the South. 
I would also like to mention that there are only a few nothern states 
when Thomas Jeffeson wrote down the consitution. 
So who suppose to have the final say, the vote or the consitution?

|> Actually, the success of a democracy does not rely solely on the process
|> of voting. It's very important for everyone to be able to listen to all
|> the different voices and finally makes his/her own decision while voting.
|> (Therefore you should be confident that the majority will not vote yes
|> for slavery nowadays.)

They surely listen to the African when they capture them (probably about age,
weght, ... etc)
They surely listen to the French, Spanish... etc when they took over the South,
California.
They surely listen to Indians, Chinese, arabic when they break their countries
apart and reprogram their next genernation. 
.... yet they never got the majority vote or approved by the bible... etc.

|> >Some christian and some buddist believe that the way we live is like 
|> >hell while a lot of us laught at them.
|> >Those relious people think material world is a living hell but
|> >some of us think it is the greatest type of civilization ever produced
|> >by us in human history. 
|> No comment here. I only know that I like my way of living:-)

What is your way of living? How the SUPREME court judge your standard of
living?