Re: [問題] 請專業的跳出來一下!
※ 引述《Clayton (一生懸命)》之銘言：
: 我又重看了一遍
: 作者邏輯是:"個人言論自由只有在相對於國家的情境下才會產生"
: 陳總統的發言乃是針對連宋,所以算是日常生活中的言論.
: 此時只要國家(公權力)不會有所作為,就與言論自由無關.
: 而陳總統身為公權力的壟斷者,公權力不可能會對陳總統有所
: 作為（如審查、禁止、竊聽、恫嚇…等）,所以本案例與言論自由無關
: ...........................
: 再問一個可能不相關的問題,請大家替作者回答一下,
: 如果今天是連宋(老百姓)公開說陳水扁(總統)心懷不軌,
: 那是否就屬於言論自由的範圍?
: ...........................
: 好像在自答自問,我想作者應該會吐嘈我說:
: "林悲已經講說重點在國家會不會有所作為了...你還在那邊如果啥洨..."
: 還是想聽聽大家的feedback.
: 畢竟強者們很久沒發揮了!
I think this question is too difficult for me. Just offer some thoughts.
Sorry that I cannot type in Chinese now.
It is one thing to consider whether President Chen has freedom of speech in general
another thing to consider whether President Chen goes beyond the proper bounds of the
freedom of speech. These two are conceptually different.
President Chen still faces the judgment of a court. He does not have a monopoly
of the government authority. It is quite odd, I think, to argue that President should
monopolize government authority.
I think the key is the fact/opinion distinction.
It is an opinion to say someone is beautiful or suitable for some kind of job.
It is a statement of purported fact to say someone wants to commit a specific
act of treason. However, it should be an opinion to describe someone as a bad person
because it is too general and broad and vague, just expressing a preference.
On the other hand, the fact/opinion distinction is also problematic itself.
A conclusion might be reached from different premises. A premise might lead to
different conclusions. I think the process of reasoning is as important
as the conclusion.
I know too little about this specific case and freedom of speech in general.
Just some initial thoughts for friends to correct.
Happy new year!!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.247.204.22
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容：
完整討論串 (本文為第 3 之 3 篇)：