3 ms·

> four years in prison for talking back to a police officer, If you read the details of the case - she was chanting that the police were going to die, which go

> four years in prison for talking back to a police officer, If you read the details of the case - she was chanting that the police were going to die, which goes beyond mere “talking back”; and she would not have received such a lengthy sentence if it was not for multiple prior convictions. Now, all that said, I still think her sentence is excessive-and indeed, her legal team says they will appeal it-but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details. It doesn’t have much bearing on the issue of free speech, given that making death threats is a crime in most jurisdictions, and few consider free speech to include the right to make death threats. > Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned). Bad, but not as bad as Mao - and at least the current Taiwanese government openly admits that was wrong; the Chinese government censors public discussion of Mao’s crimes, and instead plasters his picture everywhere > The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest. Because of the massacre, or because he’d embarrassed the Party by not crushing the protests a lot sooner?

trasz 4y ago
>but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details And yet people tend to ignore those details when it fits anti-Chinese propaganda. >Mao’s crimes Do you know what happened to the Gang of Four? And of course there is no “public discussion”, same way you don’t have public discussion in Japan about its nazi past. Like I said, a cultural thing. As for that prime minister - you could ask that same question regarding Gwangju. To me what matters is that he got prosecuted, which is rather shocking contrast compared to Kent State or most American massacres really - Americans tend to hold this subconscious belief that one can’t possibly prosecute its rulers.

trasz 4y ago

>but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details And yet people tend to ignore those details when it fits anti-Chinese propaganda. >Mao’s crimes Do you know what happened to the Gang of Four? And of course there is no “public discussion”, same way you don’t have public discussion in Japan about its nazi past. Like I said, a cultural thing. As for that prime minister - you could ask that same question regarding Gwangju. To me what matters is that he got prosecuted, which is rather shocking contrast compared to Kent State or most American massacres really - Americans tend to hold this subconscious belief that one can’t possibly prosecute its rulers.