On February 24, The Paper learned from the plaintiff Xixi (pseudonym) and his attorney that the plaintiff had received the second-instance judgment from the Suqian Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province. The court rejected the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the original judgment of the first instance. .
Previously, the court of first instance held that the expression of “homosexuality is a psychological barrier” in the textbooks published by Jinan University Press was an academic point of view and cognitive divergence, and was not an intellectual error in the scope of book editing.
I agree with the court’s decision. People can have different opinions on one thing, and everyone has the right and freedom to speak. As for the opinion, whether you like it or not is another matter. I respect the homosexual group very much. They are in a weak position in public opinion, and under our existing system framework, they cannot be effectively protected by law in some places. For example, the marriage system does not support same-sex marriage registration. I also have gay friends around me, everyone is pretty normal, no different from ordinary people. Isn’t it that people don’t like the opposite sex, they like the same sex! Who stipulated that humans can only like the opposite sex? However, no matter how much I say, it is my personal opinion. Most people are afraid of being sprayed on the surface and will choose to support it. In fact, they are disgusted in their hearts. For these people, I also respect. Everyone has the right to express their own opinions. You can’t attack frantically or even trample on the other’s dignity just because you have a different position. Even if you don’t like the opinions of others, as long as the other party does not take actual actions and commits no crimes, it is hard to say that this has caused serious harm. Regarding the result of the plaintiff Xixi’s loss of the lawsuit, @猴老湿 has conducted a more detailed legal analysis. Regarding the litigation request of “Xixi’s request for the court to judge the Circumference Company and the publishing house to publicly apologize, take back, correct, and reprint the teaching materials involved in the case,” according to my country’s Tort Liability Law, there is no issue of an apology without causing personal damage to the plaintiff . “Recovering, correcting, and reprinting the teaching materials involved in the case,” the court, based on various considerations, cannot support it. This case reflects a question worth thinking about: the difference between speech and behavior. Now that we talked about the rights protection of disadvantaged groups, let’s talk about feminism by the way. In the jurisprudence class, the teacher told us an interesting debate between two American professors. In short, the feminist professor McKinnon wants to promote local legislation to prohibit the sale, production, and broadcasting of AV works, and the conservative professor Dworkin wants to defend to the death the rights of students (mostly men) to watch pornography. The focus of their dispute is whether pornographic works should be included in the scope of protection of the First Amendment. In other words, is “pornographic literature” a category of speech? If it counts as speech, it is protected by the “freedom of speech” constitution; and vice versa. Professor McKinnon’s first reason is this: A. Pornography has greatly increased the rate of rape and other sexual crimes; Professor Dworkin disagrees with this view. He cross-examined: “McKinnon Although her declaration was extremely strong and powerful, she did not give a reputable scientific research to support it.” Professor McKinnon’s second reason: B. Pornography should be banned, because it prevents women from expressing their opinions and causes them to fall into a sad state of silence. It is pornography that deprives female citizens of their freedom of speech. ; Professor Dworkin pointed out that Professor McKinnon was confusing concepts. For those women who have been insulted or intimidated by pornographic literature and art, of course, they need the protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; whether pornographic literature and art should be banned, and whether people who make and spread pornographic literature and art should be punished are another topic. In other words, the loss of women’s right to speak and the prohibition of pornography still cannot constitute the logic of cause and effect. Professor McKinnon’s third reason: C. Those actresses who participated in the shooting of pornographic films must have been directly and directly sexually tortured in the process, and their degraded and despised scenes have also been recorded. Some women are forced or deceived to engage in this business. Doesn’t this need legal sanctions? need. Dworkin replied affirmatively. But Professor Dworkin continued: “Punishing these criminal acts does not necessarily prohibit pornography.” The production of pornographic films is a commercial activity and is recognized in the United States. And for various reasons, financial embarrassment, spiritual adventurous excitement, etc., there are always some women willing to participate in the performance. As long as they do not violate their free will, they cannot be punished legally. At most they are just moral accusations, lamenting their misfortune, and angering them. Professor McKinnon also pointed out that AV works are the objectification of women, and it is the sin that “men consume women and meet the needs of men”. Professor Dworkin, the flexible old man, immediately retorted: “Women also consume men and meet the needs of women. Isn’t it a small meat star?” After watching the debate between the two professors, it will give people a feeling: They all seem to make sense. Disputes over speech are necessary for their existence. There is nothing wrong with the authors who did not agree with the phenomenon of homosexuality. He didn’t break the law or commit any crime, and it was almost enough to slap each other. Our country’s tolerance for homosexuality is not so high compared with other countries in legislation. But in real life, he won’t suffer more cruel blows. You know, Turing, the father of artificial intelligence, was chemically castrated by the government because of homosexuality. This happened in the last century, not far away. Discussion belongs to discussion, and law belongs to law. There are too many opinions and opinions in this world. As long as they don’t affect their normal life, proper tolerance will make them more comfortable. The court’s decision was no problem. Both the plaintiff Xixi and the textbook editors were not wrong. This is my opinion.