[Speaker 1]: okay. let's talk about the chenguang g chung versus wong g and defamation lawsuit. he didn't just announce the lawsuit on twitter. he also commissied a documentary to report the entire process. this video has been retweeted by chenguu ang chhung on twitter, so you can watch it if you're interested it basically documents the whole process, explaining why he decided to sue wa NGE. the origin of the lawsuit actually stems ps from a video wong g, en made in august twenty twenty five.

[Speaker 1]: the title was is chenguu ang chchung really blind. it questioned whether he was faking, his blindness, claiming his eyesight was perfectly fine. this video sparked widespread public debate. but if you watch it, you'll realize the core of the video wasn't actually about whether he was truly blind. that was just a sensational title, the entire content revolved around him and fuchi. and there charitable foundation, their fundraising efforts and the lack of transparency in their finances. furthermore, fuchi ones, multiple properties and chenguang g chung himself also bought a large house supposedly paying for it in full. this is what i saw on twitter. i'm not sure if it's true, but given chenguangangchung status and his experience coming to the US, if you're relying on donations trying to use a charitable approach to fund your foundation, because this foundation isn't just for you. it's to help others in need, right? are you laandering the money into your own account through some channel? this is actually the main point of contention. it raises the question of whether the two individuals foundations finances are transparent, and whether there are nonprofit organization is subject to proper oversight. it also questions whether they considered these aspects during the online fundraising and operation of the foundation.

[Speaker 1]: however, chenguang n chchn g seized a certain tain imprecise statement. wong genen made in the program that wong jian said he wasn't truly blind less than control one hundred greater than it's actually very easy to prove, because the way ordinary people understand blindness and the medical definition of blindness are different. yes, they are different chenguang GHUG. for example, you might find it strange that he wear sunglasses. if he's blind, how can he still post on twitter because there's also that photo of him driving a tesla. this is actually the difference between the medical definition of blindness. and our common understanding of it, we understand blind people as someone who can't see anything at all like obing. the blind musician who walks with a cane and can't see anything that kind of stereotypical image medically speaking. yes, that's not actually the case. low vision is essentially considered blindness.

[Speaker 2]: you see, he posted this message saying that on december twenty fourth, the eve of christmas, he filed a lawsuit for defamation against wo NG shl fy in the tokyo district court in japan.

[Speaker 2]: wow, and guang ang chung doesn't even celebrate christmas. he goes to japan to sue w ong shelfi. you're really going to sususomesomeone on chrimmas eve and in his lawsuit in japan, he's demanding three hundred thirty million japanese yen in compensation. 哪个 do you know how much that is in US dollars divide by one hundred or one hundred fifty?

[Speaker 1]: it's about two million US dollars.

[Speaker 1]: wow, two million US dollars. this case has already been accepted by the court, and the trial will begin on febary tenth tokyo time in courtroom, six hundred twelve. i don't know if it's open to the public, but if it is, then it should definitely be public.

[Speaker 1]: i see some viewer saying they disagree with this statement. so i need to explain changguong. chchung is actually being a bit manipulative when he says he's blind. he's taking advantage of the common societal perception of blinness. that is that blind people can't see anything at all. he's using this to his advantage, then when it comes to suing ing wong gene, he will, again pick up the medical definition of blindness. it seems changguong chchung is repeatedly switching between two definitions. of course, he's focusing on one g ans, empresise statement and using it is a point to attack him and sue him. everyone understands this v meaning behind. it is quite clear, because if you look at one genes videos, most of the questioning is about the content of his foundation. why didn't he refused? wong genes claims about the foundation? you're not fighting on that battlefield. but instead, you're trying to sneak ak attackhim, you can see that his lawyer, he must have consulted with a lawyer, and the lawyer analyzed how to suw wong gene with a high chance of winning the point he found must have been determined after analysis by professionals concluding that suing wong gene on this point would likely lead to victory.

[Speaker 1]: however, this gives us outsiders a very bad impression, because everyone knows what you meant when you said you were blind. did you mean socially blind or medically blind? don't you know what you're saying? now you're using this to sue wa GG an repeatedly switching between two standards. this gives a very bad impression. so i think there's a good chance that something will happen on a legal level. i think you will likely win because this point is using to attack wong. genen was definitely carefully considered and analyzed by his lawyer before being chosen.

[Speaker 1]: if you look at what he announced in the video, including his documentary, he explains it very clearly. wong genans slandder and defamation against me saying, i'm not a truly blind person has caused me great trouble. every time i do a show or post something, a lot of people say you're a fake blind person, you're faking it or something like that. this has caused me great physical and mental distress. and it has also affected my financial situation. people think i'm a pn z frauster. right? no, i'm not. i'm pretending to be a blind person, but i can actually see perfectly fine. and then my foundation's donations might be affected. so this, if i were lawyer chenguu ang c hang, i could even register some fake accounts to criticize him, saying, wong, you're not a fake blind person, are you? and then orchestraate a whole self directed performance, right? so comma, i think after careful analysis that he has a higher probability of winning, the probability of him winning should be over sixty percent, maybe even seventy percent.

[Speaker 1]: because if you look at his strategy in the video, he didn't get involved in any political stance debates, but instead focused on factual misrepresentations. this is actually the difference between the value of freedom of speech, protection and verifiable factual statements. you can say, wong, you said, i'm not blind. this is a factual error. the trouble you cause me through this propaganda. i'm going to sue you for it. quote, yes, that's right. so this is one probably finds this quite troubsome. you'll definitely have to. yes, there's a high probability that this will happen.

[Speaker 1]: some viewers asked in the us is the freedom of speech more relaxed regarding public figures, like you can insult the president and so on. let me explain in the us for public fifires res. you have to prove that they acwith with tutumalice. but i doubt if japan has a similar clause, for example, in the US, if i call president trumping monkey and president trump wants to sue me, he has to prove that i had actual malstwds, right? how can you prove what i'm thinking in my head? how can you prove that it's too difficult? so if i insult a public figure, if i insult the president, i basically wonget into trouble, but it's not necessarily the case in japan. japan may not have this cloass. so we should know that this involves the difference between value judgments and factual statements. if we're talking about a certain whether someone is blind or not, that can be verified medically in this respect, i think that if walms on in this program, if the plint of could present ent this as a very complechachain of evidence, then if consisired an an jejetive statement of fact, it's not protected by freedom of speech.

[Speaker 1]: so there's indeed of point he can attack. there's a point here if wm zon had said at the time that chenguang chchung wasn't blind in the social sense that would have been much better. that's right in a program. he also said that he consult a doctors, and there there are no clical ical records of high fever, damaging eyeght. so you can say that wone juice program wasn't rigorous enough from the perspective of proving something false.

[Speaker 2]: you're doing it wrong. you can't prove it false this way. you can't use this method to prove it false, right? even if you haven't heard of it yourself. so doesn't mean it doesn't exist. moreover, the other party can easily disprove your claim if you could present some evident, such as refuding medical facts, proving that similar incidents did happen in shanddoong with a lot of authority, tive medical literature and knowledge. wouldn't your argument be untennble?

[Speaker 1]: right? yes, god, so proving something false. this way is not acceptable. i think if he had said that he wasn't blind in the sociological sense that we understand that he could drive a car and do other things wouldn't have been enououright that would have achieved the same effect,

[Speaker 1]: then walm zon use used reporore susui, then one sube who made a hideo, saying that chenguong chchunang likes photography, then he question how a blind person could take pictures, right? this is actually a misconception, because these technologies are now very mature. you can use sound touch and other technological aids for photography. i saw someone in the comments section saying that uh, he himself is actually blind, but he use an apple phone completely without any difficulty. this shows that technology has mature to a point where you can interact with the internet very well, right? so the fact that he takes pictures doesn't prove that he's not blind.

[Speaker 1]: however, i'm going to post a picture here. this is a tweet that chenguang ang chhgg posted. i won't play the video here because it's very much NSFW not safe for work, but you can see that when he posts these things on twitter, he's a very extreme trump supporter. if you followed his twitter, you'll know that is very clear about this. he's probably even more supportive of trump than elon musk. he's so supportive of trump that it's a bit much. so many people are puzzled. aren't you blind? how can you still post on twitter engaging in online arguments right question? mark, very aggressive online arguments. what's going on? close. this is actually a point of doubt for many netizines.

[Speaker 1]: the third point is this tesla picture. this tesla picture is actually a mean here. he says, today. i went a test drive a tesla electric car with a friend. it felt great. it can accelerate to one hundred, twenty kilometers per hour in two seconds. quote. there's a picture of him sitting in the driver's seat. some people will wonder you're blind, can blind people even drive find this very difficfict t to understdone.

[Speaker 2]: someone also said, after i reposted this post, don't you understand chinese? he said he test sts drove a tesla, but you don't know it. quote cheng u. ang gchung in another post stood in front of a tesla and said, if you're buying a car buy a tesla, i'm a very proud tesla owner and then showed off his tesla.

[Speaker 1]: you can see that he actually bought one right okdud. so he's saying that these AI identification technologies can help him engage in online arguments on twitter, including that chenguang chchung, even commented on the rampant yellow tweets sexually explicit content on twitter. i didn't pay attention to that, but you can see that professor changguangchung has a wide range of interests.

[Speaker 0]: 我是我个， [Speaker 0]: 这是这是是的， [Speaker 0]: 这的这个。

[Speaker 1]: and then there are other accusations like wong juws video wasn't just for entertainment, right? he edited out the clip of chengguang ang chung sniffing his nose and repeatedly played at the crucial part. i heard it too, and i thought it was quite funcey, but it's really not very ethical by doing that. aren't you just trying to humiliate him? he only snifed once, but made it seem like he was was ninifing every few seconds.

[Speaker 1]: yes, this psive aggressive behavior from wong jew is particularly noticeable. he has an uncontrollable urge to be sarcastic. comppsive aggressive this one due is really something when it comes to creating drama explanation, mark, this kind of drama indeed his style.

[Speaker 1]: then there's another tweet where chent one chg's original, meaning should have been a casual laugh, but one and translated it as a ude with civivious laugh in the program. this might also be inaccurate. however, chenguu NCANG also frequently attacked harris using her private life. if you search as twitter, you'll see a lot of this, actually neither side has much to say about this one and might not have quoted that tweet precisely. but i think wes overall expression of chenguangchchg's meaning is accurate. chenguang chchungg was indeed aggsively attacking harris on twitter, saying that she had problems with her private life and various other things.

[Speaker 0]: 嗯，

[Speaker 1]: so this lawsuit is now very clear. on the one hand, he's saying that he wants to protect his reputation, and then he wants the author to pay the legal price, prevents similar behavior from happening again, and set a standard for the boundaries of freedom of speech and responsibility. right?

[Speaker 1]: yes, actually everyone knows why he's suing wong GM because in one g, ms. video, he made it very clear that the point of contention is the problems with chenguang gchang's foundation. yes, his source of income was cut off saying, he's a blind man is just click way to attrtract viewers. but if you watch that episode, you know he was basically talking about why his foundation is in transparent and whether there are financial problems, he didn't use these reasons to counter suu wan.

[Speaker 1]: and i think he's calculated this very carefully. on the one hand, if you really sue the website from this perspective, then the lawyers can conduct a discovery process, a process of exploring evidence, right? the lawyers from both sides have to exchange evidence, then cheng UAGCANG would have to hand over all the financial records of his foundation to wong genans lawyer.

[Speaker 2]: he definitely can't bear that if there's something fishy, wouldn't you be exposed, right?

[Speaker 1]: so that's why you can see that in vane's very long video program chen only seized on the point that he's not a real person to sue him. there's a big reason for that. he's quite cuning very cunning. you can see that one had already posted something at the time. he said that an hour afwane's program aired someone suggested that chent wongchung and his wife seow him japan, the blblind chchwongg's lawyer quickly side and reposted it. you can see that this jauan is very sarcastic. he quickly side. he. he said that our program based on quickly available information and complies with media reporting principles for public foundations and public figures. i'm not afraid of any lawsuits, whether it's related to the marine industry or not, i will take it seriously. all lawsuits are the legal rights of the other party. but i would like to remind you that the litigation costs for lawsuits concerning the use of public funds should not be born by the foundations. donations. quote,

[Speaker 1]: oh, dut, yes. yes, dut. so now this situation, the lawsuit has already begun. i think one can do a lot of things at worst. he can just bring the fight to the us, right?

[Speaker 2]: suing changguang ang chung g in the us. and you're trying to use this moitious lawsuit to infringe upon my freedom of speech rights. you want to silence me, right? you want to stop independent media from questioning your fund. are you using this despicable lawsuit to intimidate me? isn't that your purpose? well, also you back, i'll say viviolted the rules of freedom of speech.

[Speaker 0]: 嗯。

[Speaker 1]: and let me tell you he could directly produce a program, saying, chan GANCHANG is your und being misused sed, you mised appropriating the money money 'll set up an investigation team and higher professional american investigative journalists to investigate this quonow. i see that. so many people at the washington posts were fired. weren't they? they fired? jeff ff zos well hire a few of them as contractors to work on this project to work on this case, investigate chengguangchun's fun thoroughly. what do you thinking withstand that?

[Speaker 1]: yes, many countermeasures he can take. so i think chenguangchchg's actions are actually very foolish because he's not in writing this matter,

[Speaker 2]: if he were to respond positively to the questions about his foundation, saying, regarding wong unge's accusations, i will publicly disclose all the details of how every donation was used. the information is all public, there's no problem.

[Speaker 1]: then one on ge's accusations would be disprove them. and then on that basis, i can say you said, i caused you great trouble by helping someone.

[Speaker 2]: then i think on the one hand, you can stand on the moral high ground in public opinion. on the other hand, you'll fight this battle very well. now he refuses to talk about the lawsuits against him or the issues related to these lawsuits. he also refuses to disclose the messy accounts of this foundation, but he goes to japan to zoowomzon first in the court of public opinion. do you think chen is clearly doing this for revenge because someone question him?

[Speaker 1]: yes, this is quite devisive. actually, i watch that episode of the show where wong jew also mentioned it. specifically, he said that mister joe funzeo's foundation is quite legitimate with very clear accounts in everything. so if anyone wants to donate because it donate to mister joe fzeos foundation, because it was able to withstand one ze's foundation. so it definitely has some credibility, but i saw that joe funzos founpoted shandwangong post on twitter supporting shandguangong against wzong. yes, he himself is relatively clean, but he is definitely to satisfied with wongin because what kind of people does joe phone associate with, you know that right, of course, his own integrity, and which side he takes are much trouble.

[Speaker 1]: yes, yes, that's right. so you see wm zon consir up so much trouble. and i think chandguong g chung underestimated warong zon's power. what did wangzong do back then? iran to the united states to fang shimmman. he not only that, but he went through the entire legal process in the american judicial system. he knows the system very well. i predict i predict that one might police sh ununt,

[Speaker 2]: like directly filing accountersuit in the united states against chingguang ang chung and even flying to the US to filmer documentary. i think this could definitely lead to a direct confrontation. actually, if you organizes a class action lawsuit, considering the numerous problems with your five zero, one c, three charities counts, II wong,

[Speaker 1]: you could make a show out of it and rarely a group of people in the united states to file a class action lawsuit that would be quite promising. and one more thing i wanted to say is that chenwung chged demand for two million dollars and compensation is outrageous. what reason you have to demand so much money? i feel like the intention is more about creating a big news story rather than a serious demand for compensation. and in japanese legal history, there are no president supporting such a high amount. it's impossible. the probability of you getting such a large amount in compensation is almost zero.

[Speaker 1]: well. i think wong jian is very likely to lose the lawsuit regarding the blind people issue. i think he might choose not to spend too much energy defending himself on this point. he can just pay some money, right? chenguu ang GH ung might release some bizarre apology video or something, and then pay one or two tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. i think almost at most twenty thousand US dollars. yes, there are precedents in japan, where similar cases resulted in compensation of forty thousand US dollars. he can do so many other things chenguguang gchung in this matter.

[Speaker 2]: you might win the lawsuit, but lose the public opinion. i think this is highly likely to happen. so let's wait and see.

[Speaker 1]: i don't know if anyone has other opinions, i think one gene is very likely to bring this battle to the united states. however, some viewers might have checked. and they said that in japan, while defamation convictions are strict, there is an exception if the facts you spread in the public interest, only for maintaining public welfare and proven to be true, then it is not constitute defamation. this seems to be a rather tricky. legal point is indeed for the public interest, but there is a slight mistake in distinguishing between blind people in a sociological sense, and in a medical sense. so we'll see the court rules. but i also tend to think that the compensation won't be very high, probably in the tens of thousands of US dollars range. if you look at similar cases in japan, the compensation amount for defamation generally ranges from one million to three million japanesian have most at most. so i think this is the current situation. those were interested can follow up and research further, but this discussion about chen gua n chhg's battle with wong gene has just begun. we will continue to follow up later.

[Speaker 1]: okay. so should we wrap up soon and move onto the next segment today? seems a little, let's try to control the time. okay, wait, let me stop for a moment. my screen is lagging. laoue. do you play video games? oh, dear, it's been a while since i've played this. but since the spring festival is coming up, i should start composing again, right?

[Speaker 1]: yes. so i was just discussing this with you because today zuro mention that something rather strange happen at his house. i said, okay, then i'll fill in in for tetemporily. but but if zuro can come next week, i'll have to take some time off to finish this piece. are you going to use AII for composing? or how are you going to do it?

[Speaker 1]: yes. i'll definitely continue to create an AI team like last time and have the AI and the chorst sing h. ah okay, yes, but the writing part will definitely have to be done by me writing each part individually. currently. AI is indeed quite far from the standard in the composition aspect, but in terms of singing, whether it's lead vocals or chorus, i think the AI singers are already very good, very, very good, very professional. i watched one juice program, and basically the ending also uses similar technology. yes, right? duck and one jw has long been using AI to dub sheet jumping and various other things. right? shelw wn g did a good job. he can come back now, he can come back now, right?

[Speaker 1]: the comrades from the united front work department are showing you their kind concern. okay, let's then control one one hundred of them.