QUESTION: Is that the main counter-argument that you are using in your defense, i.e. that web users cannot approach these pictures out of context?

ANSWER: Absolutely! They paid no attention to the context in which the issue of bestiality is discussed and presented. To them, anything graphic that has to do with sex is considered 'pornography'; in other words, sex should not have any representation. And if that were true, then the whole academic fields of sexology, urology, obstetrics, or sexuality studies would be pornography. The second thing is that we are not 'displaying' those pictures; we are merely providing a hyperlink to a webpage in the US. A viewer will have to make the decision to click on it to see the link. We are not 'disseminating' the link
either; we had never advertised the link nor sent the link to anyone. As an academic site, only those who are interested in research would seek us out. And thirdly, our Constitution says that there is freedom of
research, freedom of teaching and freedom of education. That freedom must be respected. I am very well-established academically in this country in the field of sexuality studies. These imagesconstitute just one element of my work and are part of my huge databank. If they think certain sexualities are off limits for academic studies, I would like the court to rule on that and see how that stands up against the constitution.

QUESTION: So what do you think is going to happen in court?

ANSWER: According to Taiwanese legal statistics, if you are prosecuted, there is a 90% chance that you will get convicted. This is because our legal system is built in order to protect itself. I have a good lawyer who can help me but I am actually waging the war myself, because I know the most about my web site and about sexuality studies. I will try to prepare statements whenever I go to court so that I can turn
this case into an opportunity for social education. And if I lose on the district court level, I will certainly appeal. If I lose again, I will file a case with the supreme court, demanding that the judges of the supreme court explain the constitution decree of freedom of research and speech. This does not just concern me, but concerns the future of the Internet, the future of sex research, the future of freedom of speech.

If my case goes down, that means sexual issues on the Internet will enter a deep dark winter period. It is indeed a historical case and I will have my arguments ready. I will fight. But the judges do not really understand the Internet and see it as a real world. They think that anybody who turns on a computer immediately sees those images.