Early in the morning of September 10, 2023, I saw an American and a Chinese, thinking and thinking about different problems at the same time. American Musk, who was interviewed on the cover of the century-old "Time Magazine" magazine, said that with the advent of artificial intelligence, he wanted to know how his own 24-hour time is more valuable; Peng Xin, a long-term associate professor at Peking University Law School Chinese, is pondering "Can the law interfere with the freedom to dress?" ”
Musk's thinking is "whimsical" and unfounded. The same report in Time Magazine (which translates to "time" rather than "era," highlighting its ruler) said that at a 2012 conference, Musk met Demis Hassabis, who added a fourth way, or "artificial intelligence," to his three ways of destroying humanity: "world war, asteroid hitting Earth, or civilization collapsing." Today, Musk, whose "whimsical" can be "opened", witnesses the power of ideas that change in the world.
The 52-year-old Musk's "whimsical" and alarmist style is obviously different from China's college entrance examination modernization. The college entrance examination, as well as the master's entrance examination and the bokao after the traditional carp jumped by the dragon gate was forcibly demolished, were implicitly endowed with the dual value of employment and consumption. The group of college entrance examination nail households who are over 60 years old, over 60 years old, and over half a hundred years old, what they chase for half their lives or their whole lives is only the driving force for the generation of "standard answers". In fact, it also includes the tens of millions of universities and research institutes that serve this "standard answer".
Peking University Associate Professor Peng Qian's thinking is clearly the standard answer for "legal scholars", and "freedom to dress" is a warm response to the ongoing draft of the law.
Because of the thinking of legal scholars, I think of the alarmist American Musk, and the three classic precedents of his country and his national Supreme Court:
In 1940, a West Virginia public school kicked children out of school because they were reluctant to salute the American flag because of their religious beliefs. The child's parent, Walter Barnett, sued, and the lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that forcing students to salute the flag violated the First Amendment because "coercive speech does not prove a person's loyalty other than self-deception." Love for the country must come from an autonomous heart and a free mind. ”
In the above case, the flag was only because it was not saluted. If the national flag is burned in public, what are the consequences for the parties involved? In the United States, in 1931, Congress declared "The Star-Spangled Banner Never Falls" as their national anthem, and 48 of the 50 states passed laws expressing support for the protection of the flag.
In the famous 1989 Texas v. Johnson case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the flag in protest was part of the First Amendment's right to free speech. In response to such a decision, the Supreme Court explained, "We punish blasphemy and do not make the flag sacred, because by doing so we dilute the freedom expressed by this revered symbol." ...... The meaning of various symbols is often given by ourselves... The flag protects those who despise it. ”
The decision of the US Supreme Court means that the flag protection laws enacted by 48 of the 50 states in the United States are invalid, and it is obvious that it hurts the national feelings of many American patriots. The most straightforward expression of this emotional hurt is that the US Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibits the desecration of the flag a few months after the above ruling. However, on the day the Flag Protection Act went into effect, someone came to the U.S. Capitol and publicly burned the American flag on the steps of the Capitol.
This naked provocation naturally came to the US Supreme Court in accordance with legal procedures. The Supreme Court ruled that the National Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional and that burning the national flag was not illegal.
In fact, the above three classic cases of the US Supreme Court are just the most conventional way for them to "love" their own country and national feelings, that is, to "love" freely - most people cannot choose to decide the standard "love", and the law cannot set the standard "love": love has no standard answer.
Therefore, Musk's whimsical and worrisome posture has become a force to change human thinking in the world; Peng Qian's "freedom to dress" in China's college entrance examination-style modernization shows a fleeting hot topic.