If we take the “speech overseeing conducts” of SF Express as a kind of tying arrangements, then everything would be easier to be understood.
As I discussed in the “How much does a ghost worth,” tying arrangements with negative-value conditions will raise the costs of the consumers or dwindle the utility. It will lead to less consumptions and decrease the incomes of the supplier.
As long as enough clients cared about their right to free speech so much as they claimed, SF Express would suffer significant wealth eroding, no matter it is a privated owned, public issued, or governmental company.
On the other hand, if SF Express is the only one who insists such negative conditions, the plunge in its wealth will also be an attractive opportunity for its competitors. The consumers will be benefited anyway.
Extremely speaking, if the speech-control requirements are held indifferently by the Chinese government, it’s indifferent to the consumers after all. It would be like no pork in the Muslims countries.
For me, the ban of the right to eating pork is similar to the right to freely speaking. Either one is constraints on personal freedoms. You may take it and choose other kind of meats to eat. In the same way, you may accept it and choose to avoid some sensetive subjects for the government. Otherwise, you could always run away from the countries you cannot stand. It happens all the time throughtout the human history. You may also try to climb up to be one of the top governers and change the rules.
Most people choose to stay as usual is only because they don’t care the right so much as they claimed.
Hence, there is no need for the Taiwanese government to involve in this being-unmentionable-for-few-people thing.
1. 根據美國憲法修正案第七案：「In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.」 基本上只要訴訟金額超過20美元的法律案件都可以請求陪審團審判。 但問題就出在「法律案件」的定義。
2. 在Common law的領域，司法案件基本上分為：case of law and case of equity。 在過去英國法律時代（特別是英格蘭與威爾斯），case of law是由common law judge來審判，由陪審團來認定事實。 Case of equity則是由chancerycourt 的chancellors作審判，不會有陪審團出現。 就歷史來說，judge比較是獨立在「國王」之外的司法體系。chancellors則是由「國王提供的另一條解決紛爭管道」。chancellors又被稱為「國王的良心守護者（The Keepers of King‘s Conscience）」，傳統上有關信託法領域或土地法相關，都屬於case of equity。
3. 但美國法系雖然已經沒有二種法庭的區別，卻還存在二種案件的不同。這造成案件究竟能否申請陪審團的差異。 法官碰上這塊，都還是要從過去200年的案例法中來判斷手上這個案件是case of law 或case of Equit。
一個簡單的判斷標準：只要請求金錢上的損害賠償，8成都是case of law，都可以申請陪審團。反之，如果是請求跟金錢無關的，大概都屬於equity。
但也有例外啦，例如一樣請求金錢損害賠償，但案件是牽涉到「違反忠誠義務（breach of fiduciary duty）」，依照案例法歷史，還是屬於equity領域，不能申請陪審團。
But！在1990年的Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No.39 v. Terry這個案子中，涉及的明明是有關工會代表未善盡代表義務這種很像忠誠義務的案件，聯邦最高法院卻認為是case of law，可以請求陪審團審判。