The freedom of the press debate has re-ignited as The Journalist magazine has lost its libel case brought by Vice President Annette Lu (
Can this trial be a sacred and holy crusade, as the defendants declare? Let's look into the free press ideal from the viewpoints of law and journalism.
As constitutional interpretation No.509 says, journalists can publish with impunity an article that eventually turns out to be false if the court decides that the journalists believed the statements they made were true. But this freedom applies only to criminal trials, and is meant to protect journalists from a so-called "chilling effect" by minimizing the punishments they would face under criminal law.
A civil trial, which is the central legal process in this case, should have a different set of standards. When a journalist hurts some individual's reputation without obvious vindication, he or she should persuade the court with more solid evidence or pay punitive damages to the victim. Press freedom doesn't have to sacrifice the people's right to be free from groundless accusations. This imperative was epitomized by Manchester Guardian editor C.P. Scott's rule that "Comment is free but facts are sacred."
Take another look at this case from the perspective of journalism. Journalism theory holds that the press is the watchdog that digs out the truth and presents it to the public. Therefore freedom of the press isn't gospel, but rather an authority which is given by civic society. A magazine like The Journalist that has little credibility thanks to its use of false information has little right to proclaim its innocence and say it represents the forces of freedom, for it already has abandoned and betrayed the public's expectations and its own duties.
In 18th-century Europe, a journalist defied authority to reveal truth to the public, and in doing so broke the law. He accepted the criminal charge willingly and went to prison without complaint. He said, "The public's right to know is exercised, and so is the country's authority and the social order."
Today we might want to consider this question: "Is our society being protected by press freedom, or being harmed by it?"
Iap Hong Sum
Taipei
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS