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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS