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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS