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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS