Remembering responsibility
The appalling shooting of US Representative Gabrielle Giffords and several bystanders may be the result of political hate-mongering, but regardless, it reinforces the need to debate the issue of the media’s rights versus its responsibilities, and of public debate — which was brought up in rather different contexts recently by WikiLeaks and the proposed child welfare law in Taiwan (“Right vs responsibility,” Dec. 27, 2010, page 13).
The central question is: How far should the fundamental right to freedom of expression go? In these days of the Internet, it appears that the right to express just about any monstrously stupid, wrong or hateful opinion is winning over the responsibility for civilized and informed debate. While I fully recognize the dangers of curtailing press freedom, there are clearly areas where rights have gone too far.
I have been, for example, compared to excrement and worse on Internet blogs just for writing about environmental issues. While the authors of such excremental writings naturally disqualify themselves, it opens up the wider question of what should be allowed to be placed in the public domain.
Often guarded by anonymity, the torrents of vicious abuse and inflammatory hate-mongering ejaculating from the Internet, the endless repetitions of obvious scientific or historical lies (eg, global warming and the Holocaust), or the seemingly limitless satisfaction of depraved desires (eg, pedophilia) that can now find an outlet on the Internet call into question whether rights and responsibilities are still balanced.
On the one side, we find the hyper-libertarians and compulsory Internet defamers who want all the rights and no responsibilities. On the other extreme, oppressive governments like China want to curtail rights, justifying their actions by emphasizing the responsibilities toward larger societal goals.
To be clear, I support as much freedom as possible, but freedom should go no further than the point where another person’s freedom is limited by that very freedom. We must realize that there is no such thing as total freedom, as it would be a terror for everyone. Whether it is traffic rules, commercial rules or rules governing the media and public debate, some rules must be obeyed to avoid sliding into the anarchy of unregulated chaos. Clearly, press freedoms should not extend to inciting murder or denying the Holocaust, for example.
Therefore, we need global governance for those common areas which affect everybody. We need a movement of global citizenry that demands global rights — universal human rights, equitable sharing of resources and opportunities and a healthy planet — but which also accepts global responsibilities — limiting consumption and waste, wealth redistribution and, as I suggest above, rules regarding what should be allowed in public debate, including on the Internet.
Every person or organization should ask themselves whether they are abusing the rights given to them by an open society without thinking about the responsibilities that they should also abide by. Balancing rights and responsibilities is never easy, but then again, no one ever said resolving complex issues should be easy.
Bruno Walther
Taipei
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS