Should we use legal means to keep journalists from violating the rights of others? This has been a subject of much recent debate and many are looking forward to a constitutional interpretation from the Council of Grand Justices.
The council already gave the answer 11 years ago in Constitutional Interpretation No. 509: “In light of protecting other fundamental rights such as personal reputation and privacy and public interests as well, the freedom of speech is not an absolute right but subject to reasonable statutory restraints imposed upon the communication media.”
Although 40 years ago the US Supreme Court determined that the New York Times had the right to publish the “Pentagon Papers,” which were only fully released last week, it was not because freedom of the press was valued over national security, but because the publication of the documents would not put the country in immediate and evident danger. At the time, the Times praised the court’s decision, calling it “a ringing victory for freedom under law,” showing that the newspaper itself did not think it could override the law.
Through the Criminal Code, the Child and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) and the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), Taiwanese society has tried to deal with a media sector lacking self-control and to regulate it using legal and other restraints. In reality — whether they are producing fabricated reports, crime news reports or paparazzi photography — if journalists followed their professional ethics, they would not violate other people’s rights and even if they did do so occasionally, there would be potential for improvement if they could maintain a measure of self-discipline.
However, accurate and fair reporting remains rare. Not only is self-discipline not part of the mainstream of journalism, some media outlets have even made the violation of rights part of how they make a profit, and they still refuse to reform their ways and apologize even when a court rules against them.
When dealing with media outlets that refuse to recognize the need for self-regulation, the only other avenue open to civic groups and individuals working for children’s rights is to demand that media behavior be legally regulated.
As always, some media outlets rehash the cliches about how any kind of legal restrictions, including lawsuits, are evil tricks aimed at restricting press freedom. This may be a realistic portrayal of the media’s current almighty status, but the public has had enough of the chaos that comes from media outlets using the public’s “right to know” as an excuse for pursuing their own profits.
Faced with a media sector devoid of professional ethics that claims press freedom overrides all other concerns, we must not allow them to ignore both self-regulation and legal regulations.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
TRANSLATED BY KATHERINE WeI
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