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
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