Media reports can at times be quite annoying as empty, meaningless news is hyped up. Sometimes this hurts the people concerned or even others in the periphery who have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.
With this in mind, the first subgroup of the preparatory committee for the National Congress on Judicial Reform has suggested that media should be restricted from reporting on ongoing legal cases based on the position that investigations thta are still open should not be made public.
This might seem a worthy goal aimed at protecting people’s legal rights, but it is actually a move in the wrong direction. While it is true that many news reports seem to be made up, it is also true that police and prosecutors often deliberately leak information. Restricting the media from reporting such leaks is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
To keep ongoing investigations secret and retain the presumption of innocence are two important legal principles. In this respect, the past performance of police, prosecutors and the media has been disappointing.
The much-discussed case of the murder of a young model surnamed Chen (陳) and the allegations that the perpetrator’s friend, surnamed Liang (梁), set the whole thing up is a case in point.
Police and prosecutors released erroneous information which influenced public opinion and media outlets, social media Web sites and commentators played it up, in effect setting Liang up for trial in the court of public opinion. These are issues in desperate need of in-depth review.
The subgroup has proposed that media outlets attach a warning highlighting the presumption of innocence to reports about ongoing investigations. This of course is to protect our legal rights and it would help avoid the court of public opinion, but if we are to thoroughly implement the idea that ongoing investigations should be kept secret, the biggest responsibility should fall on the shoulders of police and prosecutors — the sources of reporters’ information.
Police and prosecutors representatives on the subgroup proposed a resolution that rules stipulating penalties should be introduced, and it was even suggested by a lawyer that media outlets violating the principle that ongoing investigations be kept secret should be handled in accordance with the Criminal Code.
Using legal means to restrict media outlets from reporting the news sets a precedent for using the law to clamp down on all reporting and it would be a heavy blow to the nation’s reputation for media freedom.
A member of the subgroup demanded that media outlets be prohibited from commenting on legal cases that have not been completed, based on Article 22 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法). However, that article only applies to ongoing investigations and trials, and the suggestion is entirely unreasonable as the media must be able to comment on a court’s verdict, regardless of whether it is the first, second or third trial.
Fortunately, the suggestion was not accepted. If it had, it would have violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
Self-discipline is important in the news media. Both the Constitution and Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 protect the freedom of the press and the media’s status as the fourth estate.
As the fourth estate, the media monitors the government, the legislature and the judiciary, and their exercise of power.
The National Congress on Judicial Reform should not use the protection of legal rights as a tool to suppress the freedom of the press.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS