Editorial: A fine line between lies and libel

Yesterday the Taipei District Court handed down a convoluted libel suit ruling involving a public figure that left both sides claiming victory. Judge Lai Yang-hua (賴泱樺) ordered that Yang Chao (楊照), The Journalist's (新新聞) editor in chief, must run clarifications in the print and electronic media for three days in order to restore the reputation of Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮). But he found all seven defendants not guilty.

The judge's ruling struck a wise balance between individual reputation and freedom of press and may go a good way toward easing tensions between the government, the media and the judiciary. Such tensions, highlighted by the furor over leaks about the National Security Bureau's secret funds has even caused the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists to express concern recently about press freedom in Taiwan.

The lawsuit was based on a November 2000 article in the magazine that claimed Lu had made phone calls to spread rumors about an alleged affair in the Presidential Office. Lu's lawsuit against the magazine was the first such case by a vice president against the media. The court case turned into an epic saga of political conspiracy, secret witnesses, demands for constitutional interpretations and gloomy warnings that press freedom was at risk.

Lai's (賴泱樺) ruling is already winning kudos for its carefully measured punishment, aimed at protecting press freedom. The Journalist defendants were found not guilty of libel -- allowing the magazine to claim victory. The judge found that the reporters had found sources to back up claims of the alleged affair. But Yang was ordered to publish "clarifications" -- because he had failed to meet the criteria of "having sufficient reason to believe a story to be true" with regard to his claims about the phone call.

The judge found that Yang had fabricated his claim of a phone call from Lu as well as his claim of confirming the alleged affair with an aide at the Presidential Office. Nevertheless, the judge did not find Yang guilty of a criminal offense, nor did he ordered Yang to pay Lu compensation.

The judge based his ruling on the Council of Grand Justices's Interpretation Number 509, which lightens the burden of proof on the defendant. The interpretation says that the media will not be punished for reports they have sufficient reason to believe to be true.

Yesterday's ruling brings to mind a recent verdict in another case centering on personal reputation and freedom of speech. In the lawsuit filed by former first lady Tseng Wen-hui (曾文惠) against former New Party lawmakers Elmer Fung (馮滬祥) and Hsieh Chi-ta (謝啟大), Judge Huang Cheng-hui (黃程暉) found both sides innocent and urged the plaintiff not to appeal.

Huang's ruling caused widespread dissatisfaction because he did not specify what the truth of the case was -- he only said that neither side could provide clear-cut evidence to back up their version of events. Lai's ruling may be just as convoluted as Huang's, but at least he ruled that Yang had fabricated his story about the phone call and his claims to have witnesses.

Lai's ruling may help establish a social consensus on the debate between press freedom and personal reputation. We shall see if the judiciary is able to strike an acceptable balance between press freedom and national security in the upcoming cases against Next magazine and the China Times over reports about secret National Security Bureau funds. The government, the media and the judiciary all need to make more efforts in this regard.