The lawsuit between Vice President Annette Lu (
This has caused much frustration within the media, as well as making some believe it could trigger the chilling effect in which free speech is stifled by fear of punishment.
Certainly, as far as the protection of freedom of speech is concerned, this High Court ruling seems rather backward and conservative.
However, it also reflects a social check on the media, who would do well to reflect on the implications. While they are brandishing the slogan of freedom of the press, they should spare some time to think about the real purpose and nature of this freedom.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case hinges on whether Article 509 applies to a civil libel suit.
The reason behind the decision is that the requisites for civil infringement differ from those of a libel case in criminal law.
The former takes into account intentional as well as unintentional behavior, whereas criminal law only considers libelous or slanderous behavior conducted with intent.
In civil cases the media can be held accountable for a lack of diligence. In this particular case The Journalist was found wanting in its investigation, and should consequently shoulder the burden of the compensation.
The interpretation of Article 509 was concerned with intentional libelous behavior in criminal cases, and did not cover transgressions of the civil law.
This reading certainly has a basis in the respective requisites of the civil and criminal laws, but ignores the fact that the principle of "actual malice" had its precedent in a civil case in the US, The New York Times versus Sullivan.
Similar instances of media behavior should be dealt with equally within the legal system. To apply different standards to civil and criminal cases is unjustifiable when it comes to the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Should the principles of "actual malice" and "reasonable grounds" be used as a get-out clause for the media? Of course not.
The media should not be exempt from legal responsibility if they intentionally neglect to thoroughly check their facts.
The Supreme Court interpretation of Article 509 has set the concept of having reasonable grounds to believe in the truth of one's claims as its standard, and the media should at the very least confirm the veracity of their reports according to this principle. Failure to do so constitutes an evasion of legal responsibility on both the criminal and civil level.
Both "actual malice" and "reasonable grounds" should be seen in terms of the liberalization of the media's duty of diligence, not its abandonment.
In dealing with the degree and actual nature of the media's duty of diligence, the Supreme Court should be able to use the principle of reasonable grounds as a benchmark from which to judge whether any negligence has occurred.
Whether or not The Journalist had reasonable grounds in this case is a matter to be decided from the facts at hand.
However, in the presentation of their defense, the very least we could have expected from The Journalist was to try to persuade the courts with some evidence, rather than vacuous political rhetoric and hearsay.
The other concern for the media should be whether or not this will result in self-constraint in reporting that could impede the public's right to be informed.
Given that many media reports will lead to a certain degree of harm to the individual being reported on, the media will be required to check that reports are reasonable. In performing its function as the disseminator of information, the media should try to keep the damage it does to a minimum, in particular with information from questionable sources.
In terms of the need for damage control, it is clearly important for the media to have the advantage over the individuals they report on. It is consequently quite reasonable to demand a certain amount of diligence on the part of the media.
When the courts pass judgment in infringement cases, they are dealing with the conflict between and the freedom of the press and the right of the individual to keep their name unsullied.
The former is an important mechanism for the welfare of the public, the latter essential for the dignity of the individual.
Obviously, in order to give full play to their function, the media cannot give way too much in the face of legal requirements regarding the rights of the individual, but there is a limit to how much they actually have to compromise.
If society demands stronger legal checks on the media, and therefore changes the legal protection, it will be the media that stands to lose the most.
Karl Tzan is a lawyer and assistant professor in the Department of Law at Shih Hsin University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.