The Taiwan High Court decision this week to uphold a 30-day jail sentence given to a blogger for criticizing a restaurant is a chilling reminder of how young the concept of free speech and a free press is in this country.
The court’s Taichung branch sentenced a woman to 30 days in detention and two years of probation, and ordered her to pay NT$200,000 in compensation to a beef noodle restaurant over a July 2008 blog post saying the food was “too salty,” the place had cockroaches and was unsanitary and that the owner was a “bully” because of parking issues. The restaurant owner sued the blogger for defamation. The case went to the High Court after the blogger appealed a 30-day detention order handed down by the Taichung District Court, which said her criticism had exceeded reasonable bounds.
While the High Court found the cockroach complaint to be factual, not slander, it said the blogger should not have criticized the restaurant’s food as too salty because she had only visited the restaurant once and eaten just one dish.
Leaving aside the question of whether anyone would want to return to a restaurant where you found the food inedible and the place unclean, to be more empirical, the blogger’s criticism of what she ate was subjective. She found it too salty. She did not say that there weren’t enough noodles, or the beef wasn’t cooked right or it did or did not have certain ingredients. Her crime boiled down to a question of taste. That is what critiquing is all about. It is also why people read blogs.
People would read restaurant reviews in traditional media — if there is such a thing in Taiwan. However, most of the articles about restaurants in the popular press are little more than dining guides that cite location, operating hours and menu options. The same void can be found in the worlds of film, theater, music, dance or literature. This is one reason blogs have become so popular.
This nation suffers from a lack of critical thinking and analysis that can be attributed to an education system that does not encourage independent thinking and debate, and to the scars left by the draconian laws of the Martial Law era. These impediments to impartial, reasoned analysis hamper everything from higher education to political debate and efforts to build a better civic society.
The Taichung restaurateur is not the first to sue a critic over a bad review; there have been cases filed in the US, Australia and elsewhere — though none carried the risk of a jail term. In 2004, the review of an Italian restaurant in Dallas led the owner to file suit, upset because the critic gave him four out of five stars, but then was scathing about the food. He said it was the contradictions between the star rating and criticism he found hard to swallow. In 2007, the Australian High Court found, on appeal, a bad critique and a low rating from a newspaper restaurant critic to be defamatory because it attacked the restaurant as a business. What was interesting about that case was that in the initial court case, the jury found that the review was not defamatory — it was the appeals court and high court judges who thought it was.
Which brings the issue of food (or art) criticism back where it belongs — with the public. A good review can make a restaurant, a production or an artist and a bad one can hurt, but that is the risk one must take when creating a dish, a dance or any other product that is offered for sale. People either read reviews or they don’t. They learn whose opinion they feel they can trust and whose they don’t.
The threat of a lawsuit over a review is chilling enough. The threat of a jail term is even more overwhelming and out of proportion to the alleged crime, especially where no overriding issue of public interest is involved.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS