Free speech has many forms
The Ministry of Culture has banned the public exhibition of a film poster because it looks horrible and may scare children (“Film poster ban decision challenged,” July 19, page 5).
Movie posters are considered speech for the purposes of commerce and are protected by the Constitution. Freedom of speech shall not be restricted unless in certain circumstances set forth in the Constitution. Restricting freedom of speech has clear standards set by law or by regulations promulgated under the law, and the restriction must be appropriate in the given context.
The Ministry of Culture cited the provisions of the Motion Picture Act (電影法) and “related laws and regulations” as its legal basis for banning the poster. The act requires advertisement materials to be submitted for review and approval before they are used.
However, the same law does not provide the standards of review. In the Enforcement Rules of the Motion Picture Act, only one provision sets forth the standards for advertisement materials, which stipulates that they must correspond to the movie classification category for “general audiences.” Motion picture classification is further governed by the Regulations Governing the Classification of Motion Pictures. Whether the provision of the Enforcement Rules exceeds the authority of the Motion Picture Act and thereby makes the restriction unconstitutional can be left to the courts.
Assuming that classification of motion pictures and advance review of advertisement materials serve legitimate purposes, when applying the movie classification to advertisement materials, the competent authority should be cautious not to overly restrict the freedom of speech.
Advertisement materials are not the same as the motion picture itself, as they are often without a complete sequence of events, audio and visual effects, etc — particularly those in a still form taken out of context, such as a poster. Advertising tools by their very nature must reflect some content of the motion picture; otherwise it fails to fulfill its promotional function and could even be construed as false advertisement.
As long as the motion picture itself is properly classified, the competent authority has done its job to protect those intended to be protected by such a system. As for the advertisement medium, unless it is indisputably unsuitable for a “general audience,” as long as there is room for interpretation, the competent authority should apply a more lenient standard.
Finally, the purpose of establishing the Ministry of Culture, as stipulated in its Organization Act (組織法), is to promote the development of culture, which inherently includes encouraging cultural diversity, rather than to assume the role of people’s guardian. People can protect themselves from advertisement materials they dislike, and parents can protect their kids from content they disapprove of. As for the youngsters in need of, but lacking, “protection,” it is not the duty of the Ministry of Culture to provide this function. The ministry is evidently misunderstanding its role.
C.C. Kuo
Taipei
Selective spotlighting
The Taipei Times is correct to urge President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to go beyond lip service to protect human rights (Editorial, July 19, page 8).
However, the editorial failed to acknowledge several misdeeds of the Ma administration regarding human rights.
For example, the blatant neglect of the wave of self-immolations of Tibetan monks, the refusal to grant a visa to Rebiya Kadeer, the Uighur activist, under the pretext of “terrorism,” and most recently, the unlawful detention by the Chinese government of Taiwanese citizen and Falun Gong practitioner Bruce Chung (鍾鼎邦).
Failing to gain Ma’s assistance, Chung’s family turned to the chairwoman of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for help.
The Ma administration has turned a blind eye to all of these human rights violations, yet your editorial only singled out the imprisonment of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). This narrow focus is not only misleading, but calls into question the Taipei Times’ stance on human rights.
Independent and transparent journalism is vital to democracy and the protection of human rights. By singling out only one person — who happens to be an ex-Democratic Progressive Party chairperson and a former president — and neglecting the other glaring cases, it seems the Taipei Times has (inadvertently) taken a political side and compromised its journalistic integrity.
I sincerely hope the Taipei Times will consider amending this editorial to pay equal attention to other pressing issues of human rights in Taiwan and globally.
Tiffany Hsiao
Rockville, Maryland
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath