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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers