In the extraordinary appeal hearing filed by Tama Talum, also known by his Chinese name, Wang Guang-lu (王光祿), the Supreme Court — in a break with precedent — allowed an oral argument.
It also allowed the hearing to be broadcast live online.
This constitutes a big step forward toward the creation of the e-court.
However, the implications of making live online broadcasts of hearings the norm should be considered, as well as how it should be done.
Trials are supposed to be open. This is the case for all trials, with the exception of those that involve state secrets, or those that require the protection of an involved individual, for example victims of sexual assault or children.
Most people do not have the time and energy to pay attention to trials, and few think of attending court in person. This being the case, the only trials that attract much attention are often so popular that people have to take a number and wait their turn to attend.
With technological advancements and easy access to the Internet, live online broadcasts can be the answer to the problem of limited seating and can also extend openness, with no temporal or spatial constraints.
In Tama Talum’s extraordinary appeal, the Judicial Yuan set up a dedicated Web site for live broadcasts and a Facebook page so that everyone could watch and leave comments expressing their views. In this way, trials can become more transparent by effectively preventing a judge’s arbitrariness.
All of this would suggest the desirability of making online broadcasts the norm.
That is not to say that there are no problems with the idea of live-broadcasting trials.
Tama Talum’s trial is a case in point. Some of the participants, including witnesses and experts, were reluctant to have themselves broadcast in this way. During segments in which they are present, the screen was filled with PowerPoint slides, while the audio was left on.
Yes, this does reduce pressure on the participants. However, it also makes it difficult to portray the real situation, and this reduces the openness and transparency of the trial.
In particular, since the trial is open, the words and actions of the judge must be closely examined and the witnesses are required to sign an undertaking that they shall be subject to perjury should they give false testimony. Given that, there is little room for privacy protection.
This being the case, the issue of showing what the participants look like and what they are doing without their consent is a moot point.
That said, there are still important differences between the openness of the court and having live broadcasts. It is not simply about the right to use people’s likenesses — there is also a risk that people on the stand, knowing that they are being broadcast to the world, might deliver testimony in a way they otherwise might not.
These issues are sure to come to the fore once online broadcasting of trials becomes the norm.
Wu Ching-chin is chair of the law department at Aletheia University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
In the aftermath of China’s expulsion of the New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang (王月眉), Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) has publicly and explicitly articulated Beijing’s core thinking on the Taiwan issue. Chinese authorities accused the newspaper of promoting what they called “Taiwan independence fallacies,” and said that its description of Taiwan as a country amounts to a challenge to the “one China” principle. The significance of the incident goes beyond the reporting dispute and has given the international community a window into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attitude toward Taiwan. Lin, in a statement, said
Every semester, universities ask students to evaluate their professors. Feedback is an important component of academic quality and accountability. Still, the growing emphasis on student evaluations reflects a broader shift within higher education: the increasing tendency to judge educational success through the lens of student satisfaction. However, is the primary purpose of a university to satisfy students, or to educate them? It seems that higher education has become increasingly focused on making learning more enjoyable, engaging, and accessible. Students frequently report that classes are too early, too late, too long, too demanding or insufficiently engaging. They ask for fewer lectures
RSS