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 gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS