Media reports can at times be quite annoying as empty, meaningless news is hyped up. Sometimes this hurts the people concerned or even others in the periphery who have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.
With this in mind, the first subgroup of the preparatory committee for the National Congress on Judicial Reform has suggested that media should be restricted from reporting on ongoing legal cases based on the position that investigations thta are still open should not be made public.
This might seem a worthy goal aimed at protecting people’s legal rights, but it is actually a move in the wrong direction. While it is true that many news reports seem to be made up, it is also true that police and prosecutors often deliberately leak information. Restricting the media from reporting such leaks is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
To keep ongoing investigations secret and retain the presumption of innocence are two important legal principles. In this respect, the past performance of police, prosecutors and the media has been disappointing.
The much-discussed case of the murder of a young model surnamed Chen (陳) and the allegations that the perpetrator’s friend, surnamed Liang (梁), set the whole thing up is a case in point.
Police and prosecutors released erroneous information which influenced public opinion and media outlets, social media Web sites and commentators played it up, in effect setting Liang up for trial in the court of public opinion. These are issues in desperate need of in-depth review.
The subgroup has proposed that media outlets attach a warning highlighting the presumption of innocence to reports about ongoing investigations. This of course is to protect our legal rights and it would help avoid the court of public opinion, but if we are to thoroughly implement the idea that ongoing investigations should be kept secret, the biggest responsibility should fall on the shoulders of police and prosecutors — the sources of reporters’ information.
Police and prosecutors representatives on the subgroup proposed a resolution that rules stipulating penalties should be introduced, and it was even suggested by a lawyer that media outlets violating the principle that ongoing investigations be kept secret should be handled in accordance with the Criminal Code.
Using legal means to restrict media outlets from reporting the news sets a precedent for using the law to clamp down on all reporting and it would be a heavy blow to the nation’s reputation for media freedom.
A member of the subgroup demanded that media outlets be prohibited from commenting on legal cases that have not been completed, based on Article 22 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法). However, that article only applies to ongoing investigations and trials, and the suggestion is entirely unreasonable as the media must be able to comment on a court’s verdict, regardless of whether it is the first, second or third trial.
Fortunately, the suggestion was not accepted. If it had, it would have violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
Self-discipline is important in the news media. Both the Constitution and Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 protect the freedom of the press and the media’s status as the fourth estate.
As the fourth estate, the media monitors the government, the legislature and the judiciary, and their exercise of power.
The National Congress on Judicial Reform should not use the protection of legal rights as a tool to suppress the freedom of the press.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS