A breakfast shop in Tainan that provides free meals to disadvantaged families announced that it was being sued after a disagreement with a customer was not resolved through arbitration.
A report on Thursday from the Chinese-language United Daily News said the disagreement occurred last month when a mother received the wrong order for her son and was told she had a bad attitude when she asked for it to be remade.
If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant will face criminal charges under the Offenses Against Reputation and Credit (妨害名譽及信用罪). Slander and defamation are criminal offenses under Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code and an offender is subject to a fine or up to two years in jail if investigators determine that the offensive statements were publicly disseminated.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — to which Taiwan was a signatory before being expelled from the UN — determined that punishing libel and defamation as criminal offenses is a violation of individual rights. The UN Human Rights Committee reiterated this position in 2012.
Decriminalizing libel and defamation, which has been brought up by Taiwanese law experts numerous times over the past two decades, is an important step in strengthening the nation’s democracy.
The issue was first considered seriously in 2000, when Chen Chih-hsiang (陳志祥), then a Taipei District Court trial judge, called for an interpretation of the law while presiding over a libel case between a High Court judge and two officials of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
The Council of Grand Justices determined that criminal liability, rather than civil proceedings, is a more appropriate means given the “circumstances of the country.” They did not elaborate on what circumstances they were referring to, but added: “If an intrusion of a person’s reputation can be resolved with civil compensation, then rich people would be able to defame others as much as they wish. This is not what constitutional protection is meant to be.”
Following the council’s interpretation, Lin Tzu-yi (林子儀), a professor of constitutional law at National Taiwan University who specializes in freedom of expression, challenged the council’s take on free expression, calling it a “backward” decision.
In March last year, the national affairs conference on judicial reform discussed the issue when they met for their fifth subcommittee meeting at the Judicial Yuan.
Taiwan National Chiao Tung University law professor Lin Chih-chieh (林志潔), a leading member of the subcommittee, echoed others’ suggestions that cases related to insult, defamation and slander should be filed with civil courts, saying: “Prosecution of offenses relating to freedom of expression contravene the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
Trying libel and defamation cases as criminal offenses ties up prosecutors and investigators, and leaves the law susceptible to abuse for vindictive purposes.
Taiwan also does not recognize some of the defenses against libel claims that most other covenant signatories recognize.
For example, in most nations, assertions made as expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact are usually dismissed, because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Also, in most jurisdictions, statements made in anger, such as calling someone “an arse” during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory. This is not the case in Taiwan, where prosecutors approach these statements as factual assertions.
Libel laws are important for the protection of people’s reputations and financial livelihoods, but should not cause people to live in perpetual fear that they might unintentionally say the wrong thing at the wrong time and end up embroiled in a lawsuit. Libel should be handled by civil courts that are well-equipped to determine whether a statement has caused real damage.
“Testy,” “divisive,” “frigid,” “an exchange of insults” were some of the media descriptions of last month’s meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts. Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass said that, rather than the “deft handling” needed in US-China relations, this encounter was “mishandled, a terrible start [with] way too much public signaling.” Yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, the acrimonious encounter with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) was a great success for US diplomacy
A meeting between US and Chinese officials in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, showed that the US-China struggle will no doubt continue during the administration of US President Joe Biden. The struggle between democracies and authoritarian regimes is likely to last decades, because it stems from the fundamental difference in the two value systems — a difference that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as an existential threat. The CCP fears that Chinese might someday demand the protection of individual liberties, and has therefore waged a years-long “total war” to undermine democracies, which eventually prompted the US to fight back. Within the
How could the Chinese delegation at the US-China summit in Anchorage, Alaska, last month possibly say that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that…”? As it turns out, one factor that accounts for this statement is overconfidence, and the other is an impression of the administration of US President Joe Biden as soft. However, there is yet another motivation, a subconscious one, for this statement: a criminal psyche. The Chinese delegates at the Alaska summit knew that at that very moment, there were more than 3 million Uighurs imprisoned in concentration camps and that hundreds of thousands