As Article 11 of the Constitution says that “the people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication,” it is indisputable that the government must protect these basic human and constitutional rights. However, the absence of any restrictions on speech might pose a threat to a democratic society.
One view is that advocating for China’s annexation of Taiwan by military force or intimidation should be protected by freedom of speech in Taiwan; if freedom of speech is to be guaranteed, the government cannot pass legislation that constrains the spread of this idea. This is wrong.
Taiwan already has laws excluding defamation and sexual harassment from freedom of speech, so it has never been a question about whether freedom of speech should be restricted, but rather where the boundaries of such restrictions should be drawn.
Given that some Taiwanese media outlets and political parties are increasingly vocal about their support for Chinese annexation of the nation by military force, it is necessary to consider whether such remarks should be protected.
In traditional jurisprudence, the general view is that freedom of speech should be protected to make the truth clearer through debate (John Stuart Mill); to promote the realization of other rights (John Rawls); ensure the “reinforcement of democracy, the advancement of knowledge, and the promotion of cultural, moral and economic development” (Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 364); “for the purposes of ensuring the free flow of opinions and giving the people the opportunities to acquire sufficient information and to attain self-fulfillment” (interpretations Nos. 414 and 623); guarantee the supervision of all political and social activities (Nos. 509 and 613); to “safeguard the spiritual activities of the people” (No. 567); or all of the above (Nos. 644 and 678).
Based on these views, it seems reasonable to allow speech supporting annexation of Taiwan by military force. After all, no one can say whether such speech hinders the development of people or society, destroys their spiritual pursuits or is disadvantageous to the supervision of political and social activities.
However, this conservative view has made it increasingly difficult to cope with an anti-democratic wave. Some people with ulterior motives are making greater use of theoretical loopholes in the democratic system and the free world as they try to plant anti-democratic and anti-freedom seeds in democratic societies.
The government must fill these loopholes to better respond to these challenges.
Jimmy Hsu (許家馨), a deputy researcher at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae, says that freedom of speech should come with more corresponding democratic functions or social responsibilities to maintain the quality of a free democratic system.
Advocating for Taiwan’s annexation by force is in and of itself anti-democratic, as it supports replacing a democratic society with an authoritarian one. What would happen to freedom if a democratic society is not protected?
A democratic society is the foundation of all freedoms, including freedom of speech. Without a democratic society, there are no grounds to talk about guarantees for freedom. Allowing a statement that denies the continuation of a democratic society would ultimately undermine that society and, in turn, destroy freedom itself.
Just as no teenager should sit by and watch others harm their parents, people should not sit by as freedom of speech is used to brutalize their democracy. Taiwan must outlaw speech promoting military annexation of the nation. This is rational and necessary, and if Taiwan does not, it will eventually pay the price.
Chiu Chen-ya is a board director of a US-based non-governmental organization.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did