The emotional entanglements between men and women in love are now subject to horrible, high-tech vendettas. The recent controversy over footage of a sexual encounter, taken by means of a pinhole camera, shows how advanced technology is being used for voyeurism, to satisfy personal grudges and to slander a person's reputation.
Before we had "black letters" (anonymous accusations,
A person's private conduct is forcibly laid bare in public. A person can be emotionally tortured by having his or her conduct or reputation dragged through a hell made-up of the eyes of others.
Just as the US has to discover how to build a new order following the Sept. 11 tragedy, Taiwan's society should start establishing regulations to distinguish between the public and private domains following Scoop Weekly's release of the VCD the purports to show a sexual encounter between a former legislative candidate and a married man.
Otherwise, in a high-tech, information-based society, the overly curious or the hate-filled and envious can collaborate with vicious commercialism to shape a terrorist network that does not need a leader. A person's reputation and freedom can be crushed at any time by the weight of a million pairs of eyes.
No matter what kind of social pressure the parties shown in the video are suffering, the best response would be to stand up to this new type of voyeuristic terrorism. To remain passive may save them from having to confess, and give them space to live on in society. But appeasement will not be good for the victims or society.
For society, pursuing the perpetrators will demonstrate that voyeurism and illegal videotaping will be punished. It will help demarcate between public and private domains and establish what is appropriate to be distributed to the public.
Secretly videotaping people violates Article 315-1 of the Criminal Code. Public or private distribution of secretly shot footage breaches Article 315-2 of the Criminal Code. This behavior also infringes a person's privacy, as stipulated in Article 195 of the Civil Code. The emotional damage suffered by the victims must be compensated for through action in civil court.
If those in the video take the case to civil and criminal courts, the magazine publishers, TV stations and Web sites involved in distributing the film will have to pay dearly for their profit-driven and morally-debasing behavior. Only then will the network of voyeuristic terrorism be prevented from flouting social morals and repeating its horrible acts with the connivance of the public.
Only by bringing a lawsuit can the offensive and defensive positions of perpetrators and victims be reversed. If those in the film refuse to file a lawsuit, those who filmed the encounter will not only remain at large but also achieve their goal of malicious defamation -- repeatedly subjecting the victims to indignity in electronic and mass media. If the victims appeal for their privacy to be protected it will win them the support of the public.
Redressing violations of privacy through legal channels will definitely gain the support and approval of most people in society. If the victims can recognize that establishing private personal space has become a new value that the public now considers important, then filing a lawsuit will be the best way to alleviate the trauma and fight back.
Ho Jen-ji is a PhD candidate in law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS