Taipei District Court judges, delivering their verdict on the "soft coup" slander case brought against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), said that the president does not enjoy freedom of speech. Their reasoning was that human rights were accorded to the public to balance government control, and that as president, Chen represents the government.
This line of logic is rather wanting, and it appears that the judges might well benefit from studying a refresher course on the Constitution.
The claim that the president represents the government deserves further discussion. Legislators are also a part of the five branches of government, and they enjoy impunity in regard to what they say in the legislature to an extent that exceeds the freedom of speech granted to the general public.
It is therefore insufficient to claim that the government does not have freedom of speech simply because a distinction exists between the government and the general public.
In the US, some academics view the government's right to control public speech as a form of government speech.
For example, the government can express its standpoint through the process of imposing restrictions on satellite TV channels. According to this view, we can refer to government controls when we talk about government speech.
Under the circumstances, of course, it is important not to let the government have unlimited freedom of speech. It should be subject to constitutional controls.
Controls are also important for ensuring government transparency. The right to silence is part and parcel of freedom of speech, but it is not extended unconditionally to the government. Many articles in the recently passed Access to Government Information Law (政府資訊公開法) require the government to make its information available to the public.
The government, indeed, has no freedom of speech in the above two situations, either in its capacities as regulator or as a possessor of information.
But Chen's defamatory comments against former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) were neither made on behalf of the government nor were representative of government control. They were made by Chen in the capacity of an individual, and were therefore not an expression of governmental power.
If they were indeed personal comments, then Chen should of course enjoy freedom of speech in making them. Otherwise, how strange it would be for a president to be gagged and prevented from airing his own views.
The reason Chen lost the slander lawsuit is very simple. Chen does enjoy freedom of speech, but this freedom of speech is not unlimited.
That is, he must also comply with certain restrictions, one of which being that people are not allowed to slander each other. Nobody enjoys the freedom to defame others, not even the president.
Although the Council of Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation on what constitutes slander has been relaxed, it is still considered to be slander if one cannot provide evidence to back up accusations. Hence, Chen would still have lost this lawsuit if the judges had treated the president as an ordinary citizen.
But the judges clearly stated in their ruling that the government is not entitled to freedom of speech. As to what information can be made public, this was not considered to be entirely up to the government either.
The judge asked Chen to offer evidence to prove that Lien and Soong had attempted to launch a "soft coup" against the government, which he declined to do, citing the protection of state secrets.
The judge admonished Chen for this: Although the government can decide what shall constitute classified information, it must not willfully designate information as state secrets to cover up wrongdoings, which is clearly stated in Article 5 of the Law of National Secrets Protection (國家機密保護法).
If an item of disclosed information is deemed to be a state secret, judges can choose to restrict certain parts of a trial from being made public.
Since Chen was not willing to provide any hard evidence, he was unable to prove that Lien and Soong had been orchestrating a coup. Thus, the Taipei District Court ruled in favor of the opposition leaders.
James Yang is a doctoral candidate at the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND DANIEL CHENG
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS