Constitutional interpretation No. 617 from the Council of Grand Justices released on Oct. 27 affirmed that speech and information about sexual topics falls within the scope of freedom of speech protected by the Constitu-tion, and splits obscenity as defined in Criminal Code Article 235 into "hard" and "soft" categories to be handled differently.
"Hard" information falls within the boundaries of what is currently illegal, while "soft" information may be exempt from fines if fitting measures are taken to keep such information safely isolated.
In a minority opinion, some justices wrote that freedom of speech and information about sexual matters did not need to be treated as criminal activities.
They even suggested that the fines aimed at prohibiting the distribution of publications were disproportionate, and that as a result Article 235 is unconstitutional.
The article was amended in 1999. The draft law was even more advanced than Ruling 617, but afterwards it was amended to refer specifically to "broadcasts," adding audio and images to the list of offending content and changed "written or auditory content" to "auditory content."
There was very little change, however, to the standard of judgment of what was considered obscene.
The limits of freedom of speech have always been subject to dispute. Many laws are like Criminal Code Article 235 where the adoption of the understanding of the same clause or noun to changing times puts the knowledge of those enforcing the law to the test and makes obvious the importance of judges' rulings in shaping the law.
In 2004, for example, the first station in the country devoted to women's issues, Sister Radio, was fined by the Government Information Office (GIO) for broadcasting the moans of women in bed. Sister Radio brought a lawsuit against the GIO in response, and won the case in the High Court.
The court reasoned that "In an open and diverse society, gay and lesbian topics are not topics that the public cannot discuss, and there is even a need to expand the limits of this discussion ... That part of the broadcast [the moans] is obviously not beautified, and cannot be viewed in isolation. The entire program's contents should be considered in the judgment."
The justices in this case used the Radio and Television Law (
The treatment of slander and libel in the Criminal Law (
Following the liberalization of society and the evolution of the media, increasingly louder calls for the decriminalization of slander and libel were heard.
In 2000, constitutional interpretation 509 offered an important interpretation of the limits to freedom of speech and personal reputation.
In this interpretation the grand justices ruled that: "The freedom of speech [is] a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 11 of the Constitution ... However, in light of protecting other fundamental rights such as personal reputation and privacy and public interests as well, freedom of speech is not an absolute right but subject to reasonable statutory restraints imposed upon the communication media."
Although this does not directly decriminalize slander and libel, it does shift the burden of proof and sets a standard of "truly malicious intent" so that as long as a reporter can reasonably believe that what he or she reports is true, then it can be reported and the act is not considered criminal.
Although the national mood and cultural environment are not at the point where obscenity or slander and libel can be decriminalized, the judiciary's actions in recent years have demonstrated an effort to gradually relax restrictions on freedom of speech. On the whole, although there were different views among the grand justices on whether Article 235 was unconstitutional, constitutional interpretation 617 expands the limits of freedom of speech by limiting the definition of obscenity. This unprecedented new reading of the Constitution is worthy of affirmation.
Freda Yeh is a lawyer with the WTW Commercial Law Firm in Taipei.
Translated by Jason Cox
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS