The Ministry of the Interior recently announced that it wants to amend the Children and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) to place restrictions on how the press can report the details of cases involving minors. While few people would oppose an attempt to protect children and young people, this measure is problematic because it would involve restricting the constitutional right to a free press.
In its attempt to act for what can be seen as commendable reasons, the ministry has lost sight of the bigger picture.
The ministry wants to keep the grisly details of these crimes from our newspapers and TV screens based on the assumption that these reports put ideas into the minds of potential offenders, thus putting children at risk of being victims of copycat offenses or crimes inspired by the reports.
This is misguided, because it has not been empirically proven that any such relationship exists. Offenders do not act because of what they see on TV or read in newspapers. Restricting how these crimes are reported will not stop people from offending, nor will it help reduce the incidence of crimes against minors.
There is little doubt that considerable room exists to improve the way the Taiwanese press conducts itself and self-regulation could certainly be strengthened, but these changes grow organically from ongoing societal discourse and the prevailing political climate.
The central problem is that the government has made little if any effort to correct the failings of the press or encourage better behavior. Instead, it has jumped straight to seeking restrictions on press freedoms with this amendment. This action misses the point and comes close to abusing the government’s power to legislate.
Even if we take the government at its word and the amendment passes a third reading in the legislature, there is little reason to believe it will successfully curb sensationalist reports given the irredeemable tabloid nature of certain newspapers and programs, and their penchant for going into the grisly details of crimes.
News ethics, self-regulation, public distaste: These are mere ephemera to certain elements in the media that continue to behave as a law unto themselves.
The most likely outcome if this amendment becomes law is that reputable media outlets will find their hands tied, whereas gossipmongers and sensationalist media will hide behind teams of lawyers and legal loopholes, carrying on as usual. The result will be a vicious circle in which — to paraphrase Gresham’s Law — sensationalist nonsense drowns out genuine information. Not only will this amendment have failed to achieve its stated purpose, it will also inadvertently distort news reporting in this country.
Press freedom is a hard-won right. Only recently were clauses prohibiting political parties from advocating secessionism or communism removed from the Political Party Act (政黨法), eliminating one of the final legal constraints on freedom of expression. To go ahead with this amendment now would turn back the clock on freedom of speech in Taiwan.
In addition, despite the stated good intentions of the amendment, if this one exception to press freedom is accepted, then how long before another worthwhile case is found and yet more restraints are deemed necessary to protect some other group?
Freedom of expression is a human right, not a gift to be given, taken away or amended at the whim of a political party. It must be protected.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS