Cable broadcaster CTi News has been at the center of a political debate for a number of years, which can be roughly split into two themes: One is that CTi News peddles fake news, the other is that it has become a mouthpiece for Chinese “united front” propaganda in Taiwan.
If CTi News was only guilty of the former, it could be argued that its operating license should be renewed. It is the latter that should be fatal for the media organization.
In some cases, there is no absolute distinction between genuine and fake news — it can sometimes be relative. Prior to the Apollo moon landings, there were still several flat Earth societies in London that publicly advocated that the Earth was flat.
Some would argue that since they were peddling fake news, these societies should have been proscribed by the then-British government, so why were they not? Since they were not advocating violence, such as blowing up NASA or assassinating astronauts, they did not present a public threat.
Once the first Apollo mission landed on the moon and photographs of our planet were beamed back to Earth, the membership of flat Earth societies naturally plummeted, but it was not a result of government involvement.
Science works in the same way: Hypotheses are advanced and tested to obtain the truth.
If the spherical Earth hypothesis was not allowed to be tested and challenged, people today might still believe, as the ancient Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy did, that Earth is perfectly round, rather than elliptical.
“Fake news” that does not cause public harm can be accommodated within the bounds of free speech.
If someone said: “The South Korean boy band BTS is outstanding” — is this true or false? Depending on whether you are a fan, your answer could be either, yet whether deemed to be true or false, the assertion obviously does not threaten public safety — at the very worst, it might offend the feelings of the band’s detractors.
Unfortunately, for several months leading up to January’s presidential and legislative elections, CTi News broadcast wall-to-wall coverage that unquestioningly extolled the virtues of now-ousted Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) — the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate.
This was not a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, or a subjective interpretation of the truth: It was an overt information war waged by an enemy country against our democracy.
Han is a politician who was actively aided by Red China’s media outlets on the eve of his recall as mayor. Red China conducts military exercises targeting Taiwan on a daily basis.
Freedom is based on the principle of not infringing on the freedom of others. Constantly praising someone clearly favored by an enemy nation is tantamount to welcoming an invasion by that enemy with open arms.
When that happens, anyone — regardless of whether they watch CTi News — would be peppered by the enemy’s missiles and bullets, and they would lose all their freedoms.
How can anyone defend that kind of “freedom of expression?”
Behind the debate over CTi News’ license renewal lies an important principle: Where should the limits to the freedom of expression be drawn in a liberal democracy?
Free speech should certainly not be curtailed to prevent offending the sensibilities of some or even the airing of ideas that fly in the face of modern science, but it should be curtailed when it infringes on the freedom of expression of others.
Jimway Chang holds a master’s degree from National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of History.
Translated by Edward Jones
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS