As the #MeToo movement spread across the nation, entertainer Tina Chou (周宜霈) on Tuesday last week accused her former boss, TV host and P.League+ CEO Blackie Chen (陳建州), of barging into her hotel room and pinning her down to the bed in 2012.
Chen denied the accusations and in an official statement released through a law firm, said he would take legal action. It seems that the truth would only be known through a judicial ruling.
However, before the truth is revealed, could the accuser be held liable for defamation?
In sexual harassment or sexual assault cases, there is an unequal power relation between perpetrators and victims. This is why victims often chose to be silent at the time and only dared to speak out amid the #MeToo movement.
Moreover, sexual harassment is punishable by only two years in prison at most and, as prosecution can only be instituted upon a complaint, by the time the victim reports the case, the six-month statute of limitations (the deadline for filing such a lawsuit) would have long passed.
As for sexual assault and rape, they are punishable by six months to five years, and three to 10 years respectively in jail, can be prosecuted without the victim having to file a complaint, and the statute of limitations is as long as 20 to 30 years.
However, many of these cases take place in private properties and vital forensic evidence would have long been lost. Pursuing such a case would mean relying mainly on the victim’s statement. However, out of the fear of secondary victimization, victims might hesitate to file a lawsuit, creating an impediment to prosecution. Even if victims had the courage to report to prosecution, they might still be burdened by prolonged litigation.
In short, there are many difficulties involved in prosecuting sexual harassment and sexual assault, and those who come forward face the risk of being accused of defamation, which is punishable by up to two years in prison.
Although Article 310, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code states that “a person who can prove the truth of the defamatory fact shall not be punished for the offense of defamation,” there is bound to be room for ambiguity in deciding if it is true. Moreover, such a condition for legal justification is equivalent to forcing defendants to give up their right to silence to prove their innocence.
However, according to the Council of Grand Justices’ Interpretation No. 509, issued in 2001, to the extent that the perpetrator fails to demonstrate that the defamatory statement is true, as long as the perpetrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement is true based on the evidence he submits, the perpetrator cannot be held liable for defamation.
On the other hand, on June 9, the Constitutional Court’s Judgement 112-Hsien-Pan-8 made a supplementary interpretation on whether the defamatory statements are made with bona fide intent, elaborating on the offender’s duty to check for the validity of the defamatory statements. If they were issued under the situation where the offender acted knowingly or under gross negligence, it is regarded as actual malice and the offense is punishable.
The punishment of defamation is limited to intentionality, and the Constitutional Court’s judgement extends it to gross negligence, which obviously violates the red line of nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law).
What is more noteworthy is that in cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault, given a lack of witnesses, it is difficult to collect evidence, so proving the truth can be problematic. Deciding whether the offender acted knowingly or under gross negligence is dependent on judges’ free evaluation of evidence, and confuses the roles of the perpetrator and the victim.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate law professor at Aletheia University and the director of the university’s Research Center for Criminal Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS