|
Draft law threatens media freedoms
By Lu I-ming 呂一銘
Over the past year, there have been many moves to push a draft law aimed at
protecting the welfare and interests of children and youths. Strong opinions
both for and against this law have focused on technical issues related to how
news-gathering agencies should appropriately handle reporting crimes. It should
be possible to find a balance to avoid media sensationalism that the public
finds unacceptable and, given journalistic self-regulation, legislation, market
demands and other controls that are already in place, this shouldn’t be very
difficult to achieve.
However, taking a look at the details of the draft law, it is worrying to see
that it includes articles about what newspapers can print. This is tantamount to
bringing the Publishing Act (出版法), which was scrapped years ago, back to life.
This would deal a huge blow to Taiwan’s press freedom and its democracy.
The way reports on crimes are handled and presented is an area that should be
left to media theory and practice. There is absolutely no need to list such
things in a law aimed at protecting the welfare and interests of children and
youths. Isn’t such a law an insult to the media and our institutions of higher
learning? Are we supposed to believe that the media is essentially bad for our
society?
Article 44 of the proposed act says that the print press cannot describe or
depict in detail crimes such as drug use or have detailed explanations or
pictures of suicide cases. It also says that the print press cannot describe or
depict violent acts, print text or pictures that show blood, pornography,
obscenities or forced sexual intercourse. Article 90, which deals with
violations of article 44, says the publisher of a newspaper depicting content
detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of children and youths shall be
fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000 and that their name or title shall be
announced publicly.
The 70-year-old Publishing Act, abolished on Jan. 12, 1999, shows many
similarities with the currently proposed act. For example, Article 32 of Chapter
5 of the abolished act stated that publications were not allowed to publish
information dealing with those who committed, or instigated others to commit,
the crimes of insurrection or treason, interference with public administration,
voting or public order, or offenses against religious rituals or sexual
morality.
In other words, the regulations on newspapers proposed in the draft and the
penalties for those who violate these regulations are not just about “crimes”
and “details,” they are also detailed to the point of saying what can and cannot
be reported, which essentially makes the act an official, government directed
“news gathering guide,” which is absolutely ridiculous.
If we judge things by the standards listed in the draft law following the first
review, the detailed media reports on the recent election-eve shooting of a
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politician Sean Lien (連勝文) were illegal.
However, we no longer live in the past and the proposed draft should not be
aimed at “purifying” everything that passes before the eyes of our youth. We
cannot hide the real world from them. They need to develop a certain amount of
“immunity,” that can only come from seeing things as they are, if we want them
to be capable of taking part in broader society. We cannot have them living in
some virtual world created by adults where everything is rosy.
The definitions in the law must be clear to avoid disputes over how it will be
executed. We must avoid a situation where media outlets do not know what they
can and cannot report on and we must not let moral norms override all other
concerns, as this will erode away at press freedoms. Furthermore, the proposed
law entails excessive administrative discretionary power, which will give
unscrupulous officials too much freedom to do as they please.
Media regulations must not get out of hand as this would give government
agencies the opportunity to threaten or bribe people to control the media. This
would not only deprive the media of their function as the Fourth Estate, but it
would also cause a “chilling effect” detrimental to the development of values
such as pluralism and democracy.
The first draft included mechanisms for appeal and review, but the Ministry of
the Interior deleted this saying no such set-up exists and that the manpower is
inadequate. This means local governments will be in charge of sanctions, which
highlights the slipshod nature of the legislation. Government officials are now
putting across the false image that everything is perfect and they give no
thought to changing with the times to benefit Taiwanese. Now, they are clearly
trying to revive the out-dated Publishing Act which was scrapped through the
draft law in an attempt to restrict press freedom.
These actions are aimed at controlling the media and misleading the public in an
attempt at bringing back the old authoritarian system of government. This is
very worrying.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin
Sheng Daily News.
|
