|
Justices hear press
freedom debate
‘FOURTH ESTATE’: Lin Ming-hsin, a law professor
at National Taiwan University, said a reporter’s ability to gather information
is a cornerstone of freedom of the press
By Rich Chang / Staff Reporter
The issue of “press freedom versus individual privacy” was heatedly debated
yesterday at a constitutional hearing held by the Council of Grand Justices.
The hearing was held in response to a complaint by a print journalist who argued
that it was unconstitutional that he was fined for following a celebrity couple
for two months.
Three years ago, Wang Wei-bao (王煒博), a reporter at the Chinese-language Apple
Daily, followed model Flora Sun (孫正華) and her husband, Miao Hua-pin (苗華斌) — the
heir to the MiTAC (神通集團) fortune — over a period of two months to observe every
aspect of their lives.
After the couple reported the matter to the authorities, police charged Wang
with violating subparagraph 2 of Article 89 of the Social Order Maintenance Act
(社會秩序維護法), which stipulates that people who follow others without a reason and
do not stop after being urged to do so can be fined NT$3,000.
Wang’s attorney, Greg Yo (尤伯祥), said the privileged classes, such as
entrepreneurs and politicians, welcomed the legal position that people cannot be
followed by paparazzi and that some non-democratic governments preferred to
curtail freedom of the press to ensure social stability.
However, in free and democratic countries, reporters have the right to collect
and acquire information, and such a right should be protected under the
Constitution, Yo said, adding that subparagraph 2 of Article 89 of the act,
which was used to punish Wang, should be deemed unconstitutional.
While laws should be clearly defined, subparagraph 2 of Article 89 does not have
a clear definition, which is at odds with constitutional principles, Yo added.
Also appearing on Wang’s behalf was Lin Ming-hsin (林明昕), a law professor at
National Taiwan University (NTU), who said a reporter’s ability to gather
information is a cornerstone of freedom of the press, which should be protected
under the Constitution.
Liu Ching-yi (劉靜怡), a professor at NTU’s Graduate Institute of National
Development, said freedom of speech should include freedom to collect
information and to investigate. If such rights are denied reporters, information
would not flow freely in society and the public’s ability to make decisions
would be compromised.
The Ministry of the Interior, which is in charge of executing the act, sent Liu
Wen-shih (劉文仕) to represent it at the hearing.
Liu Wen-shih told the court that during the two months Wang followed the
celebrity couple, he sometimes waited outside their residence, which the couple
considered a form of harassment.
While the activities of public figures should be scrutinized from time to time,
this should not be done constantly, Liu said.
Chen Ching-hsiou (陳清秀), a law professor at Soochow University, who also appeared
on behalf of the ministry, said Taiwan was not a police state. People have the
right to live happily and have their privacy, he said.
The government has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Chen said, adding that the two convenants include the protection of an
individual’s privacy.
Although the media is the “fourth estate,” that power should not be abused, he
said.
Public officials, judges, prosecutors and others should be disciplined if they
violate ethics or regulations in the course of their duties and so should
reporters, who cannot have unlimited rights, Chen said.
The council said it will hand down a decision on the case in two months.
|
