Dealing with Fake News Is Camouflage, While Stifling Dissidents Is the Real Goal

  Dealing with Fake News Is Camouflage, While Stifling Dissidents Is the Real Goal

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

June 5, 2018

 Translation of an Excerpt

In recent years, Internet information has made big strides, helping the proliferation of fake news. This has not only caused harm to the reputation of quite a few individuals or industry brands; it has even led to damage to people’s finances and health, igniting bewilderment and panic in society. The NCC indicated that it wanted to deal with the situation, saying it would seek a fair third party (such as the Media Foundation) to set up a mechanism; the Cabinet also proposed a draft bill titled "Digital Communications and Mass Communications Act." Amid the populist atmospherics in Taiwan, such development trends would most likely have worrisome consequences. Weber Lai, a scholar, contributed a commentary titled "The NCC Censorship Mechanism for Fake News Is More Terrible than Fake News Itself!” Zero in on the real problem: Beware of the government's blatant intervention in freedom of the press under the pretext of countering fake news!

Frankly speaking, numerous recent incidents have shown that many shared values ​​and basic mutual trust in society have gradually disintegrated. In the past two years, the Green Camp, relying on its “Green Guard” and major Green media outlets, encircled the “dissidents” with a dragnet for attack, creating atmospherics most beneficial to the DPP for controlling society. However, this seems to be not enough; it hoped to authorize, on the grounds of "fake news," direct censorship, deleting “dissident” news. Wouldn’t this be more convenient?

The NCC says that it will seek a fair third party to erect a mechanism; this is even more terrifying. Who doesn’t know that following the ferocious Blue-Green feud all these years, does Taiwan still have a so-called "fair third party"? Simply put, once this bill is enacted, in the future, should any individual or media outlet, on a digital platform, say something seemingly unpleasant to the President, Premier, or legislators of the like of Tuan Yi-kang, they themselves could justifiably accuse, in the capacity of "right holder," the content of "damaging their reputation," and the author as well as the platform would have to sheepishly delete the news, otherwise, facing indemnity. As to who would adjudicate? Of course it would be the third party that had always provided assistance and protection! In other words, once this bill is enacted, this would simply be more useful than the defamation clause in the Criminal Code, without even going through prosecution and trial, and finishing the job only with administrative means. In truth, when it comes to this step, it would be no different from formally proclaiming the demise of the freedom of the press in Taiwan!

Attachment : none