The NCC: Helping to Trample Over Press Freedom?

The NCC: Helping to Trample Over Press Freedom?
China Times editorial
A Translation
February 9, 2009

The National Communication Commission (NCC) has just issued a new draft of its satellite radio and television law. National Communication Commission Chairperson Bonnie Peng was the odd person out. She was unable to prevent other members of the commission from passing the new law. All she could do was write a lengthy dissenting opinion.

Chairperson Bonnie Peng's dissent addressed freedom of speech and freedom of press issues. The new satellite radio and television law seems regressive, a throwback to a time when the Government Information Office's word was law. Judging by the revised draft law, current NCC members have a very different view of freedom of expression than previous NCC members. Back then the Grand Justices were concerned that apportioning membership on the NCC based on the political composition of the legislature was harmful to the independence of broadcast industry regulatory agencies. They declared that the establishment of the NCC unconstitutional. Now however, the NCC shares the Executive Yuan's attitude about commission appointments, and the administrative agencies' attitude about regulation. One can only wonder whether the Grand Justices feel a sense of frustration. If the Legislative Yuan passes the bill into law, the Grand Justices should review the law for violating constitutional guarantees of free speech.

Our concerns are hardly unfounded. The revised law contains serious threats to free speech. One. Article 21 authorizes regulatory agencies to rate radio and television programs, in addition to advertising. The slightest mistake on the part of the media, and regulatory agencies can use the rating process as a pretext to censor radio and television program content. A major firewall has already been breached.

Two. The law prohibits the broadcasting of news articles that have not been checked for accuracy. But the broadcasting of real-time radio and television programs can hardly wait while government agencies check the facts. The probable result will be that no news whatsoever can be broadcast. If the regulatory agency establishes its own standards, it could create a situation in which "those who obey may broadcast, but those who don't will be silenced." The chilling effect can easily be imagined.

Three. The law regulates product placement. This may not be a bad thing in itself. But Article II, paragraph 13 defines "product placement" too loosely, as "certain perspectives," and "the dissemination of information." This has far-reaching implications, and allows government agencies to regulate anything, to meddle in anything, and to be everywhere.

Four. The law mandates a so-called "right of reply." It expressly stipulates that "parties concerned" or "parties affected" can demand that the news story be censored or corrected. If the broadcaster refuses to address the matter as requested, the "parties concerned" or "parties affected" may file for an injunction. If the courts fail to understand their duty to defend freedom of speech, they may contribute to the suppression of free expression.

Five. Article 45 of the law stipulates that regulatory agencies may impose heavy fines on news sources who fail to verify the facts. This is a formal declaration that the era of broadcast news censorship, using "fact checking" as a pretext, has arrived. This constitutes control of editorial commentary. Don't think otherwise. Editorial content is based on fact. To demand that news reports must be absolutely true before they can be published, does not control only factual reporting, it also controls editorial commentary. For regulatory agencies to monitor the news means that freedom of the press on Taiwan has taken a giant step backward.

Six. Article 47 of the law authorizes regulatory agencies to inspect all program content and impound it if they see fit. The law originally applied only to advertising, but now news and other programming have are included. Scenes of police impounding contraband publications may soon reappear.

The morass of provisions in the revised law regarding "rights protection" and "penalties," authorizing regulatory agencies to clamp down, makes its intention perfectly clear. Such a comprehensive control mechanism brings back memories of the old Government Information Agency and Information Bureau.

The Criminal Code includes laws against defamation. The Civil Code provides for tort damages. The draft law implies that the court's burden isn't heavy enough already. Even more puzzling is the provision for injunctions, which originate in Anglo-American law, and are a discretionary power reserved for judges. Injunctions should only be handed down by the courts. Regulatory agencies may not abuse their authority clamping down on free expression. The draft law has been added to the court's power to issue injunctions. The NCC has been authorized to impound radio and television programs on its own initiative. The long arm of the state now extends into the electronic media. The courts are not intervening to prevent the government from abusing its power. They are behaving like the government's accomplices. Chairperson Bonnie Peng championed press freedom all her life. No wonder she spent the New Year's holiday writing her dissenting opinion.

If such a draft law passes, Chairperson Bonnie Peng will probably resign. Only such a gesture can express her outrage. For the sake of Bonnie Peng, who knows that the draft law must not pass, For the sake of free speech on Taiwan, individuals of conscience must sound the alarm!

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.02.09
通傳會真要扮演箝制新聞自由的幫凶？
中時社會

通傳會新版衛星廣播電視法草案出爐，不尋常的是，通傳會主委彭芸女士對此獨排眾議，但因無法阻攔其他委員以多數決通過修法草案，只能獨自寫下萬言的不同意見書。

彭芸主委所爭執的，主要是言論自由、新聞自由的觀念。新的衛廣法草案彷彿大開倒車，回到了新聞局主宰一切的時代。從修法草案看起來，第二屆通傳會委員對言論自由願意容許的程度，相較於第一屆通傳會委員顯然相當不同。當年大法官擔心依政黨比例方式產生的委員對於廣電主管機關的獨立性有害而宣告其組織違憲，現在通傳會對於行政院全權任命而與行政部門擅於管制的心態轉趨一致，不知道是否有噬臍莫及的感覺。可預見的是，這一份修法草案如果是在立法院中照案通過，不旋踵之間，大法官應該就有機會審查此法的內容有無嚴重違反憲法上言論自由的保障。

我們所以有如此把握，並非無因。此次修法草案中加入了許多高度威脅言論自由的規定，第一是授權主管機關將廣電節目（不只是廣告）分級（第廿一條），如果稍有不慎，政府部門極其容易藉著分級制度審查甚至箝制廣電節目內容，這是極其嚴重的關防，已遭逾越。

第二是禁止製播違反事實查證之新聞，對於即時播出的廣播電視新聞節目而言，如果主管機關認真要求查證，時效的掌握將會極其困難，其結果很可能是無新聞可播，如果主管機關自有尺度，就可能形成「順我者播、逆我者禁」的局面，寒蟬效應隨之而至，可以想見。

第三則是管制置入性行銷，這也許並非壞事，但是「置入性行銷」的定義過於寬鬆到「特定觀念」、「資訊」的「宣傳」（第二條十三款），就很可能株連甚廣，以至於主管機關可以無所不管、無所不問，而無所不在。

第四是所謂「回覆權」的規定，草案法條明文規定廣電節目所涉「當事人」或「利害關係人」得請求停播或更正，廣電事業拒依請求處理時，「當事人」或「利害關係人」即得向法院聲請定暫時狀態之假處分。可以預見的是，法院如果不能體會司法保障言論自由的義務，善盡其責任者，將來可能會有設置新聞法院來箝制言論自由的場景出現。

第五是主管機關可對違反事實查證原則之新聞處以高額罰鍰（第四十五條），正式宣告主管機關用「事實」管制廣電新聞的時代降臨。不要以為這不是在控制「評論」，評論都係以事實為根據，要求報導絕對真實，不只是控制事實報導，同時也是在控制評論。由行政機關監控新聞，台灣的新聞自由就是走上了回頭路。

第六是授權主管檢查所有節目內容並為扣押（第四十七條），原法規定只適用於廣告，現在新聞及其他節目也要涵蓋。當年警總動輒扣押違禁出版品的盛況，想必不久即將在通傳會重現。

其實，單從此次修法中關於「權利保護」，尤其是「罰則」章節加入密密麻麻的規定，主管機關加強箝制管控的弦歌雅意，不待知音即可辨識。此種舖天蓋地的管制機制，大概足可與昔日新聞局加上警備總部的時代相提並論。

不要忘了，刑法誹謗罪、民法侵權行為損害賠償的規定依然存在。此項修法草案似乎擔心法院的工作負擔不夠重，更令人不解的是，「假處分」規定是源自英美法法官保留原則的概念，也就是非經法院許可，政府部門不能自行動用公權力箝制言論自由。修法草案加入了法院假處分，卻又同時授權通傳會自行扣押廣電節目，政府的髒手隨時可以伸入廣電媒體，法院的介入不是在抑制政府濫權，反而像是要作政府的幫凶，彭芸主委教了一輩子的新聞自由，難怪要在過年期間動筆寫萬言的不同意見書。

如果這樣的修法草案可以通過，彭芸主委大概要辭卸其職，才能貫徹其學問良心。對於彭芸主委期期以為不可的修法草案，為了台灣的言論自由，有識之士鳴鼓而攻之可也！