DPP government pushes "Digital Intermediary Law" to stifle freedom of speech on online platforms

The NCC under the DPP government recently introduced a draft of the so-called "Digital Intermediary Law", which attempts to regulate any company providing digital services with a so-called substantial connection within the territory of the Republic of China, covering all areas. What is even more shocking is that the law stipulates that the competent authorities of the administrative departments at all levels can determine the so-called illegal or inappropriate speech according to the law, and implement penalties. Once the draft was announced, it quickly sparked a backlash from all walks of life. Even many international Internet companies, including Facebook, Apple, and Line, rarely voiced their doubts, which shows its absurdity.

Article 2 of the draft " Digital Intermediary Law " clearly stipulates the scope of its coverage, "Digital intermediary services: refers to the communication provided by the transmission of sound, video, text, data or other information in digital format by wired, wireless, satellite or other electronic transmission facilities. Dissemination of intermediary services.” Article 4 stipulates that any digital intermediary service provider that has a presence in the territory of the Republic of China or is substantially associated with the Republic of China shall be restricted by this law. In other words, any activities conducted through online platforms, including videos, texts, games and other commonly used services, are subject to this regulation.

The most unacceptable thing is that Article 3 of this draft law divides powers and responsibilities according to different fields, that is, the jurisdiction of different administrative agencies. In other words, almost all administrative agencies can manage digital service platforms according to this law. Article 3 also explains that "the competent authority of this law is clearly defined, and at the same time, in order to implement the governance matters related to digital intermediary services in this law, refer to Article 7 of the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents' Welfare and Rights and Interests and Article 3 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention and Control Law, and stipulate that each The competent authority of this law is in charge of matters, so that it can handle and execute various digital intermediary services.” Article 5 specifies seven situations in which the law stipulates that administrative agencies can intervene, including “the protection of human dignity, the state Maintenance of public security such as security or national defense, criminal investigation or prosecution, prevention of hate or discrimination against ethnic groups, gender, religion, nationality, etc., protection of the rights and interests of children and juveniles, maintenance of public health, protection of the rights and interests of consumers or investors” . The coverage is also very broad, and there are even vaguely defined protection of human dignity, national security issues, and even hate discrimination and public health maintenance. This kind of vague definition can basically be compared with the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble under the CCP’s rule.

Administrative agencies at all levels can enforce the law on their own in accordance with the law. The foregoing paragraph of the law states, “If the competent authority of the law considers the information that violates the mandatory or prohibited provisions of the law to be rumors or false information according to the investigation, it may request the digital intermediary service to provide the information. The information is temporarily marked with a warning.” And Article 55 of the draft law clearly stipulates, “ The punishment of this law shall, in principle, be punished by the competent authority. However, the information retrieval in Article 17, Article 18 Information Restriction Order and Temporary Apostille Warning, Article 19 Information Restriction Order Enforcement, and Article 20 Emergency Information Restriction Order, etc. stipulate that administrative actions or enforcement are performed by the competent authorities of the relevant laws and regulations, and digital intermediary services When the provider violates the law, it should be punished by the competent authority of the relevant laws and regulations; although the court's decision to obtain information is not an administrative act, it is mostly related to the legal authorization norm or the basis of the right of request of each law. Violation of an express obligation of forwarding shall be punished by the competent authorities of the respective laws and regulations .” In other words, except in a few special cases, the law gives administrative agencies a lot of leeway to identify and punish violations they deem illegal.

And this penalty is not light. According to Articles 46 to 55 of the draft law, each administrative agency can impose a minimum penalty of NT$50,000 and a maximum of NT$10,000,000 on offenders they consider to be illegal, and You can also disconnect directly from the network. "If the digital intermediary service provider still fails to make corrections and the circumstances are serious, the competent authority and the relevant regulatory authorities may order the connection service provider, the telecommunication enterprise or the establishment of the public telecommunication network to refuse the digital intermediary service provider's telecommunication services. Requests and communication transmissions may be necessary or necessary.” That is to say, if this law is really implemented, the administrative agency can decide whether you have violated the law according to your mood. Once you are found to be illegal, you will face huge fines or even be forcibly cut off by the government. network possibilities.

This law basically gives the administrative department a very large power and responsibility, allowing it to bypass the court to identify, manage and punish online expressions illegally. Chen Jianren, deputy CEO of Bamhart, pointedly pointed out , "The biggest problem is The provisions stipulate that "anyone" can notify the content of the violation. The platform operators will do after they know about it, that is to "delete" regardless of whether it is true or false. When the content cannot be judged at the first time, this is the best way to protect itself. The freedom of speech on the Internet in Taiwan has caused great harm. He cited the recent plagiarism of Lin Zhijian's paper as an example, "If A reports plagiarism of a candidate's paper, but at the same time, the other party B publishes a paper, the candidate's paper is original, and others are the plagiarists, and these two posts exist at the same time. On the platform, I would like to ask how the industry should handle it. If the platform is indiscriminate and deletes all the articles, it may bear the compensation losses of one party in the future; where should the platform industry find such a talent to judge such a profound topic?” If it is based on the current situation Judging from the statement of President Tsai Ing-wen, who personally endorsed Lin Zhijian's thesis, I am afraid that the remarks that pointed out Lin Zhijian's plagiarism are likely to be ruled as rumors and need to be deleted.

Seeing Chen Jianren's explanation, the author can't help but think of the self-censorship behavior of major online platforms under the management of the CCP. For some sensitive topics, without waiting for the CCP's notification, online platforms, regardless of their position, will delete any comments discussing such sensitive topics in order to protect themselves. It seems that if this "Digital Intermediary Law" is really passed, the major Internet companies that want to operate in Taiwan will probably face the same fate. In any case, delete sensitive topics first to protect themselves. To put it more simply, once this law is actually implemented, the future DPP government will basically have the same power as the CCP in controlling online speech. In the future, if you dare to slander leaders, criticize the government, or even make remarks that other government departments don't like, any department has the right to ask online platforms to delete your remarks and block your account. What is even more frightening is that before the government intervenes, in order to avoid being punished by the government with excuses, most online platforms will self-censor, and they will simply prevent you from posting controversial comments or directly delete the controversial comments and suspend the account. And all of this could have happened in democratic and free Taiwan, during the reign of the Democratic Progressive Party government that talked about democracy and freedom. This is undoubtedly a huge irony.

Although the DPP has begun to soften its pace amid the social backlash, it may not implement this law as originally planned. However, the fact that such absurd things can be pushed to such a point makes people wonder why under a democratic system, the DPP dares to do such a thing at the risk of the world? Because of the existence of that group of die-hard supporters appointed by President Tsai. They have never been indiscriminate, no matter right or wrong, they will just follow the DPP mindlessly. The DPP turned the four major livelihood referendums into a referendum in which they disagreed with the CCP's military unification of Taiwan. They ignored the fact that the two had nothing to do with each other, believed it, and followed the DPP. When the plagiarism of Lin Zhijian's thesis was so obvious, as long as the DPP escorted the whole party, and as long as Lin Zhijian's lawyer claimed that it was a conspiracy of the CCP, they would continue to escort him. The existence of this group of Green Guards, who have no ability to think independently, has contributed to the arrogance of the DPP. Anyway, no matter what the DPP does, as long as you cry out against the Chinese Communist Party, do you want to vote for the CCP passerby? They will all support. Therefore, how the DPP suppresses freedom of speech will not affect the final election results. They will only be grateful to the DPP government.

With the help of these Green Guards, Taiwan, which is so democratic in its system, has moved step by step toward the authoritarian dictatorship of the DPP. The author often thinks about a question, why are the Taiwanese unwilling to reunify with the CCP? I think most people can answer because they don't want to accept the CCP's dictatorship and terror. But if the Democratic Progressive Party, which followed the CCP's study, achieved dictatorship before the CCP fought it, then I really don't know what the point of the Taiwanese people's persistence for so long? And all this is not due to the coercion of guns and force, but the self-selection and self-inflicted suffering of the Green Guards kidnapping other Taiwanese. It's all really sad, sad.