At the end of the 114th year of the Republic of China, the DPP government’s Executive Yuan once again gave society a “big gift.” As the Executive Yuan session finalized the draft amendment to the “Social Order Maintenance Act” of the Republic of China on December 26, that familiar, suffocating shadow of censorship once again loomed over Taiwan.
Once upon a time, that “Digital Intermediary Act” in the 111th year, which triggered public outrage and was almost sent to the incinerator, has now worn the vest of the “Social Order Maintenance Act” and swaggered onto the stage in a “shell company listing” manner. The DPP government’s desire for power and fear of speech obviously never disappeared, but was just waiting for the next opportunity to smuggle it through.
Smuggling Habit: The DPP’s “Fragmented” Censorship
Looking back at these years, after the DPP government was frustrated in promoting the “Digital Intermediary Act”, it did not give up, but adopted a “fragmentation” tactic, breaking down the most controversial “administrative sanction power” in the Intermediary Act into various special laws, trying to bypass social monitoring:
- Expansion of the “Four Anti-Fraud Acts”: Using “anti-fraud” as a sacred coat to grant administrative agencies the power to demand platforms to remove content and restrict browsing in the legislation. Nominally it is to catch swindlers, but it actually established a technical mechanism that can block specific information at any time.
- “Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act”: Utilizing the social consensus of protecting children and youth to expand the immediate removal power of internet content. They even tried to regulate “virtual two-dimensional” (ACG) content, sparking strong criticism from the anime circle and those for creative freedom.
- Amendments to the “Anti-Infiltration Act” and “Referendum Act”: Repeatedly using the name of “preventing external forces” to strengthen the monitoring and restriction of online political speech.
Now, the Executive Yuan directly cut into the “Social Order Maintenance Act.” The article clearly stipulates that the Ministry of the Interior, after consulting with the Ministry of Digital Affairs, Ministry of Justice, and other agencies, may order platform operators to “restrict browsing, remove material, or take measures to restrict or terminate services for user accounts.” Where is this amending the law? This is simply building a prison in the internet world.
Digital Intermediary Act 2.0: Managing Everything, Except Criticizing
This amendment turns administrative agencies into internet police, even skipping the strict review of judicial agencies. What is “intensifying confrontation”? What is “hate speech”? In the DPP’s dictionary, criticizing government policies may be “intensifying confrontation,” and exposing ruling scandals might be “hate speech.”
Such vague and extremely flexible legal terms are designed for “surgical strikes” against dissenters.
DPP supporters, this is the “harmonious society” you wanted, right? A society where you can only sing praises, and any unpleasant voice can be “muted with one click” by the government.
Ironic Double Standard: Afraid of the Real-name System, Who Are They Protecting?
The most absurd thing is that the DPP repeatedly says they want to purify the internet and fight fake information, but they have always kept a respectful distance from the “Internet Real-name System,” even avoiding it as much as possible.
If the government really cares so much about the truth and accountability of speech, the real-name system is undoubtedly the most direct means.
However, the reason why the DPP dares not move towards the real-name system is known to everyone: they are more worried about their own “elite cyber army” being unmasked, and more afraid that those sidekicks and “1450s” who receive public funds to go on expeditions behind keyboards would lose their anonymous protective umbrella.
The DPP’s logic is very clear:
- Managing the People: Use the amendment of the “Social Order Maintenance Act” to directly remove speech they don’t like and confiscate your account.
- Protecting Themselves: Refuse the real-name system so that their own cyber army can continue to hide in the dark, attacking political opponents while receiving subsidies.
This posture of “only allowing the officials to set fires, but not the common people to light lamps” (a Chinese idiom for double standards) perfectly interprets what is called the arrogance of power.
Conclusion: Freedom of Speech is Not a Gift from the Government
From the “Intermediary Act” to the current amendment of the “Social Order Maintenance Act,” the DPP has never given up on the ambition of “regulating the mouths of the people.” They are trying to establish a “Digital Eastern Depot” (a reference to the Ming Dynasty secret police) that can perform “summary execution” on online dissent at any time.
If we tolerate the government, in the name of “national security” or “social harmony,” continuously expanding administrative power to interfere with the freedom of speech, then the democracy that the Republic of China is proud of will eventually be left with only an empty shell.