Annotation3 - Proper Law Procedure is the Only Way to Strike the Balance Between the Freedom of Speech and Moral Denouncement

[Annotation 3]    

   We all know that in the contemporary society, the freedom of speech should not be deprived. That is to say, if the right of speaking and writing freely has to be protected, why the arguments as well as the opinions that stand in the minority should  be forced to be human flesh searched? If the speech or perspective is improper or offending, why not deliver the person to the proper law treatment? 

    I found an article that explains the confusion of law on '' Law Taiwan.com(台灣法律網)'' It points out that '' In order to maintain human dignity and the free development of respect for human, freedom and democracy are core values of the constitutional order. Privacy rights enumerated in the Constitution, though not explicitly, but based on human dignity and integrity of the maintenance of individual subjectivity and personality development, and for the protection of personal life private areas from harassment of others and self-control of personal information, privacy is considered to be the basic rights not cannot be lack of. The problem is that human rights of privacy often has conflicts with human flesh search. In addition to the fact that human flesh search invades people's privacy, the long-term harm that has brought to them may not balance with the degree of punishment, violating the principle of ''crime and punishment balance (罪刑相當原則) '', but may also be in violation of "presumption of innocence (無罪推定原則)" and "due process (正當法律程序)" and cause "rehabilitated (更生)" obstacles, so it should be properly regulated and give relief to the victims of the pipe (Civil Code Section 195, Penal Code section 310, etc.); but even the victims petition of relief, it is also time-consuming and money is significant, also the profit of winning the petition is often less than the original plan in mind, so relief is the last of the petition means.'' 

    I also read an article online that is written by professor Hsheh who majors in law, he makes notes that John Mill, the famous political economist said, freedom of speech allows people the chance to get the truth. His reason, is nothing more than a variety of views can be fully discussed in the world of freedom of speech, the truth is out. You can easily see that this idea is not only presupposes the willingness and ability of people to have a rational discussion, more fundamental , is the need for the majority of people have freedom of speech, only you have, or just you and your companions, little effect. The professor Hsheh also points out that we should not prohibit hate speech, because it was not the best response to the person holding the mentality of hatred.

    That is, the different should not be banned as well as be searched out even if most people cannot accept what he or she said. If it involves law and country safety issue, why not deliver it to the accurate law procedure.


[Sources]
http://phiphicake.blogspot.tw/2013/04/blog-post_17.html

http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area=free_browse&parent_path=,1,4,&job_id=101996&article_category_id=2235&article_id=101996