｜ III. Lifting the Final Restrictions on Freedom of Speech: The Historical Significance of the Amendment to Article 100 of the Criminal Code Freedom of speech is one of the basic human rights of a democratic country. It is both the symbol and the cornerstone of democracy. Some countries claim to implement democracy because the people are superficially allowed to elect public officials, but they in fact do not have true democracy because there is no freedom of speech. An election without freedom of speech is just a exercise in voting, an empty shell of an election without actual democracy. From this, it is clear that freedom of speech is the true indicator of whether a country has an authentic and solid democracy. Freedom of speech is also the foundation of other political rights and other basic human rights, because it can promote the development of other human rights and consolidate them. For example, in countries with “limited democracy”, as soon as the people have freedom of speech, they can advocate the value of free association and assembly, thereby expanding these freedoms and rights. The development of Taiwan’s democracy is a clear example of this. Before martial law was lifted, the people slowly expanded their limited freedom of speech, thereby gradually pushing for other rights and freedoms until democratization became an unstoppable force. The democratization of the Taiwanese media can be divided into three stages: closed, transitional, and open. The transitional stage lasted roughly from the 138 mid-to-late 1970s to the early 1990s. It was a time when Taiwanese political forces broke through restraints and local social movements blossomed. Representative events that occurred during this time period include the Zhongli incident in 1977, the Kaohsiung incident in 1979, the formation of the DPP on September 28, 1986, the self-immolation of Cheng Nan-jung on April 7, 1989, the Wild Lily student movement in March 1990, and the Taiwan Independence Association incident on May 9, 1991. The once closed-off mainstream media were forced to reckon with the massive social changes taking place or be left behind. Although martial law was lifted in July 1987, it was merely a symbolic moment of democratization. Not all democratic mechanisms were in place yet, and conservative and progressive ideologies continued to lock horns. This is best illustrated by fact that mechanisms put in place to “suppress communist rebellion” remained in place. The Temporary Provisions Against the Communist Rebellion enacted in 1948 were not abolished along with the lifting of martial law in 1987. It wasn’t until May 1, 1991 that this undemocratic mechanism was officially abolished by the National Assembly. However, laws like the Civil Associations Act, National Security Act, and Assembly and Parade Act have been passed successively since 1992. These laws also limit the people’s fundamental rights, simply omitting Hu Yuan-hui Chapter 4 ｜ Law Amendments: No More Political Prisoners Professor at the Department of Communication, National Chung Cheng University Chairman of the Taiwan FactCheck Center the words “suppression of communist rebellion”. In this regard, one could say that the 100 Action Alliance established on September 21, 1991 was the key movement propelling Taiwan to true freedom of speech. The amendment of Article 100 of the Criminal Law in 1992 was the starting point for Taiwanese media to truly open up. The transformation of Taiwan’s media ecosystem took about 15 years. Around the time martial law was lifted, I was working at Independence Post, where I can recall two examples that illustrate this type of media transformation. On December 10, 1988, the year after martial law was lifted, Cheng Nan-jung published the Draft Proposal for the Constitution of the Republic of Taiwan written by Koh Se-kai, chairman of the Taiwan Jianguo Union, on his publication Freedom Era. This led to a series of bans and legal actions from the governing authority. On April 7, 1989, Cheng Nan-jung embodied his cause through self-immolation. On the next day, Independence Morning Post published the same Draft Proposal for the Constitution of the Republic of Taiwan. I remember how tense and cautious the paper was about this decision, showing that there were still a lot of taboos when it came to speech. Before this incident, on January 13, 1988, Chiang Ching-kuo, who announced the lifting of the martial law, passed away. Although it had been six months since the martial law was lifted, mainstream media remained oddly silent about the power struggle that occurred after the death of the last strongman of Taiwan’s era of authoritarian rule, as if nothing had happened. The piece I authored for Independence Post addressing Chiang Ching-kuo from an objective viewpoint was also slammed by many readers and media outlets, making it apparent that the media ecosystem did not possess the freedom of speech of a democratic country. The democratization of Taiwan occurred under extraordinary historical circumstances. It was a process propelled by civil and political forces in a dance of conflict and collaboration. Or more accurately, it was a complex process driven by civil forces with the help of political forces. For those in power, especially in an authoritarian regime, to recognize public opinions might be a key factor in bloodless reform, but the fundamental driving force behind democratization is still the people’s demands and desire for democracy. Democracy has blossomed in Taiwan, “a river roaring in front of the village”. Looking back on this democratization progress hailed as a “silent revolution”, there is no question that the peaceful protests of the 100 Action Alliance and the amendment to Article 100 of the Criminal Code were a crucial part of Taiwan’s fight for freedom of speech and propelled the “last mile” for democratization in Taiwan. 139