｜ June 16, 2019: Taiwan student groups hope to use Taiwan's freedom of speech to support Hong Kong's fight for freedom. Photographer: Huang Yen-wen emphasize that in seeking to exercise one’s right to freedom of speech, one must clearly recognize that with these rights come the obligation to not infringe upon the human rights of others. One also has the responsibility to protect national security and to maintain public order, health, or morals. In order to enhance participants’ understanding of article 19 of the covenant, the United Nations Human Rights Committee pointed out in General Comment No. 34 issued in 2011 that exercising the right to freedom of speech comes with special obligations and responsibilities. Therefore, contracting parties are allowed to impose restrictions on this right in two aspects based on the aforementioned human rights of others. The two justifiable aspects for imposing re- 152 strictions include national security and social order. General Comment No. 34 also emphasizes that, when a participant imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself. Also, the relation between right and restriction and between norm and exception must not be reversed. Article 19(3) lays down specific conditions and it is only subject to these conditions that restrictions may be imposed: the restrictions must be “provided by law”. Restrictions must also conform to the strict thresholds of necessity and proportionality. In practice, it is impossible to list positively which types of speech should be protected. However, if obligations and responsibilities are to be imposed, the scope of these obligations and responsibilities must Chapter 5 be strictly limited, so a negative list of criteria must be adopted. In other words, “does it harm the rights or reputation of others?” And “does it damage national security and public interest (order, health, or morals)?” In other words, under the premise of safeguarding freedom of speech, if the responsibilities for speech are to be imposed, there must be strict checks of necessity, rationality, and proportionality. For example, pornographic publications are protected under article 19, but it is also an objective fact that they are likely to have adverse effects on children’s physical and mental development. Therefore, under the justification of “public health or morals” stipulated by item 2, paragraph 3, governments are permitted to pass laws requiring pornographic publications to be rated, limiting where they are sold or whom they are sold to based on their rating. Another example is press freedom. Press freedom began as a way to defend the right to speak and reveal the truth, and to fight against state powers that may oppress human rights. Therefore, press freedom does not protect the right to spread lies for the government, nor the right to spread “fake news” and “fake messages” that infringe upon other people’s human rights (dignity, reputation, or privacy). Conversely, if lies, slander, insult, fraud, intimidation, and invasion of others’ privacy can be exempt from accountability for human rights violations in the name of free speech, it would not only be a human rights violation in the name of human rights, but also a violation of the original intention and meaning behind the fight for freedom of speech. In North American and European countries with long histories of constitutional democracy, there have already been lots of precedents and theories regarding this conflict. The most frequently cited theories are “obvious malice” and “knowledge that information is false and untrue, or not fact-checking despite knowing that is easy to do so”, resulting in speech that damages others’ reputation and interests; or public safety and ｜ Continual Improvement: Keeping Up with International Trends order, causing objectively clear harm or social disorder. To put it simply, the determination of whether one’s speech should bear legal responsibility is based on three major criteria, namely “malice, falsehood, and harm”, and all three criteria must be present. That is, although lies are not protected under freedom of speech, if the lie is said without malice and caused no objective or substantial harm to any individual, it should not constitute a legal liability. Additionally, although media criticism of political parties or politicians, as well as intense verbal exchanges between parties or politicians, might be objectively based on clear “malice”, and often causes “harm” to the other party’s reputation, they are, strictly speaking, unavoidable normalities in democratic politics. Therefore, whether there is “falsehood” should be the key determining factor in whether someone should bear legal responsibility for their speech. In other words, because political parties and politicians hold political power, they must accept proportional supervision and criticism. This is an important cornerstone of democratic politics. Therefore, political parties cannot refuse supervision or criticism on the basis of “respecting others’ rights or reputation”. However, no one, regardless of their status, should lose their due human rights (dignity and reputation). Therefore, no matter how much critics cite democratic politics or how political parties and politicians should be “open to public criticism”, their accusations and criticisms should be based on “fact”. In particular, because the media, political parties, and political figures have a louder voice in society, they should assume proportional responsibilities and obligations. Prohibition of the Abuse of Freedom of Speech In 1983, the UN Human Rights Committee issued General Comment No. 11 regarding article 20, pointing out that, “The prohibition under paragraph 1 153