｜ extends to all forms of propaganda threatening or resulting in an act of aggression or breach of the peace contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, while Paragraph 2 is directed against any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether such propaganda or advocacy has aims which are internal or external to the State concerned. The provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, do not prohibit advocacy of the sovereign right of selfdefence or the right of peoples to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. For article 20 to become fully effective there ought to be a law making it clear that propaganda and advocacy as described therein are contrary to public policy and providing for an appropriate sanction in case of violation. The Committee, therefore, believes that States parties which have not yet done so should take the measures necessary to fulfill the obligations contained in Article 20, and should themselves refrain from any such propaganda or advocacy.” The spread of discrimination and hate speech will not only harm the dignity of specific individuals and groups, but also threaten and erode the foundation of diversity and equality in society. Therefore, so far, the first provision (that any propaganda advocating war should be prohibited by law) has received far less attention and promotion than the second provision. Undeniably, even advanced democratic countries in the West have not been able to eradicate prejudice, discrimination, and hatred through human rights education. The United Nations has long been aware of this, which is why the first international human rights covenant passed after the Universal Declaration of 154 Human Rights was not the two covenants but the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination passed in 1965. For example, freedom of speech is the core value of the US Constitution. However, due to the immigration structure and the enslavement of black people in the past, the US judicial system almost always stands on the side of anti-discrimination when “protection of free speech” conflicts with “protection against discrimination through speech”, and all forms of racial discrimination are strictly condemned. However, frequent legal disputes also show that racial discrimination has not been eradicated and more human rights education needs to be done. Compared with the past century, discrimination based on gender, age, and class status, shaped by traditional feudal societies, has mostly improved and continues to improve due to constitutional democracy, universal education, and economic development. There are still severe problems of discrimination in North America and Europe, mainly in terms of race and religion. For example, there are still potential Nazi sympathizers in Germany, the KKK in the US, and the Western Guard Party in Canada. Taiwan is a country with an immigrant structure. Over the years, political, economic, social, and other historical factors have inevitably caused problems of discrimination even though, objectively speaking, the problem is not as serious in Taiwan as in North America and Europe Currently, in Taiwan, Paragraph 1, Article 62 of the Immigration Act specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, skin color, class, and place of birth, among other factors. However, this provision is mainly aimed at law enforcement in immigration affairs, not ordinary citizens. Chapter 5 ｜ Continual Improvement: Keeping Up with International Trends III. New Challenges to Freedom of Speech: The Proliferation, Harm and Countermeasures of Disinformation Hu Yuan-hui Professor at the Department of Communication, National Chung Cheng University Chairman of the Taiwan FactCheck Center Author Hu Yuan-hui photographed during his interview. Photographer: Huang Yen-wen Disinformation and the Death of a Taiwanese Diplomat Back when freedom of speech was stifled, many people raised their voices despite the risk of imprisonment, even sacrificing their lives to expand space for free speech. Paradoxically, in this day and age when freedom of speech is no longer restricted, this freedom hardwon with the blood and sweat of many activists, has become a shield for disinformation to run amok. Disinformation has become a serious challenge to contemporary democracy. Taiwan, whose democratic system has only been in place for a relatively short period of time, might even see a regression of democracy because of it, so it must be addressed with caution. Disinformation is not a new problem, but the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the dramatic 2016 US elections shined a light on contemporary disinformation problems. The processes of these two events that greatly concerned the future of their respective countries alerted democratic nations to the major differences between contemporary disinformation and traditional disinfor- 155