Myth-Making Is Not a Crime—And Taiwan’s Courts Know It

Two recent court rulings rejecting penalties against online critics have drawn a clear line on how far Taiwan's government can go in policing speech. At issue were posts mocking claims surrounding Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴 )'s appearance at a Europe-based political gathering—cases that courts concluded posed no genuine threat to public order.

In November, a local court dismissed charges against a netizen who sarcastically referenced a supposed “French BBC report” claiming Taiwan had paid €8 billion for a 20-minute speech. Another court similarly refused to punish a user who wrote: “I rented the venue, I sponsored the meeting, the reputation goes to me, and the people pay the bill.” Judges in both cases found that the posts did not meet the legal threshold for rumor-mongering under the Social Order Maintenance Act.

The rulings arrive at a politically sensitive moment. Under President Lai Ching-te (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has continued expanding the scope of the Social Order Maintenance Act—an approach already widely used during the administration of former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Proposed amendments would further tighten controls over hate speech, national-security-related content, and online discourse, potentially allowing authorities to remove content without prior court approval. The courts decisions now expose the laws constitutional limits.

The controversy centers on Hsiaos November appearance at the annual meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), held at European Parliament premises. Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs framed the event as a “major diplomatic breakthrough,” describing it as the first time a sitting vice president had spoken at the European Parliament.

That narrative was contested. Hsiao addressed IPAC members—an international NGO—rather than the European Parliament itself, and the event took place in a rented conference room. Previous vice presidents, including Lien Chan (連戰), Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), and Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁), have all traveled to Europe in official capacities. Critics argued that the ministry overstated the significance of the occasion, prompting online satire rather than deliberate disinformation.

Unlike earlier Social Order Maintenance Act cases—such as the prosecution of National Taiwan University professor Su Hong-da (蘇宏達) over commentary clearly grounded in published reporting—these cases involved sarcasm aimed at official self-promotion. Courts were unconvinced that such speech warranted criminal punishment.

One case involved a post citing a fictional “French BBC report” alleging an €8 billion payment. The claim was plainly false: France has no BBC, and €8 billion—roughly NT$300 billion—far exceeds Taiwans entire annual foreign ministry budget. The Taiwan Democracy Foundation, referenced by critics as a potential donor to IPAC, operates on an annual budget of roughly NT$250 million.

Judges concluded that the exaggeration was so extreme that any reasonable reader could identify it as false or satirical. Even if some readers took the claim seriously, the court noted, the likely result would be public scrutiny of government spending—not panic or disruption to social order. In short, the post failed to produce any real rumor-mongering effect.

Prosecutors appealed the rulings, invoking threats to national leaders, democratic institutions, and national security, and warning of “hostile foreign forces.” But judges emphasized that speech disconnected from public safety or major livelihood concerns—and whose falsity is readily apparent—does not meet the standard for punishment under the Social Order Maintenance Act.

Ironically, the rulings suggest that without the governments own high-profile complaints and prosecutions, the posts in question would likely have gone largely unnoticed. Official promotion of the event generated far greater public attention than the original remarks. （Related： A Hollowed-Out PLA Is Not Safer for Taiwan ｜ Latest ）

Taiwan's diplomatic constraints are real, and public diplomacy inevitably involves presenting achievements in a favorable light. But courts have now signaled that myth-making cannot be enforced through criminal law. Exaggeration—even when motivated by diplomatic anxiety—invites backlash, while aggressive regulation of speech risks eroding democratic credibility.

The lesson extends beyond Hsiao's IPAC appearance. Whether in overseas engagements or recent Taiwan–U.S. negotiations, acknowledging limitations while clearly explaining progress earns more public trust than inflating accomplishments—and is far safer than attempting to police satire after the fact.