Turn on a Japanese news channel during a major criminal case, and viewers will often see a suspect escorted into a police vehicle in real time — no blurring, no pseudonym. The suspect's full name, age, occupation, and even photographs from school yearbooks are routinely broadcast to a national audience.
In Taiwan, the scene is strikingly different. Suspects appear on screen wearing helmets and face masks, their faces digitally blurred, their names replaced by generic identifiers such as "a man surnamed Chen" or "Woman A."
Many Taiwanese find this contrast puzzling: both countries are liberal democracies governed by the rule of law — so why can Japanese media identify suspects openly while Taiwanese outlets cannot? Does Taiwan's legal framework effectively extend greater protection to the accused than to the public? The answer lies not in a simple legal quirk, but in divergent historical experiences, institutional choices, and the ongoing tension between the presumption of innocence and the public's right to know.
（Related：
Japan Weighs Legal Options for SDF Deployment to Strait of Hormuz Amid US Pressure
｜
Latest
）
Japan's Real-Name Principle — and the Culture of Social Sanction
In Japan, media coverage of criminal cases broadly follows the principle ofjitsumei hōdō (実名報道), or real-name reporting. This is not a statutory mandate but rather a long-established consensus between police disclosure practices and journalistic self-regulation.
The Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association has articulated the rationale clearly: crime constitutes a serious breach of social order, and media carry a responsibility to convey the full truth — including the identity of alleged perpetrators — to the public. Whether to publish a suspect's name or photograph is ultimately left to each outlet's internal editorial standards, informed by how police choose to release information.
That editorial discretion, the Association notes, must weigh competing obligations: the public's right to know against the risk of harm to individuals who may later prove innocent — a tension the industry has never fully resolved.
Real-name reporting reflects multiple competing considerations: satisfying the public's right to information as a form of crime prevention, while simultaneously using public exposure as a check against secret arrests and potential abuse of authority. At a deeper cultural level, analysts argue, the practice also mirrors Japan's pronounced tradition of shakai-teki seisai — social sanction — in which public shaming functions as a parallel instrument of accountability alongside the formal legal system.
The Double-Edged Sword of Irreversible Social Death
The full force of this exposure was on display during the 2019 Kyoto Animation arson attack. Suspect Shinji Aoba was apprehended at the scene with severe burns. Even before any judicial proceeding, the majority of national media published his name and photograph shortly after police released his identity, and quickly surfaced prior criminal records and school-era photos — a standard operational response premised on satisfying public accountability and the right to know.
Yet this same logic has produced irreversible tragedy. The 1994Matsumoto sarin attack (松本サリン事件) stands as one of the most painful lessons in Japanese press history.
Kazuyuki Kono, the first person to report the incident to police, was mistakenly identified as the prime suspect. Media saturated coverage with his real name and face, framing him consistently as the likely perpetrator. He faced nationwide condemnation and lost his livelihood — effectively experiencing social death — before the truth emerged the following year, when Aum Shinrikyo was identified as responsible.
Taiwan's Path: From Media Trials to Rights Protection
Taiwan has moved in the opposite direction, establishing strict protections for suspect privacy — a shift that was neither sudden nor ideologically driven, but rather the product of hard-won judicial reform following a series of cases in which media coverage effectively condemned individuals before any verdict was reached.
The pivotal moment in Taiwan's turn toward strict regulation is widely traced to the 2013 Bali double homicide (八里雙屍案、媽媽嘴命案), also known as the Mama's Café murder case. Investigative information was leaked — whether deliberately or negligently — to media outlets, leading television commentators and news channels to extensively identify café owner Lu Bing-hong (呂炳宏) as an alleged accomplice.
Lu was ultimately acquitted, but his reputation and business had been devastated. Cases of this nature galvanized Taiwan's civil society and judicial reform advocates to demand meaningful enforcement of both the presumption of innocence and investigative confidentiality.
Under current frameworks, prosecutors and police who arbitrarily disclose suspects' personal information face formal disciplinary exposure. Combined with oversight by the National Communications Commission (NCC) and the constraints of the Personal Data Protection Act, pixelation and pseudonymization have become standard editorial practice — a pragmatic defense against substantial fines and defamation liability. However, the Control Yuan has repeatedly noted in investigation reports that investigative confidentiality is frequently violated in practice, and that enforcement falls considerably short of what the statutory language would suggest.
When Legal Shields Become a Public Flashpoint
Japan's system satisfies an immediate public demand for accountability but risks convicting the innocent in the court of opinion. Taiwan's system protects individuals from potential wrongful reputational destruction but frequently ignites public anger.
When institutional protections are perceived as tilted too far toward shielding alleged perpetrators, they can generate a distinct form of social anxiety. The 2023 New Taipei junior high school stabbing case illustrated this tension acutely. Because the suspect was a minor, Taiwan's legal framework strictly prohibits the public disclosure of any identifying information.
This generated intense public frustration, with many citizens openly questioning why the law appeared to prioritize the protection of an alleged perpetrator over victims and public safety.
The backlash ultimately prompted private citizens to crowdfund the display of the juvenile suspect's image on an electronic billboard in New York's Times Square — an attempt to exploit extraterritorial jurisdiction to circumvent Taiwan's domestic legal restrictions.
Beyond the immediate controversy, this episode raised unresolved legal questions about whether publishing such images abroad genuinely insulates individuals from liability under Taiwanese law, and it illustrated how institutional protections, when they fail to command public legitimacy, can fuel vigilante impulses that operate outside — and in deliberate defiance of — the formal legal order.
Two Societies, Two Value Hierarchies
Why can Japan do what Taiwan does not? The answer is not that one system is superior to the other — it is that two societies have arrived at different value hierarchies.
Japan has prioritized public accountability and social order, willing to accept the destruction of innocent reputations as the cost of collective deterrence. Taiwan, having lived through authoritarianism and a period of severe media excess, has chosen to anchor itself in the presumption of innocence — accepting public frustration as preferable to wrongful convictions shaped by media pressure.
Neither equilibrium is stable, and both remain contested within their own societies. The pixelated face on a Taiwanese broadcast and the exposed photograph on a Japanese news ticker are not merely editorial choices — they are, legal scholars and media ethics researchers note, windows into the deeper moral architecture each society has constructed around crime, justice, and the limits of public knowledge.
You've read it. Now let's talk. Follow us on X. Editor: Penny Wang
