Abstract
In the age of digitalization and globalization, the issue of how ‘fake news’ affects democracy has attracted attention. Some governments have begun to regulate disinformation, but the tension between these measures and freedom of speech, which is the cornerstone of a democratic society, raises concerns. This chapter aims to show that the approach of militant democracy helps analyse the dilemma of disinformation regulation. In this perspective, I use Taiwan, a democracy that is facing the challenge of the ‘China Factor’, as a case study to understand the development and issues of disinformation regulation. This study aims to use the example of Taiwan to illustrate the lessons that militant democracy can impart to democracies dealing with disinformation.
The theory of militant democracy is based on Weimar Germany’s experience of ineffectually trying to fight an antidemocratic enemy. Some democratic governments adopted this militant attitude in their legal system, as shown by the German Basic Law. On the grounds of the defence of democracy, some freedoms were restricted. However, the development of militant democracy also emphasizes that the design of these legal tools must be humble, and the identification of the ‘enemy’, as well as the judicial review mechanism, must be prudent. In this chapter, I propose that, if a threat to democracy caused by disinformation is identified, the theory of militant democracy can provide some guidance on how the government should deal with disinformation.
By introducing the background of Taiwan’s democratic development, I aim to suggest that we should resort to the perspective of militant democracy in the discussion of Taiwan’s disinformation issue. Then, the chapter goes on to outline the government’s strategy. In addition to the overall strategy, several provisions of specific laws are introduced. However, this study also points out controversies concerning these regulative measures, including the basis of intervention, reviewers, review standards, and possible impacts from the perspective of the democratization process of Taiwan. It then reviews the regulatory struggle from the perspective of militant democracy and makes suggestions regarding legal certainty as well as the scope and means of disinformation regulation in Taiwan.
In this study, I argue that, from the perspective of militant democracy, it may be feasible—but dangerous—to use democratic methods to regulate speech and protect democracy. Governments must use legal tools cautiously, remembering that these regulations are restrictions on freedom of speech which, in addition, can be combined with soft measures—such as encouraging civil fact-checking mechanisms and promoting related education and training—to assist the positive development of the speech market. Disinformation is currently a serious threat to various democracies, and the case of Taiwan should be of value in this discussion.