Editing Defamation (section)

===Taiwan===
====Civil====
According to the Civil Code of the [[Republic of China]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 |title=Civil Code (of the Republic of China) |website=Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) |access-date=19 August 2023}}</ref>

"Part I General Principles", "Chapter II Persons", "Section I Natural Persons":
* Personality (and name) infringement; prevention, removal, damages for [[intentional infliction of emotional distress|emotional distress]] (Arts. 18, 19)

"Part II Obligations", "Chapter I General Provisions"

"Section 1{{snd}}Sources of Obligations", "Sub-section 5 Torts":
* General: Compensation for damaging the rights of another (Art. 184)
* Damage to reputation, credit, privacy, chastity, personality (Art. 195)
** Compensation even if loss is not purely pecuniary
** Measures to restore reputation
* [[Statute of limitations]]: Two years after injury and tortfeasor known, otherwise ten years from the act (Art. 197)

"Section 3{{snd}}Effects Of Obligations", "Sub-section 1 Performance":
* Injury to personality of creditor, by debtor's non-performance; compensation (Art. 227-1)

====Criminal====
The Criminal Code of the [[Republic of China]] ([[:zh:中華民國刑法|中華民國刑法]]),<ref name="Taiwan Penal Code">{{cite web |url=https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001 |title=Criminal Code of the Republic of China |website=Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref> under "Chapter 27 Offenses Against Reputation and Credit", lists these articles: 
* Insults (Art. 309)
* Slander and libel as distinct offences, with harsher punishment for libel; truth as a defence{{snd}}except for private matters (Art. 310)
* Defences related to protection of legal interests, reports on public matters, and fair comments (Art. 311)
* Insult and defamation of the deceased (Art. 312)
* Damage to credibility, with increased penalties when done via the media or the Internet (Art. 313)
* Offences only prosecuted upon [[complaint]] (Art. 314)
Other related articles:
* Increased punishment for injuring the reputation of heads and representatives of friendly states (Art. 116)
* Insults against foreign states, by dishonouring flags or emblems (Art. 118)
* Insults against public officials (Art. 140)
* Insults against public officials, combined with physical damage to proclamations (Art. 141)
* Insult against the state, by dishonouring the flag, emblem, or portraits of its [[Dr. Sun Yat-sen|founder]] (Art. 160)
* Insulting religious or memorial sites (Art. 246)
* Insulting the remains of deceased persons (Art. 247)
* Insulting the remains of deceased persons, in combination with gravedigging (Art. 249)
* Threat to injure the reputation of another, if it endangered their safety (Art. 305)

In July 2000, the Justices of the [[Judicial Yuan]] ([[:zh:司法院大法官|司法院大法官]]){{snd}}the Constitutional Court of Taiwan{{snd}} delivered the ''J.Y. Interpretation No. 509'' ("The Defamation Case"). They upheld the constitutionality of Art. 310 of the Criminal Code. In the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/94 |title=Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Main text) |website=Office of the President, ROC (Taiwan) |access-date=5 August 2023}}</ref> Article 11 establishes freedom of speech. Article 23 allows restrictions to freedoms and rights, to prevent infringing on the freedoms and rights of others. The court found that Art. 310 ¶¶ 1-2 were necessary and [[proportionality (law)|proportional]] to protect reputation, privacy, and the public interest. It seemed to extend the defence of truth in ¶ 3, to providing evidence that a perpetrator had reasonable grounds in believing the allegations were true (even if they could not ultimately be proven). Regarding criminal punishments versus civil remedies, it noted that if the law allowed anyone to avoid a penalty for defamation by offering monetary compensation, it would be tantamount to issuing them a licence to defame.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310690 |title=No. 509 ("The Defamation Case") |website=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref>

In January 2022, an editorial in the ''[[Taipei Times]]'' (written by a law student from the [[National Chengchi University]]) argued against Articles 309 and 310. Its position was abolishing prison sentences in practice, on the way to full decriminalization. It argued that insulting language should be tackled via [[education]], and not in the courts (with the exception of [[wikt:hate speech|hate speech]]). According to the article, 180 [[prosecutor]]s urged the [[Legislative Yuan]] to decriminalize defamation, or at least limit it to [[private prosecution]]s (in order to reserve public resources for major crimes, rather than private disputes and quarrels irrelevant to the public interest).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076 |title=Taiwan needs to decriminalize libel |author=Huang Yu-zhe |date=26 January 2022 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref>

In June 2023, the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment ''Case on the Criminalization of Defamation II''. The court dismissed all the complaints and upheld the constitutionality of the disputed provisions. It emphasized that excluding the application of substantial truth doctrine on defamatory speeches concerning private matters with no public concern, is proportionate in protecting the victim's reputation and privacy. The court reaffirmed ''J.Y. Interpretation No. 509'' and further supplemented its decision. It elaborated on the offender's duty to check the validity of the defamatory statements regarding public matters, and dictated that the offender shall not be punished if there are objective and reasonable grounds for the offender to believe the defamatory statement is true. The court ruled that untrue defamatory statements concerning public matters shall not be punished unless they are issued under actual malice. This includes situations where the offender knowingly or under gross negligence issued said defamatory statement. In terms of the burden of proof for actual malice, the court ruled that it shall be on the prosecutor or the accuser. To prevent fake news from eroding the marketplace of ideas, the court pointed out that the media (including mass media, social media, and self-media) shall be more thorough than the general public in fact-checking.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=2176&id=349342 |title=Case News on TCC Judgment 112 Hsien-Pan-8 (2023) |website=Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) |access-date=4 August 2023}}</ref>