Joint Statement | "After the Wave of Reporting Risu Sexually Private Image Groups..." — Joint Statement by Civil Society Organizations on the First-Instance Verdict of the Risu Defamation Lawsuit

In May 2023, the incident involving the leakage of sexually private images within the Risu Facebook groups broke out. The Taiwan Women's Link took the lead in disclosing and warning the public, launching a boycott movement and urging all sectors to take the severe harm caused by the leakage of sexually private images seriously. Citizens responded to the boycott movement and actively reported Risu-related groups. However, some individuals faced judicial prosecution for actively participating in the movement against digital sexual violence and posting comments on social media condemning the leakage of sexually private images.

Wang Ying-ta, the defendant in this case, discovered while reporting Risu groups that some of the groups were managed by "Bao-series administrators." He posted comments on his personal Facebook account regarding the connection between "Bao-Liao Commune" and the Risu sexually private image groups. Unexpectedly, he was subjected to criminal and civil lawsuits filed by "Bao-Liao Commune Co., Ltd." Among them, the criminal case involving the charge of defamation was just decided today (the 27th): Wang Ying-ta was found guilty of aggravated defamation and sentenced to 50 days of detention, commutable to a fine. The Judicial Reform Foundation and the Taiwan Women's Link issue the following joint statement regarding the Risu defamation lawsuit:

1. Wang Ying-ta's motive in this case was out of the public interest, expressing speech on matters of public concern, and the right to reputation should have reasonably yielded

According to Article 310 of the Criminal Code concerning defamation, paragraph 3 stipulates that "defamation shall not be punished if it can be proven to be true." In accordance with Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 509 and Constitutional Court Judgment No. 8 of 2023, when examining whether the actor met the requirement of reasonable verification under this criterion, full consideration should be given to the constitutional intent of protecting the right to reputation and freedom of speech, and an appropriate balancing of interests should be conducted based on the circumstances of the individual case.

Wang Ying-ta's commentary on social media, expressing suspicion that Bao-Liao Commune might be involved in the dissemination network of sexually private images, is nothing less than a lone citizen holding a well-known internet community with high exposure, influence, and voice accountable. It constitutes speech that makes a high contribution to public discourse. Furthermore, as this case involves the issue of digital sexual violence, given the technological characteristics of such harm spreading rapidly over the internet, Wang Ying-ta had an urgent need to prompt public vigilance and demand that Bao-Liao Commune respond regarding the matter of the "Bao-series administrators." In this regard, during the litigation process, Wang Ying-ta exerted utmost effort to argue before the court the motive behind his speech and asserted that the right to reputation should yield in this case. Civil society organizations feel regret that the court still ruled against him.

2. Strategic lawsuits against public participation lead to a chilling effect

The criminal judgment in this case disproportionately focused on the "actor's verification activities," failing to weigh the public interest nature of the actor's expression, the power asymmetry between the two parties in the arena of speech, and the potential "anti-public participation" effect that a guilty verdict in this case might cause.

In other words, the lawsuit for defamation and civil damages filed against Wang Ying-ta by Bao-Liao Commune Co., Ltd.—a company with a capital of 42 million NTD—is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" (SLAPP). Commonly used as a tactic by governments, the wealthy, and corporations to intimidate journalists, non-governmental organizations, and ordinary citizens, its purpose lies not in the remedial outcome of the judiciary, but in judicial harassment against critics; by initiating litigation, it makes citizens apprehensive and silenced, retreating from participating in discussions on public affairs and creating a chilling effect. Herein, we call upon judicial personnel to cautiously confront "strategic lawsuits against public participation" to avoid impairing the rights of ordinary people to participate in discussions on public affairs.

In summary, we call upon the judicial system to view the public interest value of an actor's expression more fairly, allowing the right to reputation to reasonably yield to a certain extent, and to carefully consider the chilling effect that "strategic lawsuits against public participation" may have on citizens' whistleblowing and warning actions. After discussing with the defendant, we will decide whether to appeal. At the sameJudgment time, we also urge all sectors to continue following the outcome of the civil trial in this case and to safeguard the spontaneity and resilience of civil society together.

Issuing Organizations

Judicial Reform Foundation
Taiwan Women's Link

Press Contact

Legislative Assistant Researcher Lin Cheng-ching kacan@jrf.org.tw