Chen Shifen, a scholar in the United States.

(file photo)

[Reporter Qian Lizhong/Taipei Report] Chen Shifen, a professor living in the United States, was accused of using the pseudonym "Weng Darui" to comment on Facebook, successively referring to Yu Zhenghuang, investigator of the Hsinchu City Investigation Station, Gao Hongan, a legislator of the People's Party who is running for the mayor of Hsinchu City, and Kaohsiung Mayor of the KMT. The candidate Ke Zhien’s thesis involved plagiarism or academic dishonesty, so Chen was sued by three parties including Yu, Gao and the Kuomintang, who reported on Ke’s behalf, for defaming his reputation; for the part of Gao Hong’an and Yu Zhenghuang’s complaint, the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office believes that Chen Shifen’s remarks can be judged by the public , He will not prosecute today.

After investigation, the prosecution determined that Chen Shifen published comments after collecting relevant academic papers and comparing the obtained materials, which had considerable evidence and intended to appeal to voters for public evaluation. Elements of the Personnel Election and Recall Act intended to make a person unelected.

As for Chen's comment on Ke Zhien's thesis, the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate has also recently ordered Chen not to prosecute, because no one was informed about the case, so it is no longer a decision.

Chen Shifen recently issued a statement through his lawyer Hong Shijie, mentioning that "due to work, I have lived in North America for more than 30 years. Based on my concern for my hometown Taiwan, I have published articles in the media and Facebook for a long time, commenting on the current situation and people. I use "Ong Darui" I wrote under my pseudonym and opened a Facebook account under the name "Ondarui" to post my commentary articles."

Chen’s statement also mentioned, “Since I write under a pseudonym and have lived abroad for a long time, it may be difficult to serve the subpoena or complaint. Comments by politicians belong to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution, but they cannot violate the defamation boundary of the criminal law. The accuser has the right to protect his reputation from damage, but he cannot suppress freedom of speech by suing, evade public supervision, or even use the judiciary as an election show There must be a clear line between public comment and reputation defamation, or between legitimate complaints and publicity, and I expect the judiciary to make the final decision on where the line is crossed.”