Public insult (Criminal Code Art. 309) and defamation (Art. 310) are complaint-only offenses. The person entitled to complain generally has six months after learning the offender's identity. Constitutional Court Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-3 requires courts to assess an allegedly insulting expression in context and balance reputation against freedom of expression; offensive words alone do not automatically establish the offense.
How do public insult and defamation differ?
Public insult concerns a public expression that disparages another person's reputation without needing to assert a specific fact (Art. 309). Defamation concerns alleging or circulating a specific matter capable of damaging another person's reputation with intent to disseminate it to the public (Art. 310(1)). Public insult can involve abstract abuse or personal insults, while defamation concerns a concrete alleged fact; the evidence and potential defenses differ.
Does harsh language automatically amount to public insult?
No. Under Constitutional Court Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-3, the court considers the context of expression: whether the speaker intentionally made a public statement disparaging another's reputation beyond what an ordinary person could reasonably tolerate, and whether protection of reputation outweighs the expression's value for public debate, literature, art, scholarship or professional discussion in that case.
The judgment also says short-term detention for this offense should be limited to serious infringements of reputation. Online or electronic dissemination may be relevant where it can cause lasting, cumulative or widespread serious harm. The internet does not create automatic liability by itself.
Source: Taiwan Constitutional Court, summary of Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-3 (April 26, 2024) ↗
所處罰之公然侮辱行為，係指依個案之表意脈絡，表意人故意發表公然貶損他人名譽之言論，已逾越一般人可合理忍受之範圍；經權衡該言論對他人名譽權之影響，及該言論依其表意脈絡是否有益於公共事務之思辯，或屬文學、藝術之表現形式，或具學術、專業領域等正面價值，於個案足認他人之名譽權應優先於表意人之言論自由而受保障者。（憲法法庭113年憲判字第3號判決主文第1項）
Unofficial English summary (not an official translation): The Constitutional Court assesses intentional public insult in its context, balancing reputational harm against speech's public, literary, artistic, academic and professional value.
Can proof of truth be a defense to defamation?
Article 310(3) provides that a person who proves the alleged matter true is not punished. But proof of truth does not remove liability under this paragraph where the matter concerns private morality and has no relation to the public interest. Whether a statement falls within that exception depends on the facts.
對於所誹謗之事，能證明其為真實者，不罰。但涉於私德而與公共利益無關者，不在此限。（刑法第310條第3項）
Unofficial English summary (not an official translation): Criminal Code Article 310(3) exempts a proven-true defamatory statement except where it concerns private morality unrelated to the public interest.
Can online posts or reposts carry a greater penalty?
Article 310(2) prescribes up to two years' imprisonment, short-term detention or a fine of up to NT$30,000 for defamation committed by disseminating writing or pictures, compared with up to one year under Article 310(1). For public insult, the Constitutional Court said online or electronic dissemination may be relevant to the seriousness of harm when assessing short-term detention.
When must a complaint be filed?
Both offenses require a complaint under Criminal Code Article 314. Under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 237, a person entitled to complain generally must file within six months after learning who the offender is. A person who misses their period cannot later file a timely complaint against the same offender for that conduct; one eligible person's missed period does not affect another eligible person.
When should I seek advice?
Consider advice before filing a complaint, preparing evidence, or attending police or prosecutors' questioning. Workplace speech may also raise a separate workplace bullying investigation. This is general information, not advice on an individual case.