Are Deportations Undermining Taiwan’s Freedom of Speech?

With the deportations of three Chinese spouse influencers who advocated for China's "military unification" of Taiwan on their social media platforms in late March, freedom of speech has been called into question in Taiwan. In this op-ed, the author examines the scope of free speech and how Taiwan can balance freedom of speech with its national interests.

“Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences,” a phrase often heard in the media and on school campuses in English-speaking western democracies. It generally refers to how an individual’s ability to speak their mind is separate from any legal action that could follow. It’s also often heard when certain words that incite violence or endanger public or national security could be used against the speaker in the courts or by law enforcement. 

Freedom of speech has become a contentious debate in Taiwan with the recent deportation of three Chinese influencers living in Taiwan as spouses that have publicly advocated for the military invasion of Taiwan by their native country. Narratives that support the government’s decision cite the solid legal basis and process in which the deportation took place, including appeals and procedures for handling a clear breach of laws. However, some argue that these deportations are a violation of Taiwan’s spirit of free speech in that speech deemed offensive to the government is silenced. 

Diving into the legal basis of the three deportation orders, Articles 14 and 18 in Taiwan’s law on Chinese citizens within the country’s territory stipulates that the cancellation of residency status and forceful deportation is warranted on the grounds of “threat to national security or social stability based on sufficient facts.” With the severity of such threats to public safety and national security, the law even allows the foregoing of a review meeting prior to handing down a deportation order. 

Despite this clause, the Chinese influencers in question were still given the chance to appeal in Taiwan’s supreme administrative court. This follows Article 14 of the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Taiwan's administration also stressed that its decision referred to the same U.N. covenant, with Article 20 stipulating that “any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”  

While critics argue that the deportation orders could be seen as a rollback on free speech, aside from the U.N. covenant, national laws of many democratic countries exclude the incitement of violence and imminent lawless action from free speech. This is specifically addressed by the U.S. federal courts in 1969 as unprotected speech, which does not enjoy First Amendment protection. One such case was the deportation of convicted Taiwanese student Sun An-tso in December 2018 from the U.S. due to his verbal threats of inciting a school shooting in Pennsylvania. 

In Germany, Section 130 of the criminal code bans hate speech not only related to racist and antisemitic threats and slurs, but also any public denial of the Holocaust or show of approval, glorification, or justification of Nazi rule. Consequences of such speech could include years of imprisonment for Germans and deportation for non-citizens. Berlin has even recently gone further in expanding deportation criteria for foreign citizens who publicly glorify or incite violent activities, including in online social media posts. With the announcement, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed that “we are tightening our deportation laws so that the approval of terrorist crimes constitutes a particular serious interest in expulsion.” This comes in the wake of increasing social unrest from certain violent calls for the support of Hamas that have rocked the streets of Europe in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

These two examples demonstrate that deportation is not an uncommon tool used by liberal democracies to prevent impediments to national security and social cohesion. 

Although free speech is one of the most cherished characteristics of an open democratic society, unprotected speech does not come without consequences. Citizens could be criminally charged in decisions that could lead to fines or imprisonment, while non-citizens could receive the same verdict or, as some argue, a lesser penalty and a smaller burden to the state, deportation. The Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Migration in its Deportation of Non-Citizen Criminal report states that the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to expel non-citizens who abuse the privilege of residence by committing serious crime and to protect the community from the possibility of further criminal behavior. Australia has emphasized that the international community accepts the concept of deporting non-citizens who represent a threat to Australian society, a stance that was highlighted as recently as November 2024 when the country’s Senate garnered bipartisan support for broader deportation legislation. It is worth noting that the bipartisan Senate committee stressed that "Community safety must be the highest priority for the government and that any limitations on human rights are necessary to maintain the integrity of the migration system and protect the safety of the community." 

South Korea, also an East Asian democracy that is highly ranked in the region for its freedoms, faces similar threats of armed conflict from its hostile northern neighbor. South Korea’s National Security Act criminalizes speech in support of communism or North Korea. Taiwan and South Korea have also been recognized for their similar democratization processes in transitioning from military rule and resisting communist authoritarian aggression on their borders. Both countries continue to face military threats from their hostile neighbors, with South Korea facing constant nuclear threats and Taiwan facing China's ever-evolving aggressive military buildup and daily utilization of gray-zone warfare. On April 1, 2025, the day of the deportation of the third Chinese spouse in question, the PLA launched a massive drill around Taiwan with at least 71 military aircraft and 13 warships and referred to Taiwan President Lai Ching-te as a “parasite.” 

Raymond Sung, director at the Taiwan National Security Institute, compared the red lines and thresholds for free speech in Taiwan and that of other liberal democracies, arguing that Taiwan differs from most other liberal democracies in the unique threats it faces from its authoritarian neighbor. China continues to run a decades long disinformation and military intimidation campaign to take over the nation. Its preference is to annex Taiwan through non-hostile means, but should such measures fail, the Chinese communist leadership in Beijing has expressed that it would not rule out the use of military force. In any case, an annexation by China would likely lead to the erosion of democratic institutions and freedoms that Taiwan has established over decades of repelling authoritarian military rule. Therefore, Sung argues that national security and the influence of foreign state-sponsored narratives concerted to weaken the resolve of the Taiwanese populace in defending its hard-fought freedoms should be taken into consideration when it comes to unprotected speech that promotes violence, as in the recent case of the three Chinese spouses, who called for the Chinese armed invasion of Taiwan in their social media videos.  

Sung argues that the pressing question galvanizing Taiwanese civil society around such issues is whether or not the populace is aware of the rising threat of invasion from China. He notes that many foreign experts have expressed concern on the complacency around the threat, which many attribute to the fact that the Taiwanese people have had to live with such threats for over half a century. This complacency has persisted thus far in spite of the PLA’s growing belligerent intimidation tactics on Taiwan and its rapid military expansion. 

With threats developing to levels demanding heightened public vigilance, however, speech that incites, supports, or approves of a Chinese armed invasion has garnered a great deal of public attention. It has brought to the spotlight the constant threat of mass violence on the shores of Taiwan and how Taiwan as a democratic society should deal with veiled intimidation and threats to its very existence as a democratic nation while balancing its world-renowned freedoms. 

Sung believes that the Chinese influencers’ social media posts shook Taiwanese society in a profound way because the ideas they presented identically match those that characterize Chinese propaganda, such as in false narratives based on misinformation aimed to divide Taiwanese society. He argues that their ultimate goal–– to discourage those living in Taiwan as well as the country’s allies abroad so that Taiwan surrenders to a Chinese takeover–– is executed by perpetrating a narrative that the country is fighting and preparing for an unwinnable war. Such beliefs have also been found similar to the voices that opposed the deportation orders of the Chinese spouses in the name of protecting free speech. 

Former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, generally known for his China-friendly stance, stated in a January 2024 interview with DW that Taiwan could “never win a war with China.” The former president also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in what he called a “historic meeting” right before he left office. His party, the Kuomintang, recently faced scrutiny by U.S. senators for slashing Taiwan’s defense budget, a move many regard as a favor to China for its detrimental effect on Taiwan’s deterrence capabilities against an armed PLA invasion.  

Regarding Ma’s stance on free speech, Sung noted that the former president was notoriously silent when it came to the case of another Chinese spouse in Taiwan, Fucha. Detained in China since 2023 for publishing books critical of the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping, Fucha was sentenced in China to three years in prison in February.  

Sung’s analysis emphasizes the need for Taiwan to refine its legal framework into one that allows Taiwan to maintain its high degree of democratic freedoms while addressing and adapting to the unique evolving challenges Taiwan faces from its neighbor’s ambitions to ultimately annex the entire nation. As Taiwan continues to face threats from China, it’s important to recall that the three recent deportations are compliant with the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in allowing a fair and due appeals process. Additionally, disciplinary action was carried out based on internationally accepted norms, under which propaganda for war can be prohibited by law.  

Freedom of speech, both as a fundamental value and a policy in execution, continues to be a contentious issue rattling liberal democracies around the world. Similar to Taiwan, the U.S. has seen much debate over free speech with its recent deportations of non-citizen students on college campuses that have participated in anti-Israel, pro-Palestine protests. 

Opponents of these deportations have argued that such crackdowns lack due process and infringe upon the people’s right to free speech. Given Taiwan’s precarious situation in navigating state-sponsored large-scale disinformation from China, it is important to observe how Taiwan balances free speech and its national interests. If Taiwan continues to provide a due and fair process and sets the right parameters for disciplinary action, it could well serve as a case-in-point for how nations under existential threat can strive to balance free speech with national security. 

This article was previously published on CommonWealth Magazine on April 23, 2025.