Political activist and former director of online publication Macau Concealers, Jason Chao, had his arguments vindicated in court yesterday in the case against Macau Concealers by University of Macau professor Wang Jianwei.
Wang filed a lawsuit against Chao and his publication for defamation, after a Macau Concealers report named Wang as the target of investigations and claims of sexual harassment from students at the University. The claims go back to 2014, when allegations of sexual harassment involving several senior faculty members of the University, including Wang, became public.
Yesterday afternoon, the court finally pronounced the defendant as not guilty, acquitting both Macau Concealers and Chao.
According to Chao, who held a press conference via Facebook from the United Kingdom where he is currently studying, the judge ruled in favor of him due to lack of evidence in the allegations of the prosecution, whose case was based solely on Wang’s allegations and testimony.
In the words of Chao, there was a “technical fault on the side of the public prosecution” which was attempting to accuse Chao of abuse of power of running a media organization to defame Wang Jianwei.
In Chao’s opinion, the court noting the lack of legislation for prosecuting Macau Concealers under the Press Law as an “online publication” was just a “way for the court not to offend other people” by furthering an investigation that could reveal further more case details, which according to Chao, the university and other authorities were seeking to keep as private as possible.
“This was not the essential factor that resulted in the outcome of not guilty,” Chao noted, expressing his thoughts that it was a way of taking a “soft approach to the problem” instead.
The defendant also noted that the prosecution had tried to base their case on the argument that, according to them, Macau Concealers was publishing the story as “Revenge for Bill Chou [the political science teacher who was allegedly sacked from UM for being involved in political activism activities], that was the reason given for the prosecution.”
According to Chao, the lack of legislation cannot be a decisive factor as: “A legal case could still be [undertaken] and I would still be acquitted. That was not the case. This was just a way to divert attention from the substantial facts and allegations on the prosecution file,” noting that the media company is formally registered in the Government Information Bureau (GCS) and that, “on other occasions [previously] the GCS was questioned as to who was responsible for the publication.”
Chao reiterated the possibility that any person, even without being part of the media, could be prosecuted for information published online, saying, “If you publish [information] online, you can be held accountable. This is very simple and applies to anyone. Our status in terms of registration is not that relevant for this case.”
When questioned by the Times on the sentence, Chao said: “We have always pleaded not guilty so this is the outcome we had fought for,” noting nevertheless that several decisions from Macau courts in the last few years had made the outcome of the case unpredictable, saying, “it is hard to say that it went how I would expect.”
The importance of being acquitted aside, Chao hopes that this case can be a milestone, in light of recent incidents involving influential people and companies trying to seek compensation or prosecute the press as a scare tactic employed against the media.
“I hope this case can serve as an example for people in Macau not to try to hide sexual abuse or harassment cases. As well as for being tentative to suppress freedom of expression or press freedom.
“I think [this outcome] is important in defending freedom of expression [in Macau],” Chao added. “Recently, we have seen several defamation charges against the media. I hope with this case we can convey a clear message to these people, that such a plan to restrain freedom of press would not prevail and that journalists […] are working to find the truth.”
No Comments