Changhua man posted threatening remarks against the president on Threads, court found not guilty

Changhua man Huang used the Internet Threads to threaten, "I will revolt and kill Lai Qingde's whole family." The prosecutor was prosecuted for violating Article 151 of the Criminal Law, "the crime of intimidating the public," and Article 305 of the Criminal Law, "the crime of intimidation endangering safety." The case was heard by the Changhua District Court. The judge believed that the defendant left a message on his Threads and objectively did not notify the person being intimidated. There was no evidence that the person being intimidated was afraid, so he ruled not guilty.

The verdict pointed out that in February this year, Huang Nan posted personal comments on Threads, including "I want to revolt and kill Lai Qingde's family! Do you see if the people will surround the Presidential Palace", "I'm going to fucking kill President Lai Qingde! Kill this trash president who has no consideration for the Taiwanese people", "Tell Lai Qingde to hide! The Taiwanese are going to kill him", "I will kill you! Dead blue bird"... etc.

Please read on...

Two netizens believed that Huang's speech was highly targeted towards the president, so they reported it to the police. Huang Nan was prosecuted by the prosecutor.

The judge said that the "crime of intimidating the public" must be for the purpose of making an unspecified person or a large number of people fearful, and to notify the other party that harm will be committed. The messages in this case were directed at specific individuals (the President, Blue Bird...etc.), not the "public". Among them, "Blue Bird" refers to an Internet user, rather than a general political identity group. Even if two netizens reported it afterwards, it was still difficult to consider it a threat to the public.

The judge pointed out that in the "crime of intimidation and endangering safety", it is necessary to prove that the threat and endangerment signal reached the victim. The prosecutors launched the investigation because of public reports, not because the person involved reported the case. The other party’s account was not marked in the message, nor was it requested to be forwarded. There is no way to prove that the president or the “Blue Bird” user actually saw what happened. Merely issuing a public document is an "uncertain indirect" notification and does not meet the requirements for the crime.

The statements, screenshots, seized materials and complaint letters provided by the prosecutor were not enough to establish guilt, so the defendant was declared not guilty. Prosecutors in the case can still appeal.