On May 10, 2005, a solemn ceremony was held in the center of Berlin, Germany, for the opening of the “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe”, as one of the celebrations to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Victory Day of WWII. After 17 years of controversies and expectations, this historic memorial finally lifted its heavy veil. Since its proposal, the project had overcome more than ten years of obstacles and disagreements. Finally, in 1999, an overwhelming majority of the German Bundestag (the national parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany) approved the decision to construct the memorial. 27.6 million euros was allocated to building the memorial. This was one of the last and most significant resolutions passed by the Bundestag before moving from Bonn to Berlin. It is a clear demonstration of Germany’s introspections of its historical crimes and its unwavering attitude towards accepting its historical responsibility. The German experience discussed in this paper will provide useful references for Taiwan’s authorities, who are eagerly implementing their own process and mechanism of transitional justice.

As Facebook has become more prevalent, a variety of controversies have arisen, many of which have impacted our understanding of speech and freedom of speech. In addition to analyzing controversies concerning social networking sites generally, and Facebook in particular, there is a need for a closer look at why these burgeoning technologies are giving rise to controversies, and their impact. This article examines the rapid expansion of Facebook over the past decade, and its influence on speech.

In a growing number of Internet hate speech incidents in Taiwan and abroad, we can see various discussions on the pros and cons of the regulation of speech. Generally speaking, regulation of freedom of speech can be divided into two categories, form regulation and content regulation. On the basis of different historical contexts and legal issues, the evolution of theory of freedom of speech in Germany has a different starting point and path in comparison with that in the USA, which Taiwan is more familiar with. Under the dark shadow of the Third Reich past, the German jurisprudence of freedom of speech has been struggling to achieve the balance between conflicting values such as “the rule of law vs. anti-Nazism” or “free marketplace of ideas vs. transitional justice”. The substantive dispute and legal studies of freedom of speech in Germany has always been focusing on the issue of “whether content regulation of speech is covered under general law.”