正在構想中,請各位多多賜教!

1. 淫審處違反了(Control of Indecency Ordinary)法例,

(引自http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=258085)
內爆香港淫審制度之一：Article-in-itself ──問你點審?
--阿藹


前言：

自從六月下旬〈齊齊來貼 hyperlink〉一文被淫審處評為二級後，一直為準備覆審與淫審處有書信往來，過程中發現很多難以置信的問題，現以連載方式，與大家分享。

行政主導的審裁

七月十七日，我致函淫審處詢問初審的過程，以及影視處提交給審裁員的資料。當中第四到第五項明確地問到，審裁員是否意覺到該圖片是一幅來自 flickr 的超連結？審裁員是否知道＜香港獨立媒體網＞的性質？影視處或律政署有否提供任何的法律意見、投訴信或其他就此物品的相關資料？

淫審處把我的提問轉給影視處，而對方「建議」淫審處要求我解釋我的提問與覆審聆訊的關係。影視處給淫審處信函措詞如下：

「Further clarifications from the applicant maybe needed and the Tribunal may wish to ask the Applicant to indicate the relevance of the questions in relation to the full hearing.」

而淫審處亦跟從了這個「建議」，回我一句話，請留意句式：

「Please tell the Tribunal the relevance of the questions in relation to the full hearing.」

我即時的疑問是：作為一個司法機構，為什麼連一封信也要跟從一個行政機構的指令？

我於八月九日的回信也很不客氣地指出，「公開透明」是影視處對外的宗旨，作為一個可能會遭受刑事檢控的人，我有權知道初審的詳細過程。此外，我又引述了淫審條例第廿八條，當中提到若淫審處認為該物品涉及「公眾利益」(public good)，包括科學、文學、藝術、學習或公眾關注的事宜，便能獲得豁免；以及淫審條例第十條，指出審裁員要考慮的因素包括：物件的整體性（the dominant effect of an article or of matter as a whole）、出版物的受眾、出版的目的是否真誠等。

不清楚自己責任的審裁處！

結果淫審處又於八月十四日去信影視處，要求對方澄清淫審處的責任（duty），是否有必要提供初審的細節，以及所提供資料的細緻程度。

Article-in-itself!

昨天收到淫審處最新的回覆（這次它卻沒有把影視處的回覆備份給我），裡面有一些字眼使我瞪大了眼： “Article” in itself ! 我即時想起大學時讀存在主義時的 Being-in-itself ! 原來影視處（應該是來自影視處的點子吧）那麼具有哲學修養，以哲學的、神祗般的「自在存在」來形容「物件」，以合理化其行政濫權！

信裡表明，影視處於初審時沒有提交任何相關參考資料，包括刊載「齊貼」一文的 inmediahk.net 的性質，照片作為 hyperlink的互聯網特性等。

「The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority only submitted the "Article" for classification. The Tribunal only considered the "Article" in itself. None of the matters or materials mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of your letter of 17.7.2007 were put before the Tribunal at the hearing.」

一直以來，淫審條件都強調要把「物件」放在具體社會的脈絡，包括社會的整體道德水平、刊物的性質、受眾、公眾利益等，以防止法律被濫用來干預言論、表達、創作等自由，所以 “dominant effect” 和 “article-as-a-whole” 等概念，是法例訂明的評審指引。可是，目前的淫審制度，把法例上訂明的「指引」棄而不用，而以行政部門的一點、兩點、三點「指引」取而代之 (article in itself)。結果，制度被濫用，過去數月，出現為數不少的選擇性撿控，於出版和互聯網裡，製造了嚴重的「寒蟬效應」，網民甚至提出要把網站「移民」！

容我在這裡再冒一次險來說明「Article-in-itself」所造成的問題，請看上圖：

圖中有一個勃起的陽具，以及一些自慰和做愛的描繪，若我們單以行政指引來判辯，大概會被評為不雅吧，甚至可能是淫穢（因為有勃起的男性性器），可是，其實這幅畫是阿姆斯特丹的性博物舘海報，亦是一幅廣為人知的藝術創作，其目的是把性器視為跟手、腳、臉一樣的身體部份，而不是賣弄色情；此外，我於這篇文章裡引這個海報，是真誠地討論現時行政主導淫審機制所出現的問題，審裁員若有以上足夠的資訊，以及對自己角色和條例的理解，他們大概會運用第廿八章所賦予這物件的豁免權吧！

另一個脈絡是，在互聯網上，有無數的照片會出現與棵體雕塑、勃起陽具裝飾的圖片，整個互聯網的文化是，「各取所需，不喜勿 search」，所以在這個空間裡出版，其受眾的道德，與現實社會亦有差異。

幹掉自由

可是，若以「article in itself」作為標準，這幅畫大概難逃一劫！而〈齊齊來貼色情hyperlink〉一文，亦是在「article in itself」下的行政哲學下被「幹」，但它所「幹掉」的，不單是一篇文、不單是我或者香港獨立媒體網編輯可能要留有刑事案底，而是香港的言論、創作、表達自由、以及互聯網和文化創意產業的前途！

(引自http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=258085)

Dear A citizen,



I refer to your email.



After investigation, and according to the COIAO’s guidelines for the OAT and TELA’s record of the OAT’s classification results, this Authority considers two of the web pages under complaint(http://forum.alliance.org.hk/viewtopic.php?p=45133&sid=102198026bfd091099b1b66bc 41a 3f 27e and http://forum.alliance.org.hk/viewtopic. ... dad59905af 18f )are likely to be obscene in nature, and they have been referred to police for investigation.



Regarding the other webpages under complaint, we found that five of those could not be viewed. They are listed as below.

l http://skhlkyss.edu.hk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13212

l http://skhlkyss.edu.hk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10638

l http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/SocialVisio ... tleID=1370

l http://bbs2.sina.com.hk/fast-cgi/view.p ... =11&am p;postid=193169

l http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/SocialVisio ... tleID=1388



For the rest of the webpages under complaint as listed below, this Authority considers they do not breach the COIAO.

l http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aadbapp/webfor ... 4&PN=1

l http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aadbapp/webfor ... p?TID=4546

l http://tlc.ln.edu.hk/lle/forum/bookforu ... 84de3b2667

l http://tlc.ln.edu.hk/lle/forum/bookforu ... =cadf225cb 336c 85bd 9c 5efba1fe1d2cb

l http://www.cap.org.hk/php/gbook/index.php

l http://www.esd.gov.hk/community/forum/e ... ;tid=20885

l http://pbl.plkcastar.edu.hk/y07forum/re ... 29,733,733

l http://bbs2.sina.com.hk/fast-cgi/view.p ... tid=193520

l http://www.scfe.org.hk/bbs/archiver/?tid-33.html

l http://groups.google.com.hk/group/aol.c ... f?hl=zh-TW

l http://forum.him.com.hk/viewtopic.php?p ... d68631ee49

l http://ivan.3forum.hk/viewtopic.php?t=57

l http://webmastertools.yy2.edu.hk/forum/ ... 36048d7912







Newspapers Registration Section

Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority




----- Original Message -----
From: Newspapers Registration Section / Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Complain on indecent webpages

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you very much for your email. Your complaint is now under our investigation and we would inform you of the outcome when investigation is completed.







Newspapers Registration Section

Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority

----- Original Message -----
To: nrs@tela.gov.hk ; crimeinformation@police.gov.hk
Cc: ceo@ceo.gov.hk ; complaints@judiciary.gov.hk
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: Complain on indecent webpages

Hello Sir,
I would like to complain the following webpages which either contain indecent material or link to indecent material. In according to the precedent of Inmedia being warned for one indecent link, please process my complain in according to the same standard.

http://skhlkyss.edu.hk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13212
http://skhlkyss.edu.hk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10638
http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aadbapp/webfor ... 4&PN=1
http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/aadbapp/webfor ... p?TID=4546
http://tlc.ln.edu.hk/lle/forum/bookforu ... 84de3b2667
http://tlc.ln.edu.hk/lle/forum/bookforum/viewtopic.p hp?p=450&sid=cadf225cb336c85bd9c5efba1fe1d2cb
http://www.cap.org.hk/php/gbook/index.php
http://forum.alliance.org.hk/viewtopic. ... bc41a3f27e
http://forum.alliance.org.hk/viewtopic. ... 59905af18f
http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/SocialVisio ... tleID=1370
http://www.esd.gov.hk/community/forum/educatio n/chi/default.asp?fid=76&tid=20885
http://pbl.plkcastar.edu.hk/y07forum/re ... 29,733,733
http://bbs2.sina.com.hk/fast-cgi/view.p ... tid=193169
http://bbs2.sina.com.hk/fast-cgi/view.p ... tid=193520
http://www.scfe.org.hk/bbs/archiver/?tid-33.html
http://groups.google.com.hk/group/aol.c ... f429ad0/f5 aa3c9eaafd8f3f?hl=zh-TW
http://forum.him.com.hk/viewtopic.php?p ... d68631ee49
http://ivan.3forum.hk/viewtopic.php?t=57
http://webmastertools.yy2.edu.hk/forum/ ... 36048d7912
http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/SocialVisio ... tleID=1388

Sincerely
A citizen
2007/06/13

致影視處、申訴專員、特首先生.女士,

1.本人絕對不同意影視處對search engine首頁可以免除發佈不雅超連結之罪責,是為對小網民不公!
影視處是行政機構,理應依據案例執法,而非自行解釋法例、並依一己之行政方便修改法例的定義!

2.即使影視處認為搜索器首頁可以免除發佈不雅超連結之罪責,但影視處依然必需處理由對由搜索器首頁發佈之不雅超連結之內容的投訴,我們投訴的不只是不雅超連結,同時亦投訴不雅超連結所指的內容!
(所有由搜索器發佈出來的超連結所指向的網頁)


此致
一群市民
(日期)

(各網民:
TELA是因為怕工作繁重而逃避責任,它是想可以隨環境需要,
久不久就用hyperlink來打擊異己,但自己友就免役,
它想去官互聯網但又不肯多花工夫,我們當然不可以讓它得逞,
請各位繼續天天用以下的link來投訴!

http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... iental.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... _today.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... eryday.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... _today.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... eryday.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... _today.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... ld_Sun.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... eryday.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... _today.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... _today.php
http://euler.truthbible.net/mail/auto_c ... eryday.php

To:Newspapers Registration Section / Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority <nrs@tela.gov.hk>,<complaints@ombudsman.gov.hk>,
Cc: <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>


Hello Sir/Madam,
I refer to your email titled 'Complain on hyperlink and search engines on the Internet'.

1. Google hyperlink case is already a precedent in Kwung Tong district court. In that case, Google Inc is charged for distrubing a link to an indecent object(adult novel). You are contradicting yourself by 'immunizing' search engine from complain identical to the Google hyperlink one. So TELA feel free to interpret ate the law whatever the way you want, even breaking the precedent by a court.

2. In according to the Control of Indecent Material Ordance, anyone import anything that is Cat III material; whatever s/he has any knowledge of it has already commit an offense. How could TELA assume all material I complained does NOT belong to Cat III without OAT first classifying it? Or, TELA want to tell us the same law could be interpret differently in the case of Internet? Or TELA is inventing an law it doesn't exist in the first place?


3. Interestingly, it appears that the immunity of search engine only come after a massive amount against search engine is made, is TELA choose its target carefully to reduce the amount of work it needed? Or TELA choose its target carefully to avoid adverse reaction from the public, so the published material from Oriental/Sun daily is seldom classified as indecent/ob-scent? Search engine owned a webpage just like any webmaster did, and publish contents and hyperlink just like everyone did, so why does TELA discriminate against the small webmaster not backed by 1 billion in asset?


4. Search engine is like a librarian. In order to index the book accurately, the librarian must know the content of a book. So a search engine must 'know' the nature of a website well enough to classify it, for example: what it contain,how it organize, what is it about. In fact, when robot of search engine index a page. It would analysis the webpage content it visited carefully just like a librarian skim a book for its content. How can the search engine 'not knowing' a website contain pornographic material when a website has the meta-tags like those: 'adult/porn/sex'?
A case in point, MSN-HK search engine is filter any result it suspect to be indecent. When anyone type words like 'incest, fuck, adult', it would not return any search result. How can MSN-HK not knowing what its search engine did when now MSN-HK want to filter its result? If MSN-HK knows, how could you argue that other search engine not know?
Another case in point, Google place relevant ad targeting user search for a particular item. How could Google search engine not knowing what its user search for when the whole revenue of Google Inc depends on carefully matching the advertisement and its audience?
Beside, many search engine like yahoo organize the website by category like 'sex/culture/sport/health', it is hard to argue that search engine doesn't know what it is doing, when search engines face stiff competition from each other. If it can't find what the user is looking for quickly, it would suffer lost in revenue. Search engines companies makes billion from search related to adult material(they even do financial planning in according to the performance of their search engine), and constantly revise the search method. How could search engines improve their accuracy if it doesn't know what it is doing?
As for the case that search engine is not an entity legally liable. If it is the case, then the owner of spam robot shall not be legally responsible for spamming; and any computer hacker is not responsible for the disruption which its virus caused. By any means, search engine is legally own by the search engine company, therefore it is responsible for what the search engine do. It is the search engine company owned the website of search engine, therefore it is responsible for what is published there.

4. From my reading of your reply. Your understanding of how the Internet operate is way below any Netizen has more than 3 years of experience of the Internet. Let alone to be knowledgeable enough to regulate the indecency material in the Internet. So it is very irresponsible for TELA to seek to expand that scope of 'Control of Indecent Object' to include Internet under this circumstance.
Moreover, the respond time of TELA to indecency complain of Net object is far below what is necessary to regulate a fast-changing medium(often without a reliable history) like Internet. So either TELA to adjust to this new medium, or hand off from it completely. The current approach do much more damage than good to the development of Internet as a cultural industry in Hong Kong.



Sincerely
A citizen
Date

Dear Sir / Madam,



I refer to your emails on hyperlinks and search engines on the Internet.



A hyperlink is a reference or navigation element in a document on the Internet to another section of the same document, another document, or a specified section of another document, that automatically brings the referred information to the user when the navigation element is selected by the user. As such it is similar to a citation in literature, but with the distinction of automatic instant access.

It is true that generally a person does not have control over a linked site. If the contents of a linked site were changed without the person who posted the link knowing of the change, then that person would not be liable.

In particular cases, whether or not that person would be liable for posting the link and would be prosecuted would depend upon the evidence gathered which would indicate the knowledge of the person to the alteration in the contents at the linked site. The prosecution in making a decision to prosecute would follow the published prosecution policy guidelines.


Generally, Internet search engine providers merely provide a tool for Internet users to search for information. They have no knowledge of the contents of a particular site. Nevertheless, if website hosts have knowledge that their website is linked to a pornographic article, they may be liable as an aider and abettor in publishing the article. Whether or not they would be liable would depend upon the evidence available to indicate their knowledge of the link to the obscene site. The same prosecution policy guidelines apply in deciding whether to prosecute.





Yours faithfully,



(Alex Yiu)

for Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing