The citizens should care about this case. More generally, they should care about the Hong Kong system for determining indecency/obscenity. As a cosmopolitan city, we need to have easy circulation and diversity in our information and culture. The citizens should also actively try to reform the system of censorship of obscene/indecent materials. For example, the rules should not be so rigid. One needs to look at the contents of the publication, or factor in the genre, or consider whether it is a work of art, or decide if it is just peddling pornography. In the case of the , the case was based upon a survey questionnaire and a discussion essay. Maybe some people think that while the essay was poorly written, the newspaper was not peddling pornography. During the process of examination, it is necessary to separate the discussions from the selling of pornography. When making the decision, it is necessary to look at the background of the materials and determine the reason why these things are being published. Presently, the Obscene Articles Tribunal does not care about the context at all.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Hong Kong dude published an artistically shot nude photograph from Flickr on his post that highlighted the problems with the censorship standards of the country's Obscene Articles Tribunal. The tribunal later charged him for publishing a Class II indecent article. Maximum penalty is HK$400,000 and 12 months in jail. This is absurd! From Interlocals.net:
Posted by I.Z. Reloaded at 4:25 PM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Singapore License.