jump to navigation

數碼版權反對意見書樣板 April 14, 2008

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Law, Social movement, politics.
1 comment so far

香港灣仔
軒尼詩道３６５號
富德樓9F
獨立媒體（香港）
openknowledgehk@gmail.com

香港中區
遮打道
立法會
工商事務委員會
主席及各位委員
傳真：2121 0420

各位委員:

數碼知識版權立法意見書

本人／本會__________希望就政府的＜數碼環境下保護知識版權＞的立法建議發表意見。是次立法對於香港的互聯網產業發展和言論表達自由等公民權影響深遠，希望議員們能夠深入討論，作出明智和正確的決定。

反對刑事化「串流」侵權行為

一直以來，香港和國際的版權法均以民事為基礎，數碼版權亦應在這基礎下建立，不應隨意引入針對小市民的刑事化，電子傳送技術乃整個互聯網的核心，以刑事來處理侵權，只會窒礙整個互聯網產業的發展。我／們反對刑事化任何形式的電子傳送犯權行為。

「串流」侵權刑事化的做法更不合理，打擊侵權行為，應以民事方式禁制源頭，而不應把矛頭指向對小市民，大部份網民在建立串流時，根本不了解源頭是否 侵權作品。此外，「串流」技術並不涉及「複製」，違反古惑天皇一案終審法庭所說的「主動複製以供分發」的檢控原則，其刑事化會對很多與「串流」相類似的行 為（如超連結），帶來潛在的「刑責」，造成公眾恐慌。

反對附加賠償的建議

正如很多法律界指出，定額賠償偏離現有香港司法的常規，附加賠償的做法，其實跟定額賠償的基礎相似，兩者的基礎均為不用版權持有人證明自己因為被侵 犯版權所帶來的具體損失, 而透過其他的機制增加被告的賠償額，兩者均有「懲罰」的性質，只是後者（附加賠償）的決定權在法官手中。這種不基礎於「實質傷害」的「懲罰」，會使法庭的 中立性受到質疑，亦會使香港的司法制度政治化。

要求「移除通知」要公開透明，並設有上訴機制

有關網上服務供應商(OSPs)的守則, 政府建議要有版權持有人、OSPs和用戶的參與, 這原則非常重要, 如建議中的移除(內容)通知機制, 一定要保持公開透明, 使用戶知道被移除的內容, 並設立上訴機制, 使錯誤移除的內容能恢復。

此外，本人贊成 Norwich pharmacal保護用戶私隱的原則，亦贊成引進更多公平使用和非商業的豁免。

此致

姓名／簽名／日期

副本致：商務及經濟發展局

（通訊及科技科：ctbeq@cedb.gov.hk Fax: 28276646）
（政府資訊科技總監辦公室：enquiry@ogcio.gov.hk Fax: 28024549）

(P.S請把意見書 cc一份致openknowledgehk@gmail.com, 我們會收集起來，稍後再交到商務及經濟發展局和立法會秘書處要求簽收)

數碼版權第二波決戰：齊聲反對刑事化「串流」與附加賠償 April 14, 2008

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Law, Social movement, politics.
add a comment

大家的努了沒有白費，去年數碼版權諮詢，在網民反對意見書的壓力下， 已成功推翻下載刑事化、定額賠償等建議；而且在私穩專員公署的建議下，版權持有人要向法庭取得搜令才能拿到涉嫌犯權者的IP資料，當局亦於電子傳送 （electronic data transmission）和格式轉換（format shifting）引進公平使用的原則。大家的努力，是沒有白費的。

不過，政府向立法會初步的建議(PDF)，還是問題多多，包括刑事化「串流」侵權行為，以及引入「附加賠償」的司法概念（取代諮詢時提出的定額賠償）。

反對刑事化電子數據傳送

就著電子數據傳送是否刑事化的問題，政府初步的建議是豁免非商業性傳送的刑責，除了「串流式」的侵權行為。

政 府所說的非商業性豁免其實有混淆視聽之嫌，因為整個互聯網的基礎就是「電子數據傳送」，如在 email和討論組中轉載新聞／圖片或傳送壓縮檔案等，又或搜尋器、RSS閱讀器（其實很多都是商業性的），出版網站的圖片 img src編碼和音樂和錄像的「串流」，都屬於電子數據傳送。若要刑事化版權作品的電子數據傳送，等於把互聯網炸掉。

其 實有很多互聯網產業（商業性），都會應用電子傳送的技術，很多時候會侵犯其他人的版權。如 google 搜尋軟件的cache 功能, 就會把別人整個網頁頁面存放起來; 此外, RSS閱讀器和收集 aggregator, 亦可以把一些版權網頁的內容, 引到自己的網站; 這些技術都是商業性的。若要促進香港互聯網產業的發展, 根本不應該引進刑事化的機制, 這麼一來, 亦不用有非商業性的豁免。

刑事化串流的含意

在這個基礎下, 刑事化「串流」就更加不合理。就現有法例下, 版權持有人透過民事的方法, 已禁制了很多網頁的音樂和影像的串流, 根本不需要以刑事的方法處理。若要制止侵權作品的流通, 應於「源頭」著手, 而不應以刑事的方法, 恫嚇使用串流技術的互聯網用戶, 製造恐慌; 「源頭」一旦被禁制, 所有串流都會失效, 又何必處處針對小市民?

此外, 刑事化「串流」, 會有很嚴重的法律含意。在古惑天皇的案例, 法官指出因為被告製造並上載了一個種子檔案以供BT下載, 這行為涉及主動複製和分發, 至於下載者, 雖然其下載包含複製與分發, 但卻是被動的分發行為, 故此至今沒有刑事檢控。「串流」技術, 正如超連結, 並不涉及「複製」行為, 若把「串流」技術刑事化, 日後圖片 img src編碼和超連結, 在版權案和淫審案中, 都會被視為「複製 / 擁有以供分發」。
壓制言論表達自由

很多多媒體的言論表達, 都會借用一些版權作品的片段, 又或以改作的方式進行二輪創作, 如「福佳始終有你」很明顯是侵犯了「香港始終有你」的版權, 但這些「侵權」, 並沒有損害版權持有人的實際利益, 所以即使對方追究, 大概也不用賠償, 可是刑事化「串流」侵權作品後, 只要有人報案, 所有「串流」「福佳始終有你」的作品的網民, 都要負上「刑責」。

除了「福佳始終有你」等政治搞惡以外, 每當悼念張國榮、梅艷芳時, 大家喜歡「串流」他們生前的片段, 日後也會遭受禁制和刑責。

刑 事化「串流」背後, 有一個很變態的邏輯, 當唱片和影業要你愛上他們的「產品」時, 天天不斷在你眼前和耳邊播放, 當這些「產品」變成你生命和歷史的一部份時, 它卻要禁止你用自己的方法去消費, 要壟斷這些產品的發放權, 這麼一來又把大家心中的「張國榮、梅艷芳」搶走。

勿讓香港司法變成企業打手

除了「串流」刑事化外, 大家亦要注意附加賠償的問題。

因 為法律界反對引進定額賠償的機制, 政府以「附加賠償」的機制取代之, 兩者的基礎均為不用版權持有人證明自己因為被侵犯版權所帶來的具體損失, 而透過其他的機制增加被告的賠償額。定額賠償的機制是「固定」的賠償額, 而「附加」賠償則由法官根據被告的態度、發放量等, 決定「附加」的賠償金額, 因為這不是建基在實際損害的賠償, 有「懲罰性」的性質。版權訴訟是處理侵權帶來的金錢傷害, 在沒有傷害下引進「罰款」給私人企業收取, 這是以公權作為私人企業的打手。私人領域的紛爭, 司法機關應保持中立, 絶不應為變成企業壟斷資訊傳遞的工具。

移除通知機制

有關網上服務供應商(OSPs)的守則, 政府建議要有版權持有人、OSPs和用戶的參與, 這原則非常重要, 如建議中的移除(內容)通知機制, 一定要保持公開透明, 使用戶知道被移除的內容, 並設立上訴機制, 使錯誤移除的內容能恢復。

對於以 Norwich pharmacal 的原則, 要求版權持有人在取得法庭搜令才能向ISP拿取用戶資料的做法, 是非常洽當。私穩專員公處在這環節的堅持, 實在難得。

若沒有大家的堅持, 相信政府的建議會更偏向業界的利益, 但就著「串流」刑事化和「附加賠償」兩方面, 大家還要繼續爭取, 捍衛資訊言論和表達的自由。

墜落猙獰的香港論壇 November 28, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, politics.
add a comment

本來想就華叔被告一事寫一篇 GV 的文章, 先 search 了 technorati, 就只有兩篇, 其中一篇是泛民 blogger, Those were the days 寫的. 接著 search 了 uwants 和 discuss hk, 天呀, 那種根本不是討論, 說話的人那種涼薄, 那種卑賤, 太恐怖了. 我真希望能拿著一面鏡, 叫寫東西的人, 看看自己面目猙獰的樣子, 你們是人嗎?

天星皇后的時候, 論壇也有很多不負責任的風涼話, 見怪不怪. 但這次是華叔. 雖然對這些民主叔父, 有時會覺得太霸道, 但華叔幾十年來, 由反殖中文運動到民主愛國運動, 為香港之情, 怎能不佩服與尊敬? 怎能說出那種扺毀人性的話?

區選期間, 某些地區的暴力令人心寒. 那些郁手郁腳的人, 一般都是某些建制派黙許出來的獨立候選人的助選團, 他們大概為建制地區組織放棄去吸納組織的一群, 他們獲取了建制派當道某些利益, 但因為缺乏組織, 結果, 以極其流氓的方法去助選.

這種現實社區的暴力, 於虛擬世界以另一種形式出現. 政治宣傳, 換來惡言相向, 在言語上的以暴易暴, 這大概是過去幾年建制派動員的副產品.

花了兩個小時看華叔的網上討論, 最後寫不成, 有質素的討論僅兩篇 blogs, 都是從泛民的角度出發, 構成不了對話. 也許, 從量上, 某些暴民霸佔了 uwants 等論壇, 但它只反映出某些建制派當中的墜落和猙獰當道.

以下轉貼撐華叔的聯署:

捍衛言論自由 抗議選擇檢控

香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會主席司徒華於2007年5月25日，以嘉賓身份出席民間電台在旺角行人專用區舉行的一個要求平反「六四」論壇，特區政府半年來一直未有採取行動。近日，電訊管理局突然發出告票，指他參與民間電台廣播而加以檢控。

是次實為一次「選擇性檢控」，因「民間電台」創辦兩年以來，先後邀請過行政會議成員張炳良、民建聯蔡素玉和港區全國人大代表朱幼麟等擔任嘉賓，他們卻一直沒有被檢控，令人相信政府藉檢控司徒華打壓言論自由。

我們強烈要求：

1. 撤銷所有人士的檢控，包括：司徒華、梁國雄、曾健成、羅就、陳妙德、林旭華、麥志恆、楊匡、潘達強；
2. 開放大氣電波，容許民間主辦電台。

請簽名!

請協助將連結廣傳。
你亦可到本會網站http://www.alliance.org.hk/下載表格可自行複印，簽妥表格請交到九龍旺角彌敦道618號好望角大廈8樓，或傳真27706083回支聯會。
萬分感謝。

Defend Free Speech, Protest irrational selective prosecution

Hong Kong veteran politician Szeto Wah,76, the chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, was summonsed for delivering political messages using unlicensed communications equipment. He was charged of speaking on 25/5/2007 at a Mong Kok street forum hosted by Citizen’s Radio, topic of the program involved the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.There’s another eight persons charged.

Ho Chun-yan is representing Szeto in court, said Szeto and others did is protected by the Bill of Rights and other international covenants.

That’s lots of people had spoken on Citizen’s Radio but not charged,included Executive Councillor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung and legislator Choy So-yuk of the DAB.

The charge showed selective prosecution.

Szeto Wah said he’ll not plead guilty and would rather go to jail. He’ll fight till the very end.

From Article-in-itself to Incomplete Article October 14, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, In-Media, Press freedom.
add a comment

Got a new letter from OAT and wrote a citizen report at inmediahk.net.

In brief, the good news is, OAT agreed to defer my case until the Chinese University Student Press and Ming Pao have gone through the judicial review. If they win (succeed in challenging the procedure), it will favor my case.

An amusing news is: the article that TELA submitted to OAT is proved to be an incomplete article. According to the TELA notice in June, “the feature article downloaded from internet” on “hyperlink censorship” has been classified as “indecent”, however, in this latest round of communication, the OAT has attached the “article” submitted by TELA to the OAT in June (see the picture). It is shown that in the “article”, almost one third of the text were cut, and the website’s logo, banner, the comment section of the “article” are missing.

I wonder how the OAT can make a fair judgment with this distorted and incomplete article.

Article-in-itself !! September 21, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Law, Press freedom, Social movement.
add a comment

Got a latest reply from the Obscene Article Tribunal. It is stated that the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority did not provide any supplementary information (including where the article was published, the nature of inmediahk.net and the nature of the photo as a hyperlink, etc. ) for the OAT:

The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority only submitted the ‘Article’ for classification. The Tribunal only considered the ‘Article’ in itself…

The term “Article” in itself reminds me of the philosophical discussion about being-in-itself, how ridiculous that it is applied to justify the abuse of power by administrative body!

I am going to write a series of article at inmediahk.net concerning the ridiculous censorship practice of the TELA and OAT, however, it will be in Chinese as I don’t have enough time to make it bilingual… sorry.

The first article is here.

A Tribunal that doesn’t know its duty 迷失的淫審 August 19, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Law.
add a comment

Got the latest update from the Obscene Article Tribunal. It is really amazing to read their letters.

Upon receiving my letters for further info, OAT is now writing to Television and Entertainment Authoring to seek inquiries about “point of law” regarding its duty. Here is the OAT letter to TELA cc to me:

Dear Sir,

Case No. OAGO000147/2007

We refer to the letter from the applicant dated 9.8.2007.

Question 3 and 4 in the letter probably involve point of law.

The tribunal would like to have your response to inter alia
(1) whether the Tribunal has a duty to disclose the process of interim classification, which according to s.14(1)(a) of Cap. 390 is held in private without the attendance of anyone and
(2) if there is such a duty, the degree of disclosure; within 6 weeks from today.

Is it usual that a judicial body would seek advice from an administrative body on its duty? Anyone with a legal mind can throw some light?

My latest letter to Obscene Articles Tribunal August 12, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, In-Media, Law, Personal, Press freedom, Social movement.
2 comments

跟淫審的案件處於膠著狀態，問審裁處拿初審的資料，影視處話同覆審聆訊無關；沒有初審，何來覆審？沒有初審的資料，我又如何組織覆審時的論據？影視處強調自己的運作公開透明，依家明顯係黑箱作業．只有繼續追問．希望中大與明報的司法覆核會展示出其問題所在．

Up Till now, OAT and I still haven’t agreed on a hearing date because TELA and OAT refused to hand in information on the ground that the information I required has no relation with the hearing. So I have to explain the relation by quoting from the Obscene Articles Ordinance:

Re: More inquiries for OAGO000147/2007

Dear Sir,

In response to your letter dated July 24 2007 concerning the relevance of my questions in relation to the full hearing, I would like to refer to the mission statement of Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) that they follow the principle of “Transparency to the public”. I believe that the information that I asked for should be open to the public inquiries not to mention the fact that I am the applicant in this classification proceedings.

As I said in my previous letter, the information that I asked for “is necessary for my preparation of witness statement, expert opinions, submissions, etc. as they directly affect the classification of the article – which can lead to a serious criminal charge.”

However, to entertain TELA and OAT’s question, I would like to refer to CAP 390, section 7(2), which states: “Subject to subsection (3), in the event of any difference between the members of a Tribunal, the decision of that Tribunal shall be that of the majority of them or, in the event that they are equally divided, that of the presiding magistrate.”

Questions 1-4 from my letter dated July 17 are to seek further information on the above process described by the law. If such process had not taken place, I would seek judicial review for the interim classification.

Moreover, according to the CAP 390, section 8 (1c), section 28 and section 10:

8 (1) In relation to any article, or any matter publicly displayed, referred to it by a court or magistrate under Part V a Tribunal may determine for the purposes of this Ordinance whether- (Amended 31 of 2003 s. 22)
(c) the ground of defence under section 28 is proved in respect of the publication of an article or the public display of any matter.

28. It shall be a defence to a charge under this Part in respect of the publication of an article or the public display of matter if that publication or display, as the case may be, is found by a Tribunal to have been intended for the public good on the ground that such publication or display was in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or any other object of general concern.

10. In determining whether an article is obscene or indecent or whether any matter publicly displayed is indecent, or in classifying an article, a Tribunal shall have regard to-
(b) the dominant effect of an article or of matter as a whole;
(c) in the case of an article, the persons or class of persons, or age groups of persons, to or amongst whom the article is, or is intended or is likely to be, published;
(d) in the case of matter publicly displayed, the location where the matter is or is to be publicly displayed and the persons or class of persons, or age groups of persons likely to view such matter; and
(e) whether the article or matter has an honest purpose or whether its content is merely camouflage designed to render acceptable any part of it.

Therefore, in Question 5, I would like to know whether TELA has provided any supplementary information to the adjudicators so that they have enough basic information to classify the article according to the requirements of CAP390.

Attached is my previous letter of inquiries, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Oiwan Lam

4 pigs hit the GFW 四隻小豬撞牆 August 9, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Great Fire Wall.
add a comment

朋友送來諷刺國內防火牆 Great Fire Wall的漫話．很搞笑．

A cartoon making fun of the Great Fire Wall. Let’s hit the wall hard! It is our pleasure!

Social Movement is not PR! 運動不是公關 August 9, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Freedom of Speech, Press freedom, Social movement.
add a comment

有朋友轉寄一些記者的 blogs 當中有一些批評說本土行動的公關做得不好. #1, 2, 3.

A friend forwarded some reporter blogs which criticized local action’s Queen’s pier campaign has very bad PR. #1, 2, 3.

以下是參加絶食的朋友的回應：

對了，我真是無辦法認同Ｄ記者「以為自己做傳播的就大晒」呢Ｄ想法，而他們正正就是這樣想！

多時我地３幾條友傾緊對策，佢又隊個鏡頭過黎，差Ｄ隊埋咪架啦，大佬，公眾地方唔係話「你做得出，我就可以影」佢地曲解晒，唔該俾Ｄ道德！叫佢唔好影住，仲大尻晒咁鬧「我地幫你地架嘛！咩唔好影0者！」

0係碼頭刷牙是逼不得以，果陣早上７點幾，大會堂未開，我會唔會專登刷牙俾你影呀，講到我專登刷俾佢影咁，我係要俾你影呀，就除衫啦，係咪咁講先！同埋，我有好聲好氣，差點未跪下叫他們不要影了，唔理同唔答我都不但止，其中有線機佬仲行去對面影到正一正，呢Ｄ係極唔尊重的行為也沒禮貌囉！！再問係，刷牙同個運動有咩關係，點解佢咁都要影！晚上我搵張濕紙巾抹下手腳抹下面，佢地又影一餐，我想問我地係人定係熊貓？！（我都仲未屌佢地成日問埋晒Ｄ白痴問題，日日走過黎問我地餓唔餓，你想我點答你呀大佬！）

講閃光燈同埋電視直播打燈，而家唔係得佢一家0係度閃，係人人都0係度閃！佢唔明白唔該佢自己試下５日唔食野再被五萬個記者同一時間閃下你，再加電視台的強光照幾照！

Below is a response from one of the hunger strike participants:

Right, I can never identify with the reporters perception that “as journalists they have absolute right”, they really think that way!

When three of us were discussing about our strategies, they forced in their cameras, they even wanted to put forward the mic! Public space doesn’t mean that “whatever we do you can shoot into your camera”, please show your ethics! When we asked them not to shoot, they cursed at us with their fucking attitude “we are helping you, why don’t you let us shoot?”

I brushed teeth at the pier because I was forced to do so, at 7am, the city hall had not yet opened. I would never intended to brush teeth for the camera! They said as if I was brushing for the camera. If I really wanted to attract attention, I would have taken off my clothes! right? Besides, I was very polite in requesting them not to shoot, I almost kneed down to beg them not to shoot. They not only ignored me, the Cable TV camera man even changed his position to shoot me with better angle. They had no respect for us. What is the relation between brushing teeth and the campaign, why are they shooting this? At night, when we used wet tissue papers to clean our faces and hands, they turned on the cameras again. I want to ask whether we are human or pandas? (I haven’t yet fucked them for asking stupid questions, everyday they came to us and asked whether we were hungry or not, what were they expecting?)

More on the flash and lighting, there were not just one reporter, everyone were using flash. Tried to see how you would have felt if you didn’t take any food for 5 days and were surrounded by hundreds of people flashing you, together with the T.V camera’s strong lights!

我亦有加入討論：

有啲記者真係好過份. 而我覺得我地係太遷就記者了. 商台記者係拆之前一日七點鬆啲, 係咁打電話話要搵陳景輝八時做訪問, 我話, 人地絶食咗四日, 仲要一早搵人起身做訪問? 佢講到搵佢做訪問係益咗我地咁, 真係想屌尻佢, 但我都忍住度氣, 問佢可唔可以搵非絶食者. 但後來陳景輝答應話做.

老實講, 如果我係陳, 一定拒絶做, 呢啲記者完全連基本做人應有的體諒與人性都無. 比警察仲衰. 我唔覺得要遷就呢啲記者, 我地遷就佢, 只會令佢地變本加厲.

運動唔係 PR, 唔係做 show. 我擔心一些血氣方剛的新人加入, 唔係因為佢地形象衰, 而係因為佢地對運動的方向策略不理解, 為挑戰警察而行動, 又唔識保護自己, 到最後害了自己又害了運動.

I also joined the discussion:

Some reporters really have crossed their line. And I feel that we are too good to them. I remember the morning before the D-day, a reporter from commercial radio woke many of us up at around 7am to arrange an interview with chan king fai, one of the hunger strike students, at 8am. I said, he (Chan) has already hunger strike for 4 days, I don’t think he can wake up so early for the interview. He replied as if the interview was arranged to help us. I really wanted to fuck him off, but I kept my temper, asked him whether he could interview non-hunger strike participants, etc. However, later Chan agreed to do the interview.

To be frank, if I were Chan, I would never have agreed. Many reporters don’t have basic human compassion, sometimes even worse that the police. I don’t think we should be pleasing them. When we try to please them, they would have worse attitude.

Social movement is not PR, it is not a show. I also worried about some new angry youths joining the local action network, not because of their “bad images”, but because of their lack of understanding for our strategy and direction, and they might agitate the police at will without self-protection and movement considerations. Eventually harm themselves and harm the movement.

很多人建議我地唔好講粗口，對唔住，如果連粗口都唔講得，我地的社會會越來越新加坡化，到時粗口刑事化（如地鐵之前的附例），都會變成社會的共識與主流！為了PR，而毀掉社會和多元語言表達，恕難從命．國內和荷里活電影，媽來媽去的，都可以接受，點解我地的社會會越來越淨化？越來越接受唔到少數多元的表達？

Many people suggested that we (member of local action) shouldn’t curse in the public. Sorry, if cursing is not allowed, our society would only become more and more like singapore, eventually criminalization of 4-letter words (what had been proposed by the MTR company) would become the mainstream opinion! I wouldn’t let myself murder the society diverse language expressions by PR strategy. Even movies from Mainland and Hollywood are full of 4-letter words, why Hong Kong is so dominated with language hygiene? and loses its tolerance towards minority and diverse language expressions?

香港的新聞自由 Press Freedom in Hong Kong August 8, 2007

Posted by oiwan in Citizen Journalism, Freedom of Speech, In-Media, Press freedom.
add a comment

最近因為皇后／淫審的事，聰頭經常向政府部門窮追猛打，迫官員回應．好似禽日愛丁堡廣場的問題，問到拓展署同運輸署震晒，最後發展局仲要發新聞公告回應事件．

聽到他講電話，心想，這些事情在主流媒體一定不會發生，因為轉過頭，官員就會打電話給報館上司：剛才打電話來的那位記者好無禮貌，做咩問埋呢啲問題等等．．．接著上司就會係咁 Sa 晒，驚搞衰關係，以後 briefying 無佢地份．結果，唔啱既好似永遠係窮追猛打的記者，尤其是無經驗的新仔．咁搞法，新聞自由慢慢就縮下縮下 ，到最後無得浄．

Recently because of the Queen’s Pier and OAT issue, Chong frequently called up government department to check out some facts and forced the government officials to answer. Yesterday, his questions about the sealing off of Edinburg Place made the civic engineering and development department and transportation department so nervous. And eventually development bureau had to give a public statement to the issue.

I told chong that his “interrogation” style would have never happened in mainstream media because the government officials would call back the reporter’s supervisor to make complaint: your reporter has very bad manner, how can s/he ask such question, etc. The supervisor of course would apologize for fear that the government official won’t call them up for media briefing next time. In the end, aggressive reporters are the ones to be blamed, especially those young reporters without much experience. If such newsroom management prevail, we will eventually lose our press freedom.