jump to navigation

和諧政治中的雜音 January 3, 2008

Posted by oiwan in Great Fire Wall, In-Media, Press freedom, politics.
add a comment

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.

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

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.