The Hong Kong government has issued a consultation paper on the “Review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent
Articles Ordinance” last Friday (Oct 3). The first round of consultation will be lasted
until end of January.
A most controversial issue is the suggestion on introduction of an internet filtering system in
Hong Kong. In part 4 of the consultation paper, it states that the main issue at stake is:
Given the emergence of new forms of media, particularly the growing popularity of the Internet,
members of the public consider it important that measures are taken to protect youngsters from
the dissemination of obscene and indecent materials on such new media systems.
The government layouts a number of options:
Option one: co-regulation approach that demands Internet Service Providers to:
1. tighten up their service contracts with subscribers by incorporating specific clauses which
prohibit subscribers from publishing obscene or indecent articles;
2. formulate measures against repeated offenders, which may involve limiting the bandwidth made
available to such offenders or imposing temporary suspension or termination of service in case of
contravention of contractual terms;
3. implement a voluntary labelling system and encourage webmasters to label their websites to
indicate whether they are suitable for children and youngsters;
4. provide filtering services to subscribers for the purpose of filtering out web content which
is not suitable for children and youngsters.
Option two is mandatory approach via legislation:
to make it mandatory for ISPs to provide filtering service to their subscribers so that
children and youngsters will be protected from web content not suitable to them. This would
enable filtering of content from both local and overseas websites.
Option three is statutory approach, which targets at content providers:
1. websites are required to provide warnings if they display indecent materials;
2. an access control system is to be established to authenticate the age of the web users. For
example, web users are required to input their credit card data before getting access to webpage
containing indecent materials to ensure that they have attained the age of 18;
3. empower enforcement agencies, upon receipt of a judicial warrant, to issue a “take-down
notice” to the indecent websites or the ISPs concerned; and
4. prosecute content providers who fail to comply with the statutory requirements.
Martinoei criticizes that all the suggestions imply
an introduction of Great Fire Wall in Hong Kong:
蘇錦樑呢æ¢X建è¯é»¨å“¡ï¼Œè©±å’å¿«å°±è¦åœ¨é¦™æ¸¯å¼•進防ç«é•·åŸŽï¼Œæ·«å¯©è™•本來己經被指權力éŽå¤§ï¼Œä¾å®¶æ¬ŠåЛ仲è¦å¤§åˆ°æžéŽæ¿¾å單,係咪想æžé¦™æ¸¯ç‰ˆé˜²ç«é•·åŸŽã€‚照香港有大衛åƒéƒ½ä¿‚æ·«è¤»å˜…ç¡¬è† å‰ç§‘,隨時æˆå€‹é«˜ç™»éƒ½æœƒåˆ—å…¥éŽæ¿¾åå–®ï¼Œå’æ¨£ä»²æˆä¸–界?仲惡éŽå»¿ä¸‰æ¢ã€‚
Gregory So, party member of
DAB
(translator note: a pro-China political party in Hong Kong), soon after he got into power, he wants
to introduce great fire wall in Hong Kong. Obscene Article Tribunal has been known to have
excessive power, now they are to formulate black list for filtering. Isn't that in fact Hong Kong's
great fire wall? As we have the most ridiculous record of turing the David Statue into indecent
article, it is very likely that the whole golden forum would be included in the list. What will
Hong Kong become? Such kind of policy is more evil that article 23.
Although the government stresses that it doesn't have any fixed position, erynnyes from Those
were the days
is still angry at the government's suggestions:
當然,政府把一切說æˆè«®è©¢ï¼Œæ”¿åºœæ²’æœ‰ç«‹å ´ï¼Œç”šè‡³åœ¨æ–‡ä»¶ä¸æå‡ºåå°è€…è²éŸ³ï¼Œä»¥é¡¯ç¤ºä¸ç«‹ï¼Œå¯æ˜¯åœ¨ç«¥å·¥è§’åº¦ï¼Œæœ‰äº›ç«‹å ´ã€å»ºè°ï¼Œæ ¹æœ¬æå‡ºä¹Ÿæ˜¯ç½ªï¼Œå› 為這是削弱香港互è¯ç¶²è‡ªç”±ï¼Œå®Œå…¨æ¯‹é ˆè¨Žè«–ï¼Œçš†å› æ²’æœ‰ä»»ä½•å¦¥å”之餘地ï¼é‚£ä»½è«®è©¢æ–‡ä»¶ï¼Œå°±åƒäº’è¯ç¶²çš„23
æ¢ï¼Œåªæƒ³æ‰“é€ ä¸€å€‹è¶…è¶Šä¸åœ‹çš„æ‰“壓互è¯è‡ªç”±çš„香港金盾ï¼
The government stresses that it is just consultation, and it doesn't have any stand. It tries
to show its neutrality by mentioning some of the oppositional voices. However, from our viewpoints,
some positions and suggestions shouldn't be included in the consultation, as it will erode the
internet freedom. The very act of putting them into the agenda is a sin as we should not compromise
human rights principle. The consultation papers is like Internet article 23 aims at constructing a
Golden shield in Hong Kong, competing with what have been done in China.
Hystericireul posts a large
picture of David Statue in his blog to protest against the Indecent censorship policy. He
also makes a dozen points on the consultation:
10.
æ·«å””æ·«ï¼Œæ ¹æœ¬å°±ä¿‚åŒæ´©å””æ´©ä¸€æ¨£ï¼Œå„æ–½å„法å„éš¨å¿ƒã€‚é™¤å·¦å°‘éƒ¨åˆ†å¥½æ˜Žé¡¯è®Šæ…‹å˜”å¿ƒæ ¸çªæ—¢ç‰©å“ä¹‹å¤–ï¼Œæ ¹æœ¬å¥½å¤šç‰©å“就無一個清晰定義去界定點為之「淫ã€ï¼Œå°¤å…¶æ˜¯ç•¶ä½ æˆç仆街連大衛åƒéƒ½å¯ä»¥è¦ºå¾—ä¿‚ã€Œæ·«è¤»ã€æ—¢è©±ï¼Œä»²æœ‰ä¹œé‡Žä¿‚唔淫?vv物語講西,淫唔淫?西廂記夢ä¸äº¤åˆï¼Œæ·«å””æ·«ï¼ŸèŽ«éžæˆ‘地以後創作時就唔å¯ä»¥æ‰“ç ´å¤äººæ—¢æ›–昧,照樣講到扑野就「呵呵,哈哈,嗯嗯ã€ç®—數?
11.
æ ¹æœ¬å€‹å•題係,å¥ç«‹ä¸€å€‹å¥åº·å¥å…¨æ—¢äººæ ¼ï¼Œå’ä½¢ç‡ä¹œéƒ½å””æœƒè®Šå£žã€‚è€Œå®¶ä¿‚ä½ çæ’šæ¨£æžæŸ’左個社會,æˆçå°æœ‹å‹æœªå‡ä¸å…ˆè¥¿çª¿ï¼Œ3456789pçŽ©é½Šï¼Œå‘¢å€‹ä¿‚ä½¢åœ°è…¦è€æœªç”ŸåŸ‹æ—¢å•題,我地è¦åšæ—¢ä¿‚å¥½å¥½æ•™å°Žä½¢åœ°ï¼Œè€Œå””ä¿‚ä¸€å‘³ç¦çµ•囉。
10. Whether something is indecent or not, its nature is like whether a kid is naughty or not.
It is very arbitrary, everyone has his/her own standard. Except a very limited amount of perverted
articles, it is very difficult to draw a line for most articles. Especially the fact that some
assholes dare to define the David Statue as “indecent”, what else cannot be
“indecent”? Vagina Monologues is all about vagina, is that indecent? Romance of the
West Chamber have a scene on sexual intercourse in the dream, is that indecent? In the future, when
we write story about love making, should we follow ancient reticence by omitting the descriptive
part and substitute it with “oh… er……mum….”?
11. The issue at stake is to help our children to develop a healthy personality, then whatever
they read, cannot have negative impact on them. Look at how this group of dick heads rule the
society, children are having 34567 P (multiple sexual partners) before they enter high school
because they are not mature in their attitudes. We should teach them, not prohibit them from
knowing.
There are also some discussions from Internet forums, such as from pumb.org:
User169167 criticizes the government's official ability in governing Hong Kong:
雞有病 =
唔俾賣活雞唔使煩
樹有病 =
斬晒佢唔使煩
è‰²æƒ…ç¶²é æ•™å£žç´°ä½¬
=
block晒佢唔使煩
政府çé«˜è–ªåŽšè·æ—¢å¤©æçŸ¥å””çŸ¥å’©å«æ•™è‚²ï¼Ÿ
說穿了其實就係借管制色情網é 為開端,繼而é”至更容易收緊其它題æç¶²é (例如政治ã€ç¤¾è«–),壓抑社會å¦é¡žæ¸ é“åå°è²éŸ³ã€‚
When Chickens are sick = ban all fresh chickens from the market and save the trouble
When trees are sick = cut them all and save the trouble
When pornography websites have negative impact on children = block them all and save the trouble
All these well-paid high ranked government officials, do they know what is education?
The hidden agenda is to start from controlling the pornography websites and then tighten the
control of other websites (such as political and social critics) and repress oppositional voices.
User george2be said that the government power should stay out of the filtering mechanism:
å®¶é•·åŒå¸æ ¡æƒ³filter,
應該自己è£è»Ÿä»¶åš.
政府å¯ä»¥æä¾›è³‡æºåŒæ¢ä»¶ä»¤å‘¢d軟件更易買到
(如跟機å¯ä»¥åŠ ).
æ ¹æœ¬ç„¡éœ€è¦ç«‹æ³•賦予政府è¨ç«‹éŽæ¿¾æ©Ÿåˆ¶æ—¢æ¬ŠåŠ›.
æ£å¦‚莫乃光講,
ç¾åœ¨æœ€å¤§å•é¡Œä¿‚æ·«å¯©è™•è£æ±ºæ¨™æº–ä¸ä¸€,
缺ä¹å…¬ä¿¡åŠ›.
連定標準既機構都亂七八糟,
在未解決呢個å•題å‰,
點å¯èƒ½ç«‹æ³•æ¯”ä½¢æ¬ŠåŠ›åŽ»éŽæ¿¾æ›´å¤šæ—¢è¨€è«–åŒè³‡è¨Š.
å€’è¡Œé€†æ–½èŽ«éŽæ–¼æ¤.
The parent and schools, if they want to have filter, they should have their own filtering
software. The government can provide informations and resources for them to buy the software. We
don't need legislation to give power to the government for setting up filtering mechanism.
Like what Charles Mok has said, now the problem is about the double standard in the OAT judgment.
They have lost their credibility in the public. If they don't have a clear standard, how can we
give the power to the government in filtering information?
This is such a regression in local governance.
User P-U-M-B pointed out that the internet would eventually become intranet under such policy
direction:
å’æžæ³• !! internet
變左intranet
Kay sets up a facebook group on defending internet freedom to follow
through the consultation.