Monday, February 18, 2008

豔照門

希望這是最後一篇。

《香港經濟日報》二月十六日社評(摘錄):

自警方高調拘捕涉嫌在網上發佈疑似藝人裸照的疑犯後,不少輿論指摘警方為殺一儆百而執法過火,甚至上綱上線地斥責偏幫有財有勢人士,律政司昨釋放案中首名被告,公眾焦點更集中於抨擊警方,但此有欠公允,更錯放焦點。

  其一,警方的處理雖有不周之處,但高調大力執法可以理解,因這才有望遏止網上繼續肆意流傳照片、繼續傷害受害人。

  其二,外界指首被告已被不合理地還押兩週,但此並不涉警方濫權,因法院當日有權拒絕警方不準被告保釋的要求,故還押被告若有不妥,權責都在司法機構,而非警方

  其三,這次律政司撤銷控罪,反映的是法院與淫審處對何謂「不雅」、「淫褻」,有不同標準,而淫審處過往的審定則曾多番惹起質疑。政府要做的是如何理順當中矛盾,釐清「淫褻」定義,令警方執法有據,保障市民權利與公眾利益。

  因此,輿論只一窩蜂狠批警方,未免失諸公允。但更大的傷害,其實是輿論將焦點錯放,令事件最重要的是非,得不到應有關注

  裸照風波涉及更大公眾利益的,其實是侵犯私隱的道德問題

  網上肆無忌憚地傳播藝人裸照,有些更理直氣壯地以資訊自由為擋箭牌,部分傳媒亦推波助瀾地不斷刊登有關相片,甚至推出專輯賺錢,但試問若相中人是網民自己或親人,他們是否仍會興高采烈地「分享」照片?觀看相片的網民、讀者,是否願意自己家中小朋友如此容易、彷彿合情合理地接觸有關照片?

  社會能健康運作,除了靠法治外,還需要社會道德,此並不需要大道理,最基本是己所不欲勿施於人。當案件受害人被不道德地一再傷害時,社會的道德與孩子的成長環境,亦一再被傷害。漠視糾正歪風且加以助長,才是今次裸照風波中最值得關注的核心問題。

14 comments:

lasallejai said...

The more I listen to and read about the Edison's PC picture file leak incident in Hong Kong the more I find the leadership in Hong Kong is showing a big sign of helplessness. A simple juicy after meal gossip topic turns bold and loud up to the top dog person, Mr. Tsang. Pretty scary if you ask me, becasuse Mr. Tsang has better things to do and deal with. I cannot imagine President Bush of the USA or Prime Minister Harper of Canada had to handle a trivial matter like this. We are not talking about child pornography, and if those pictures were not takan under any influences they are all legal and legitimate. Back to square one, nothing is wrong with those photographs, and the only crime committed here is the persons who downloaded them without consent; therefore, theft has been committed! Full stop and period! The Hong Kong Police Force is so darn stupid! The press shows even more stupidity making it headlines day in and day out! Just because the persons invloved are mostly public figures so they deserve this type of coverage???? What if the 10 persons(so far) involved were all nobody average public??? I doubt they would attract as much attention, and the Hong Kong Police Force would just shovel it off their table in an eye blink. This thing happens almost daily, and as long as there is no blackmailing and threatening associated people should just let it go. When a person takes private pictures like that he or she should be prepared for this to happen, possibly some day some where down the road. Edison Chan has not done anything wrong, and he is not the one who shows his private portfolio to the public---he is just plain stupid and foolish to get his PC repaired by strangers! Chan's love life is none of our business, and what he does behind closed doors is his own business. Why do we have to intrude his privacy???? Where is Chan's right?? For those girls who had been intimate with Chan and tried to hide it that is their problem. If they could all be up front and frank about that in the first place I do not think this incident would drag on for such a long time! What people do in private is their own business, and why should we bother to explore and examine????? Treat others like you would like to be treated! Back off, people!

connie said...

貴報社又要給駡「建制派」了吧?

「己所不欲勿施於人」- 唉,現在有多少人理這一套! 要不然怎會天天在駡- 自己永遠是對的,別人永遠是錯的嘛, 錯了當然要駡啦,不駡白不駡。我們的官、我們的政府嘛,龜子般少做少錯,不做不錯。社會只圖口舌之爭,只見短利之義。

法庭是過火了,現任一哥的斤兩也給秤出來了。可是有斤兩的怎會肯「留低」!

kallman said...

管不了網上世界,還可算是因為網民眾多,管也管不了;但如果連報章雜誌也管不了,政府就難辭其咎了。

當事情明顯地超越了出版自由的範疇時,政府可否做一點事去打壓歪風呢?(除了拿一兩名市民「祭旗」外…)

Sun Bin said...

IMHO,

1) yes, the judge is the one to be blamed
2) the police is incompetent and i do not sympathize with them -- regarding this i disagree with your boss
3) morality is something very subjective, i agree with 己所不欲勿施於人, but i also agree chan chi-wan (TVB) that morality is for applying to oneself, not to others. therefore, 'moral' is not an excuse/reason for censorship, any kind of censorship.
4) yes, speech freedom is above all. in particular, above morality and everything. IMHO. so i disagree with your boss again here.
5) privacy: this has to do with whoever who leaked the picture. For the average netizen who spread the picture, this is irrelvant. because what they spread is already public info.

Martin Oei said...

兩個成年人關在房門搞什麼,關我啥事。有關照片,我自己沒有興趣看,我不是扮聖潔,而是鍾欣桐不是一直扮純情的話,她與陳生如何胡天胡帝關我鬼事,是不是找套三仔四仔更專業,更好看?

但問題在於,這件事的討論根本己經失去理性,事實上,淫照門是社會上的激進改革派與極端保守派開拖的戰場,你講 任何持平意見都會被錯誤歸類,然後誤中流彈,一如法國大革命和辛亥革命前夕。

事實上是,網民對娛樂界的不滿乘機大發洩,而演藝界和保守派亦想乘機找藉口管制互聯網。

Sun Bin said...

(A) "網上肆無忌憚地傳播藝人裸照,有些更理直氣壯地以資訊自由為擋箭牌,部分傳媒亦推波助瀾地不斷刊登有關相片,甚至推出專輯賺錢,但試問若相中人是網民自己或親人,他們是否仍會興高采烈地「分享」照片?觀看相片的網民、讀者,是否願意自己家中小朋友如此容易、彷彿合情合理地接觸有關照片?"

(B) freedom of speech / 1st amendment, eg. in USA -- though not perfect, it was tested for over 200 years in a major democracy

I will choose B, period.
not to say that 'morality' itself is not universal, lack of clear definition and could be manipulated by certain hypocrits.

VC said...

Sun Bin,

A) to protect the innocent;
A2) to protect privacy;
B) to protect freedom of speech & press;
C) to protect personal property.

what will you choose?

VC said...

我大致讚同這社評。

但沒了這段老土論調會更好,
"但試問若相中人是網民自己或親人,他們是否仍會興高采烈地「分享」照片?觀看相片的網民、讀者,是否願意自己家中小朋友如此容易、彷彿合情合理地接觸有關照片?
...此並不需要大道理,最基本是己所不欲勿施於人。當案件受害人被不道德地一再傷害時,社會的道德與孩子的成長環境,亦一再被傷害。"

"己所不欲勿施於人"不是最基本而是很崇高的大道理。

connie said...

"5) privacy: this has to do with whoever who leaked the picture. For the average netizen who spread the picture, this is irrelvant. because what they spread is already public info."

This logic probably does not stand up legally.

Much like libel, let's say A said B is retarded, and this was reported by a number of newspapers. A and the newspapers are all liable to libel charges if B decides to sue. Whether the material is already in public domain is immaterial.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sun Bin said...

@VC

A) to protect the innocent;
A2) to protect privacy;
B) to protect freedom of speech & press;
C) to protect personal property.

Not easy. I cannot choose. I could try to rank

1) B
2) Justice (A)
following (A) there is (C)
3) A2 -- but one can argue that the photos are 'personal properties' as well. Privacy is another issue and let's leave it aside now. (My personal opinion is it is of secondary importance compared with the others)

does this becomes an issue of copyright over the internet? let's say Chen owns the copyright of these photos (he does)
1) he sold this to Mr Shi, Shi sold it to someone else. someone else uploaded
2) his photo was 'stolen' (made a copy) without his knowledge. the (1) follows.

so let's first take out 'privacy', the issues are probably just that?

---

now if someone send me a song, and i share it with my friend. how would you look at this?

Anonymous said...

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court.
They say to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women: what then do You say?"
They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
But when they persisted in asking Him. He Straightened up, and said to them. " He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her. " Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin on more." John 8:3-11

P.S. I love to read trivial stuffs

Byron

Brian said...

淫照事件本來並不複雜,但政府及警方進退失據,低估了網絡的威力,又因為失言而引執法不公的質疑,可以說是小事化大、自找麻煩的經典例子。

VC said...

Sun Bin, 友朋間私下傳閱,我認為無不可。

但現況是陳冠希的私人財產被盜取,
他和她們的私隱被侵犯,

十萬計銷量的報刊傳媒 侵權 販賣賊贓 謀利之餘,
還高唱言論自由 和 歌頌盜賊,
以超高道值審判受害人(物主)增加趣味(銷量)!

責備這樣的傳媒=傷害言論自由? 中計了

P.S. i rank: A >> C > A2 >> B
& i understand your (A) as A1 & A2.

Leona said...

刻意在離家前張貼這文章,聽聽大家的看法,回來讀了每個留言,覺得都在水準之上,觀點與分析真令我佩服。

很高興能和此高質素的讀友交流。
:)

以下是讀了諸君留言後,一點淺見:

(1)關於警方:回想個多月前回母校聽了一場前一哥李明逵的演講,對比當今一哥的表現,頗有後浪不及前浪的感慨。莫非蜀中無大將?

(2)關於傳媒:雖然傳媒的做法大有斟酙餘地,但這還得靠自律/公民社會的制約。若貿然由政府干預/施壓/糾正,恐怕後患無窮。
有沒有聽過一個寓言故事:兔子遇上狼,請老虎替牠把狼趕走。結果狼果然被嚇得落荒而逃了,但兔子又該找誰把老虎趕走呢?

(3)關於言論自由:如果說道德沒有普世標準、流於主觀、定義不清、易被操縱…難道「言論自由」不是嗎?
所以,不,Sun Bin,不同意你那言論自由大於其他的看法(起碼到目前為此你還未能說服我)。不過,我倆沒理由為這些主觀的判斷爭個沒完沒了吧?
:)
還是Byron引的聖經經文,更值得大家一再深思。

(4)關於事件引起的軒然大波:我大致同意lasallejei、世澤和Brian,而有關的想法,先前寫的兩篇文章已說了,這裏就不再死唔斷氣了。