梁振英「發爛渣」的警號

受劉夢熊「自殺式炸彈」襲擊,加上民望低落,所到之處均受示威者「狙擊」,器量小及缺乏政治智慧的梁振英,選擇以挑戰港人「核心價值」的方式回應。

早前他在維園被「長毛」梁國雄等擋住去路,高聲抗議,加上人數比示威者還要多的記者拍攝,現場一片混亂,梁振英的太太被保護她的保安錯誤撞擊。梁振英腦羞成怒,事後由特首辦發聲明,「指梁振英對梁國雄及其他示威者衝擊搗亂,予以譴責,對商戶及市民造成不便,深感遺憾,特首日後仍會繼續與市民保持接觸,不受搗亂人士干擾。」這個聲明,除反映梁振英的「好戰」作風,亦流露其跟大陸共幹相同的高高在上心態。很簡單,大陸官員「微服出巡」做騷,洗太平地,組織「群眾」歡迎等,這些人盡皆知的「關懷群眾」的假象已騙不了多少人,因為大眾對官員造假,官媒造假已經「瞭如指掌」。

而近年每逢北京要員訪港,如臨大敵的保安,由親建制安排訪問居民騷,把一切抗議聲音排除於「領導人」的視聽範圍,亦與大陸看齊。但畢竟香港不是大陸,港媒始終有相對的自主性,「領導人」要港媒完全配合,合演「大龍鳳」自然不可能。於是前年李克強訪港傳媒報道了港大學生被困,麗港城居民被禁閉,記者被警員無理搜查等,於是去年胡錦濤訪港,傳媒報道了記者高聲向胡提問有關「六四」問題,被在場警員非法羈留及盤問,又報道了會展場外特大水馬阻礙示威者抗議活動等,跟大陸輿論一律仍有所區別,甚至個別傳媒會批評當局擾民。這是香港還未被完全閹割的言論和新聞自由可貴之處。

換言之,市民向官員抗議,是香港憲法賦予的基本人權,不能被輕易剝奪,而官員亦要有心理準備隨時遇見示威者。當然,示威者不可以襲擊官員,這是常識。當日維園示威,「長毛」等攔阻梁振英的座駕,企圖走近梁振英身旁高聲說他欺騙市民等,在一些市民心中可能是「激烈行動」,但他們並沒有襲擊梁振英,幾個示威者面對數以十計的保安和警員,怎「埋到身」?誤撞梁太的是保安,不是示威者,極其量是保安和警員護駕不力的結果,因此而譴責示威者,並非有胸襟的為政者所為。

梁振英的譴責聲明,令灰記想起美國的政客,例如前加州州長阿諾舒華辛力加曾被示威者用雞蛋擲中,相當尷尬。而擲雞、擲蕃茄、擲鞋這些在西方社會司空見慣的動作,主流香港人則認為不可接受,所以「長毛」等在立法會擲東西經常引起爭議。但阿諾事後卻一臉輕鬆的對記者說,「這是民主政治的一部分,這是我愛美國的原因。」不論阿諾內心是否在詛咒那個示威者,但作為政客,他理解「食得鹹魚抵得渴」的道理,即使他是加州選民一人一票選出來的州長,也必須面對反對他、反感他的市民的不客氣舉動。

但小圈子選舉產生,有「地下黨」背景的梁振英,因為與大陸共幹有專制主義的「共同血源」,看事物便與民主社會的政客大異其趣。加上主流香港人,包括「泛民」中人,不易接受稍為「激烈」或有創意的示威舉動,於是梁振英的譴責「長毛」,並沒有多少「泛民」人士反指摘梁振英,為示威者抱不平。而梁振英之後變本加厲,發律師信給《信報》,要求撤回資深政論家練乙錚1月29日的文章,「誠信問題已非要害 梁氏涉黑實可雙規」並道歉,否則控告誹謗。

查實練乙錚是根據劉夢熊早前接受《陽光時務》專訪的內容,作出自己的分析。正如《信報》發表的聲明所言,「……練文已再三提醒讀者,劉夢熊接受《陽光時務週刊》第40期訪問時提供的信息未必可靠。二、練文還特別提出,有關涉黑是疑點,還需嚴格求證,包括由立法會負責向包括梁振英在內的有關人士套取材料。……」

即使練文真的立場偏頗,對梁振英有所不公,梁振英作為特首,有足夠平台澄清事實,去信威脅傳媒,實在是非常「小家」,引起社會很大反彈亦屬意料中事。facebook瘋狂分享練先生的文章,此次「泛民」亦乘機抽水,一些議員在維園花市的攤位寫上「歡迎特首告我誹謗」。而建制派機會主義者,行政會議成員葉劉淑儀亦把握機會,在電台接受訪問時說,當年當官員時被人侮辱、人身攻擊,覺得別人性別歧視(所指相信是一些以她為題材的投機刊物),曾想過告人誹謗,但徵詢過政府的法律顧問,覺得官員告平民誹謗勝算不高、意義不大。她亦接受一些女高官勸告,說告誹謗只會益了誹謗者,替他們宣傳,打消了念頭。事實上,正如港大法律學院院長陳文敏接受傳媒所言,根據英國1993年的案例,政府官員無權提出誹謗訴訟。上議院法院的判詞指,在普通法,作為政府或代表政府的官員,無權提出誹謗訴訟,否則容易扼殺言論自由。

而葉劉亦乘機揶揄梁振英,說可能他沒有徵詢政府法律顧問的意見,可能他身邊的律師很喜歡興訟。又說梁振英一時氣憤吧了云云。從葉劉的話,灰記看到梁振英如此敗壞香港的制度,第一,行政會議以往總算是政府的一個團隊,做事有規有矩,但由梁振英開始,為了自己要參選特首,在曾蔭權當特首,自己任行會召集人時,經常走出來唱反調,暗批政府政策。這亦是大陸設計的政制的荒謬,搞表面和諧的小圈子選舉,變成大家總是各懷鬼胎,而不是光明正大的做在野派、反對派去批評政治對手。現便在葉劉的作風完全是有樣學樣。第二,梁完全不信任公務員制度,至少不尊重政府法律顧問的意見,所以才發律師,顯示了自己的無道及無識見。很多批評已指,如果真的是誹謗,劉夢熊是始作俑者,為何梁振英又輕輕放過他呢,是否練文擊中了他的要害?/p>

梁振英發律師信後便放假離港,顯示他不願傳媒再追問他。不過,中共名下的《文匯報》則配合梁振英,以來論形式,撰寫「練乙錚一實信口雌黃 不顧新聞操守應受譴責」,對練乙錚大肆抨擊,甚至到了人身攻擊的地步,很有大陸「鬥垮鬥臭」的作風,證明梁振英的律師信並非純粹私人舉動,當中就有黨報的撐腰。而相信練乙錚即使感到如何受屈,也不會愚蠢至向《文匯報》發律師信。概民事訴訟乃花錢的事,普通市民怎負荷得起。新加坡政府就是以控告反對派誹謗(當然還有更嚴厲的指控,如觸犯國家安全法),導致反對派破產,是收拾反對派的「辣招」之一。當然新加坡傳媒受政府控制,所以這種欺負人的做法沒有引起爭論。有作者提醒了灰記,新加坡傳媒也是受制於嚴厲的誹謗法而乖乖就範︰

「……1995年李光耀控告《國際先驅論壇報》記者John Vinocur誹謗勝訴,法官判詞指Vinocur報道三位司長牽涉獨裁和貪污,「直接打擊政府核心和管治威信」,認為法庭有責任保護行政機關,如果政府沒有道德力量難以管治。李光耀更大言不慚說市民很易聽信流言,一旦影響信心新加坡就會滅亡。新加坡政府以誹謗控告傳媒、反對黨和選舉對手一直多不勝數。新加坡法官的判詞可能正中某些人的下懷,什麼法庭應該協助行政機關施政的爛調子,忽略了三權分立的重要性;李光耀這種新加坡一亂就死的rhetoric更是老土不堪,直到90年代末期還以馬來西亞的威脅來恐嚇人民,根據人民行動黨的思維,恐怕1000年後新加坡還是每天告訴公民正值危急存亡之秋不能建立開放社會。……」(《政府vs.傳媒——不見血的謀殺》作者︰何雪瑩2月10日明報星期日生活)

而新加坡是有普選,但執政人民行動黨長期專制的國家,這個專制的city state也許是梁振英和中共十分心儀及想學習的地方,他們可能正挖空心思,研究如何把香港變成新加坡,一個有普選的專制社會。所以香港市民及本地傳媒面臨越來嚴峻的環境,幾可斷言。

而傳媒的態度亦至關重要,《信報》的公開聲明雖有為練文辯護的努力,但態度不夠堅定,文末「本報管理層、編輯部及文章作者並無指稱梁先生已涉黑,若因文章而引起讀者對梁先生不公的結論或引來不便,我們謹此致歉。」實在太和稀泥了,給人息事寧人感覺。問題是梁振英發律師信的行為,連保守的新聞行政人員協會也說不恰當,《信報》不表達憤慨之餘,還要致歉,實在說不過去。而梁振英透過特首辦回應(又是公器私用,做壞規矩),表示注意到並接受那段致歉的說話。信報總編輯陳景祥事後向傳媒表示,對梁的行動感失望及震驚,並稱是向讀者而非梁振英致歉。然而,又沒有讀者投訴文章有問題,為何要向讀者致歉?希望這封公開聲明不會損害員工士氣,更不是《信報》管理層息事寧人的表現。

無論如何,梁振英向示威者及傳媒宣戰,除了是個人品質問題,也是特區政府在中共強硬路線主導下的辦事作風。最近嚴敏華被控「襲警」罪成,要羈留十多天,等候宣判,以及古思堯「燒國旗」判囚九個月,是新一輪的警號。侮辱國旗在很多先進國家都不是罪行,體現人權先於政權的觀念。香港人是否可不受愛國迷思影響,把言論自由堅持到底,還是對「異端」行為敬而遠之,不去捍衛人權,不去批判過嚴過時的法例,如國旗法,任由國家機器修理敢於挑戰特區甚至中共的行為,默認政權收窄表達空間,將來屠刀落在自己頭上,則已太遲。

附錄︰壹週刊於梁發律信後,於日本專訪練乙錚

28 responses to “梁振英「發爛渣」的警號

  1. Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others的判詞

    “if the criticism consists of defamatory utterances against individual servants of the state actions for defamation will lie at their suit…A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day to day management of its affairs. If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation”

    “Lords Justices also alluded to the consideration that the publication of defamatory matter concerning a local authority was likely to reflect also on individual councillors or officers, and that the prospect of actions for libel at their instance also afforded some protection to the local authority”

    陳文敏出錯。

  2. 也是引述Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others的判詞

    The fundamental right of freedom of speech is involved in this litigation, and not merely the right of liberty of the press. If this action can be maintained against a newspaper it can be maintained against every private citizen who ventures to criticise the ministers who are temporarily conducting the affairs of his government. Where any person by speech or writing seeks to persuade others to violate existing law or to overthrow by force or other unlawful means the existing government, he may be punished . . . but all other utterances or publications against the government must be considered absolutely privileged.
    假如可用此動作來對付報紙,則任何批評者也可照樣對待。若涉勸說他人違法及武力及不法手段推翻現政府,他應受罰,但除此以為,任何反對政府的言論也應被允許。

    此其一

  3. 再引述Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others的判詞。其中提及南非1946案例若干判詞。

    In Die Spoorbond v. South African Railways, 1946 A.D. 999 the Supreme Court of South Africa held that the South African Railways and Harbours, a governmental department of the Union of South Africa, was not entitled to maintain an action for defamation in respect of a publication alleged to have injured its reputation as the authority responsible for running the railways.
    這涉南非鐵路的案例,南非最高法院認為,這鐵路本身是南非的一政府部門,並不享有提出誹謗訴訟權利。

    Schreiner J.A. said, at pp. 1012-1013:
    ‘I am prepared to assume, for the purposes of the present argument, that the Crown may, at least in so far as it takes part in trading in competition with its subjects, enjoy a reputation, damage to which could be calculated in money. On that assumption there is certainly force in the contention that it would be unfair to deny to the Crown the weapon, an action for damages for defamation, which is most feared by calumniators. Nevertheless it seems to me that considerations of fairness and convenience are, on balance, distinctly against the recognition of a right in the Crown to sue the subject in a defamation action to protect that reputation.
    法官說,我假定,皇室(按:代表南非當局,儼如九七前涉港府的訴訟其政府方都是稱the Crown) 因與民營競爭,由是有商譽,有可由金錢量度之損失。有這假定則有力量爭論若否定皇室這誹謗武器,這是不公道的。但權衡公平、方便的考慮後,我認為要反對皇室這告誹謗之權。

    The normal means by which the Crown protects itself against attacks upon its management of the country’s affairs is political action and not litigation, and it would, I think, be unfortunate if that practice were altered.
    現時皇室保障自己管治的方法是政治行徑,而不是法律的 (按:如今投、重選議席去確立合法性,等等) ,我認為,如這做法有變實是不幸。

    At present certain kinds of criticism of those who manage the state’s affairs may lead to criminal prosecutions, while if the criticism consists of defamatory utterances against individual servants of the state actions for defamation will lie at their suit.
    現今某些對當政者的批評可致刑事檢控,而若對個別公務員作誹謗則可受誹謗檢控。(按:這是當時南非事實存在的做法,法官並未說這是恰當。眾所就知,南非當時是行種族隔離政策,存在的,未必合理。)

    But subject to the risk of these sanctions and to the possible further risk, to which reference will presently be made, of being sued by the Crown for injurious falsehood, any subject is free to express his opinion upon the management of the country’s affairs without fear of legal consequences.
    上面提及這些,再加上如對皇室有失實、傷害性報導會受懲罰,這些對言論有限制,但除此之外任何人皆可對國家行政暢所欲言。

    I have no doubt that it would involve a serious interference with the free expression of opinion hitherto enjoyed in this country if the wealth of the state, derived from the state’s subjects, could be used to launch against those subjects actions for defamation because they have, falsely and unfairly it may be, criticised or condemned the management of the country. …It would be difficult to assign any limits to the Crown’s right to sue for defamation once its right in any case were recognised.’
    我不懷疑,若這國家的財富-即由子民所取得的財富-用來告子民以誹謗,原因是這些人對行政批評或鞭撻,那即使這些批評是不實、不公,但這樣做會是對言論自由的嚴重干涉。一旦開了頭,則再難對皇室的這利器有所制約。

    此其二

  4. 容我再三引述Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others的判詞。

    These observations may properly be regarded as no less applicable to a local authority than to a department of central government. In the same case Watermeyer C.J., at p. 1009, observed that the reputation of the Crown might fairly be regarded as distinct from that of the group of individuals temporarily responsible for the management of the railways on its behalf. In the case of a local authority temporarily under the control of one political party or another it is difficult to say that the local authority as such has any reputation of its own. Reputation in the eyes of the public is more likely to attach itself to the controlling political party, and with a change in that party the reputation itself will change.
    這南非案例既適用於中央政府的部門,也同樣適用於地方政府。(按:即是地方告人誹謗也不恰當。) 同一酮非案例,另一法官指出皇室的聲譽與管理鐵路當局的聲譽截然不同。地方政權當時受某政黨控制時,地方政府本身說不上有自身的聲譽。其名聲繫其當時受控的政黨,若政黨輪替其名聲也隨之而變。(按:即是說,地方政府非獨立個體,又如何可告誹謗?)

    A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day to day management of its affairs. If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation. Further, it is open to the controlling body to defend itself by public utterances and in debate in the council chamber.
    刊物對地方當局的攻擊,其實是攻擊當時執政黨,或者是攻擊當時的日常政策執行人。如這些人聲譽不當地受損,可自行告人誹謗。再者,執政黨可自行作公開言論去辯護,也可在議會辯論中辯解。

    The conclusion must be, in my opinion, that under the common law of England a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action of damages for defamation. That was the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal, which did so principally by reference to article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd. 8969), to which the United Kingdom has adhered but which has not been enacted into domestic law.
    結論只能是,在英國普通法之下,地方政權無權作誹謗起訴。這是上訴庭的結論,是根據歐盟保護人權及基本言論公約自由第十條的原則所作的結論。這公約聯合王國雖未在本地法例中實施,但王國實己主動自行遵從。(按:舉例說,假如你老板好好,就算標準工時未立法,他仍可主動叫你唔加班。)

    此其三

  5. 最後引述Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others的判詞,結論部分。

    Having examined other authorities he concluded, having carried out the balancing exercise requisite for purposes of article 10 of the Convention, that there was no pressing social need that a corporate public authority should have the right to sue in defamation for the protection of its reputation.
    社會上無需讓公共機關有權告人誹謗。

    That must certainly be true considering that in the past hundred years there are only two known instances of a defamation action by a local authority. He considered that the right to sue for malicious falsehood gave such a body all the protection which was necessary. Similar views were expressed by Ralph Gibson and Butler-Sloss L.JJ. [1992] Q.B. 770, 824, 834, who observed that the law of criminal libel might be available in suitable cases, to afford additional protection. All three Lords Justices also alluded to the consideration that the publication of defamatory matter concerning a local authority was likely to reflect also on individual councillors or officers, and that the prospect of actions for libel at their instance also afforded some protection to the local authority.
    過去三百年只兩宗由地方機關提出的誹謗案。給這些機關有提控「惡意造謠」的權利,已是足夠。這些情況「刑事誹謗」可用得上,這可提供更多保障。三法官暗示,地方機關被誹謗,其真正對象是向著個別議員或官員的。那個別人可以告人誹謗,這也對地方機關有些保障。

  6. …curioushunter,不知你有沒有看到你引述的判詞中所說的是「政府」或「政府部門」或「機構」。有沒有看清楚Lord Keith of Kinel判詞中的原理??Lord Keith of Kinel說得很清楚,政府中的「個人」可以提出起訴。

  7. 另,梁振英的「公民身份」與「公民權利」是在什麽時候消失的?
    離題。練乙錚說的是特首, CY的律師也說是代表特首。另, 問題重點是誹謗指控是否有有事實根據。這是大家比較關心的問題。

    如果一定要答你的問題:"梁振英的「公民身份」與「公民權利」是在什麽時候消失的?"從他當選那一刻就有改變。當他以不是像你和我一般的"公民"。

    可以睇下"Hustler Magazine v. Falwell" Although it is not a libel case, but the idea of free speech is also applied here.

    “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."

  8. Cris,

    You have a skewed view of law, rule of law and reality. Leung as an individual never ceased to exist. He is not the government nor is the government CY Leung. Leung is entitled to all the individual rights as stipulated and limited by the law. He sent the letter as an individual not as the head of government. Did you read the Derby case above and what the judge said about how individuals could file suit because the accusation was against said individuals? If “Leung is the government" and as we know, “Treasury Tsang is also the government", then how do we distinguish Leung and Tsang as separate entities? Rule of law demands us to see individuals as individuals.

    Yes, Leung is not an usual citizen, but his rights still and do exist. The law places certain checks on public officials’ ability to file a libel suit and it holds them to a higher standard. It’s called actual malice. Go read it up.

    Off topic? Did you read the article above where it cited Prof Chan’s reasoning saying that Leung has no right to sue? And a vast majority now believes that Leung had no right to sue?

    What does this have to do with the first amendment? Again, Leung is not the government. By your logic, you would have to agree with Louis XIV that he was the state.

    Furthermore, Leung has every right to file for libel. According to the law, the onus is on the defendant to prove he is innocent in libel case. And substantially, since Lin made some factual claims, or had intention to present his statements were facts, yes, Leung has a case.

    It’s about the rule of law. If you don’t like Leung and want him gone, fine, I don’t mind that, but don’t come out and pretend the law is on your side. And don’t hijack the terms “rights" and shoehorn it to fit your politics.

  9. You have it reversed. CY and people like you is about Law of Rule, not rule of law. Surprise this elementary idea seems so hard. The libel case is not about his has bad fashion sense or his wife is being ugly. What are being discussed is not his personal matters. Are they not? And *which agency* he used to response to the matter? CY didn’t call his mom to respond. When the whole matter from the beginning to the end has the HK Chief Executive’s stamp on it. Where is the dispute here? CY chose NOT to sue as an individual, I am just repeating him. You seem to understand CY more than the CY himself.

    “What does this have to do with the first amendment? Again, Leung is not the government" I need not infer your understandings of the 1st Amendment is here to protect the government. You said it yourself. And that is less sad if it is not coming from someone use something like “actual malice" in a simple conversation, which common sense people with common sense logic can comprehend.

    btw, Leung has every right to file for libel. The requirement is some ink and papers. But is the lawsuit merit or warranted is a matter need to call up the few cognitive resources to chew on, so one can dump the load later. Oh, does that smell bad to you?

  10. What law of rule? Are you kidding me? I guess you just need to make up things to make your imaginary argument sounds better. Yes it is not about Leung’s private matters; it’s an accusation that he has involvement with criminal organization. Have you read the law? The law explicit states that matters of public concern is merely the perquisite to bring up “Truth" as defence. Which means, even if the issue you raise could concern the public (what the public would be interested in), you still need to bring facts to support (a true matter of public interest), and you have got it arse backward.

    Yes, Leung made a bad respond and should be criticized because of it. But does that mean he has no right to bring the suit? No, he can bring the suit anytime as individual. In retrospect, he could have handled it better. Since you are dragging his mother into this, maybe he should have called your mom to response for him. Oh, and he hasn’t actually file the case yet, so your point being? Right, you have none.

    Well your common sense is wrong. Common sense tell people like you that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around Earth. Luckily, educated people do not trust common sense. They go look into facts, which is something you can’t even remotely comprehend. You having no ability to understand something like actual malice really says something about, well, your lack of ability. And by the way First amendment deals with freedom of speech, but that does not mean freedom of speech is without limits. In the US, that are still laws on hate crimes and libel. So again, you have no point.

    Are you brain dead or something? Or is it made of lead? Someone made an factual, slanderous accusation of someone according to mere hearsay or his own guess. That is the very definition of actual malice: ‘"knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"‘. If you are unwilling to or cannot understand the law then I don’t see how you can cognitively consider whether the case has merits. You just lack the necessary cognitive functioning to make that consideration.

  11. “其一暴露了紅色背景梁氏政權的不斷 黑道化。去年,梁營在劉夢熊牽頭、有前高官「梁粉」參與的「上海仔飯局事件」之後,迅速在形象上與黑勢力切割,相當成功;不料,前不久的挺梁反示威中,出 現黑道派錢計人頭的醜劇,傳媒報道人贓俱獲,梁政權的切割努力,就不顯得那麼有效。這次劉提供的有關信息,更令梁與黑道之間的盟友關係無法掩藏。"

    If it’s a “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. If comments such as these can be sued for libel. Why don’t you sue the alphabet for libel, since no speech is not safe from the face of the earth You know, those evil symbols used to defame a person, sue them! He is making a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of press, otherwise, he should sue dream bear You are just an idiot with an affinity to decorate yourself with legal terms. If you know law, I have 38D boobs.

    “Leung made a bad respond and should be criticized because of it" This is kind of cute. Don’t you think? He made a bad respond, just one and just bad. How about no TV for a week?

    “Luckily, educated people do not trust common sense." If one poop with his month, it is safe to conclude he has stomach problems. “Pooping with his month" is a fact, and “he has stomach problems" is a conclusion telling me he has some health concerns, and may need medical attentions. I assume you believe you are an “educated" person. But let me tell you the sorry truth, your kind of education may be an impediment for you to seek medical help.

    “And by the way First amendment deals with freedom of speech, but that does not mean freedom of speech is without limits."

    Can you read at all? Read this again and use google translate if needed. “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.”

    What is the meaning of the last 12 words put together? I get you 5 marks if you answer correctly. Get your thing a shake when you are done with yourself.

    From your tone, I can tell you have very successfully fostered an unapologetic ignorance which is needed for your on going well being. shhhhhhh, I shouldn’t wake u up.

  12. Cris,

    Have you read the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case? I’m sure you have not. Here is a summery from wiki:

    “case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures…one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press…The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person’s head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail".

    And that’s the law of the US. Other common law countries, like Canada, Australia or the UK do not follow US law. So again, you have shown that you are ignorant of the basic facts to continue the discussion in any meaningful and intelligent way.

    Oh, do try to understand what the law actually says before you attempt to cite it, least you make an arse of yourself. Unfortunate, the newspaper’s response did show that Lin recklessly disregarded facts or the fact that he had none. Oh right, I forgot that you can read but have no ability in basic comprehension. My condolences, you have failed the education system.

  13. The Court ruled for The Times, 9–0.[5] The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was found constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.

    The Times won this case in Supreme court. Freedom of speech was cited. Alabama courts applied the law wrong, and so you are wrong on the wrong, double wrong, X2 wrong.

    At the very least, you need to read the *whole* wiki page to make a fair comment. I am surprise you cited a court case during the civil right movement and a Southern State, and try to apply in our situation.

    Common Law follows other court decisions deems to be good case. It doesn’t matter where the case is physically located.

    Are you a law school student? 城大? (Public interest is involved here, so please answer)

    I didn’t pass the HKCEE English part, so you are right on the last count. But I read better than you that is for sure. If next time you need an infusion of dignity, just go to wiki to read court cases. Whoa, instantly become an educated man.

  14. Cris,

    Are you really that dense and cannot understand what the court was saying? NYtimes won the case because the court setup the standard of actual malice! You don’t get to pick part of the law that you like and ignore that other part that you don’t like. You can’t use it for your argument and, at the very same time, disregard it when it is used against you! Freedoms, any freedom, have limits; they end when you begin to inflict damages on someone. There are something called fundamental rights as well, of which every citizen is entitled to under the rule of law. Go read it up!

    Oh my. HK follows the the Commonwealth’s common law system, which is also the system that is being used in Canada, Australia, and England part of the UK. Again, you don’t get to pick the law of the US to support your argument and ignore the other laws that go against your argument. You have absolutely no consistency!

    You are undereducated, that’s for sure, especially in the areas regarding the law and basic human rights. Find a way to remedy that; stop being so ignorant. Go read a book before you open your mouth.

  15. So what is the standard of actual malice after NY times Vs Sullivan? Would CY’s lawyers rather not see this case, and perfer to living Alabama before the Civil Rights Movement?

    “Reckless disregard does not encompass *mere* neglect in following professional standards of fact checking."

    “Actual malice means “the publisher must entertain *actual doubt* as the statement’s truth."

    NY Times wins because " Alabama courts …….failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech………. required by the First Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics…."

    I futher boil down the truth for you to remember:

    信報 = NY Times
    CY = Sullivan
    NY Times wins = " Alabama courts …….failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech………. required by the First Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics…."

    “Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch."

    Where does this definition here tell you that I “don’t get to pick the law of US to support" my argument? Where?

    Seriously, are you a law student and intent to practice law? Internet is annoymous. You can share at least this bit with us, just as I can share my not so proud HKCEE results with you?

    Once you do, I stop shooting my mouth, and shut up.

  16. cris,

    Oh boy, I haven’t never seen this kind of verbal diarrhea before. Do you understand what a standard is and how court take precedents by the standard before it. it has nothing to do with who winning the case. A newspaper won one case does not mean ALL newspaper will win all the case. I can’t believe I’ll have to utter this sentence, The facts vary between cases, you merely apply the standard.

    Seriously, go take a course on the world’s legal systems. Common law is a style that describes a certain legal system. Within the common law family there is the Commonwealth system which is used by all the Commonwealth countries, and that is where these countries mainly get their jurisprudence from. HK’s legal system has been the commonwealth system, so it draws jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries first and foremost. The US is not part of the Commonwealth so HK court can ignore it unless it really really wants to follow it, but it better has good reasons.

    Besides, it is up to you to make a case of why the HK system is deficient. You have never shown us any bits of HK law, ordinance and case law, nor basic understanding of the HK, or any legal system. So, before you have taken that course or done basic research about the subject matter, I suggest you shut up and stop wasting any more of my and you time. Use the time to do some study and get an education.

    So you want to know who I’m, I’ll tell you who I’m. I’m Buddha reincarnated. I’m Zeus reborn with a mortal’s skin. I’m the lawgiver and light-bringer sent by Rh’llor. How big of a pedantic ignoramus are you? You address the arguments not the person who is making the argument. What you are doing is called ad hominem, it’s a fallacy. You have no argument because your “argument" is invalid. Go take a course in logic while you are at it.

  17. I thought you picked NYT vs Sullivan?

    I am glad you finally understand NYT Vs Sullivan is about the Court using actual malice to further limit people in public office to sue newspapers for libel unless " “the publisher must entertain *actual doubt* as the statement’s truth.” It is ok to be embarrassed if you learn something.

    Now you want to change the subject to Common Law.
    “he US is not part of the Commonwealth so HK court can ignore it unless it really really wants to follow it, but it better has good reasons."

    And there are many good reasons back when US court practiced good law, though not currently. See, NYT “U.S. Court Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations"

    “Judges around the world have long looked to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance, citing and often following them in hundreds of their own rulings since the Second World War."

    “Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to a recent study by Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72."

    Australia was not a commonwealth country in 1995?

    Why all the mumble jumble about your intent to practice law or if you are a student of law. Are you ashamed of who you are?

    Now go seat on the leather recliner………how is your relationship with……….

  18. Cris,

    It is my opinion that you are deluded, deranged and insane. NYT v Sullivan does not and no case will ever set a precedent where people cannot sue a newspaper you moron.

    I said a common law court can choose to cite other common law cases if it really wants to, but cases from other countries are not binding, i.e. HK courts do not have to follow if they don’t want to. US law isn’t binding to HK courts, nor is it to UK and Canada. And why HK should follow US but not Canada and England? US law isn’t the best nor the only law system that one could follow. You have been proven wrong times and times again.

    And you have no idea what ad hominem means! You know what, I take back what I said that you need to get an education. You need to check with a doctor first.

  19. 1. “where people cannot sue a newspaper you moron."

    I used the word “limited". Limited is not the same as cannot.

    2. “And why HK should follow US but not Canada and England?“

    I said “follows other court decisions deems to be good case It doesn’t matter where the case is physically located."

    Again, doesn’t matter is not the same as “should follow".

    Help………………..i start seeing things……………………

    3. Congratulations, you know what is a ad hominem. Please check for me if the following usage is correct.

    I am ad hominem because to be ad hominem is fun. And it pays if it causes you to re-access your plan to damage a noble profession.

    Psychic as a profession better fits your aptitude profile.

    Help………………..i start seeing things……………………

  20. 睇人鬧交真的不錯,慳水慳力。
    回山中:
    文中已完完整整把相關的登出,是法官判詞,還是他引述其他判詞,甚麼才是他讚同的觀點,用中英對照式刊出,是不容易誤解的。是「政府」、「政府部門」,或「政府機構」,自己看吧。同埋,這點很有關係嗎?
    「個人」係可提出訴訟,但個官並不太鼓勵這樣做,相反,他很重視個人言論能得保障,有個議政空間,不管其見解是真是假,是高見還是低見。
    你提及梁的公民身份,公民權利,這並無異議。反正我只是原原本本引述判詞觀點,絕未作不適當增刪去片面引述,自己偶有感言或註釋都用那(按:)方式來指出。

    功夫兩字很簡單,一橫一直,係有係無,難瞞行家法眼,請了。

  21. curioushunter,

    我感到非常有趣的是,閣下可以公然漠視事實,然後又可以臉不紅耳不赤地繼續發言。能做到這一點在下實在甘拜下風,得承認功夫不到家,臉皮沒有幾丈厚也做不出來。這一點閣下又與梁振英甚爲相似,同樣不能承認錯誤,難怪人稱梁振英功夫了得。

    事實是陳文敏出錯,灰記又不去搜証導致一錯再錯。灰記要不要承認這個錯誤我先不說,但閣下既然也承認個人可以提出訴訟,請問閣下是否應先承認這個錯誤才作回應?否則我不知你引用Derbyshire是想説明什麽。如果閣下缺乏認知事實的能力,就恕在下不浪費時間了。

  22. 陳文敏有出錯嗎?我不知啊!我也不曾注意你說的「事實」。所以他有否出錯,無意見。灰記有否搜證,也不關我的事。別人有錯與否,無可能與我有關。就如匪共捉了劉曉波,打壓趙連海,也不關我的事。北韓發展核武,我也不用替金正恩回應。我引用 Derbyshire, 就是引用 Derbyshire, 目的就是手段,不是別有用心。為學術而學術,懂嗎?

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s