“我反抗故我在 – 梁國雄司法抗爭二十年“呢一本書，我驚佢有啲深，可能幾花精神精力去睇。但係我決定咗,有機會就一定買本黎睇,慢慢睇都睇, 當係學吓法律啦。
Note: A case was discussed that define “fair comment” in the case of “Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng  EMLR 31 CFA (HK)“.
//Requirements Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead set out the outer limits of the defence of fair comment in the Hong Kong case of Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng  EMLR 31 CFA (HK):Importantly, the fifth proposition pushed aside the word ‘fair’ in favour of a requirement for honesty. Nicholls LJ said: ‘A comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence. However, proof of such motivation may be evidence, sometimes compelling evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred.’
first, the comment must be on a matter of public interest;
second, the comment must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact;
third, the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege;
fourth, the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded; and
fifth, the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.//