剛看完由Paul Newman與Sally Field主演，以報紙記者報導新聞為中心的電影”Absence of Malice“。看完之後便即時想到將這套發人心醒的電影向蘋果日報老板黎智英、蘋果老編及蘋果記者們推介。
其中一段由助理檢察長James A. Wells對報紙記者Megan Carter說的話令我印象特別深刻，
“You know and I know that we can’t tell you what to print or what not to. We hope you people in the press will act responsibly, but when you don’t, there ain’t a hell lot anybody can do about it. But we can’t have people going around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain’t legal. And worse than that, by God, it ain’t right.“
* “20120103 – 等待變性 雄警出更 短裙落更 – 蘋果日報記者 黃學潤、馮樂琳 喪盡天良”
* “我的名字叫鄺嘉豪、陳詠妍 – 蘋果延伸 “你死你事”、”仗義欺寧弱小”精神”
* “恭喜蘋果日報記者楊家樂 以 “街頭與女子擦身而過 狀元醫生涉揸胸” 勇奪 “新聞自由 你死你事” 大獎”
* “痛心疾首 – 16歲女 爬幼繩逃家 繩斷墮樓 生日跌死 20110927 – 蘋果日報”
Jan 18, 2012 10:52pm update:
Thanks to a friend asking how to I think of “HKJA Objects Criminalising Stalking“. I wrote the following reply.
Thanks for the interesting questions you posted. I am not a lawyer (in Canada, HK or anyway else) but after reading Hong Kong Journalists Association’s (HKJA) statement “HKJA Objects Criminalising Stalking“, I think they have provided a well reasoned analysis. I especially found the UK’s experience with “Protection from Harassment Act” (1997) very troubling and should serve as a great warning of the potential negative “unintended consequences” if similar laws are enacted in HK (or anywhere else).
Fundamental principle like “innocent until proven guilty” rightfully put the burden of proof in the hands of the state which has unlimited power and resources to prosecute. It will be a hellish world if we have “guilty until proven innocent” because the state will have a much easier time in destroying someone’s life.
In the multiple posts I linked in “蘋果日報 上得山多”, I condemned the reports by Apple Daily. At the same time, I see no choice but to defend their freedom of press just the same.
Take the case mentioned in my post “我的名字叫鄺嘉豪、陳詠妍 – 蘋果延伸 “你死你事”、”仗義欺寧弱小”精神“. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with reporting a court case. Nothing wrong with reporting names of parties in an open court case. Nothing wrong with filming someone on a public street. So any legislative means that is powerful enough to “solve” the problem of _*it doesn’t serve public interest to humiliate these two young people who made mistakes and already punished accordingly under the law*_ will almost certainly cause major unintended consequences that will severely impaired the press’ rightful ability to report important on major court cases. So even I asked, “我想知道，蘋果從何時開始得到凌駕於三權(行政，立法，司法)之上的蘋果公審/羞恥權？” At the end of the day, it is really up to 蘋果 itself to have a much better moral compass, and/or HK readers/citizens starting to put pressure and challenge 蘋果 to stop reports that serve little public interest.