It's a good thing that Easy Finder magazine is challenging the 'indecent' classification that the Obscene Articles Tribunal slapped on its controversial recent issue - with photos of a pop star changing her clothes. That's because it will put the focus of discussion where it belongs: on privacy, not obscenity.
I haven't seen the photographs in question, but according to one press account, the pop star, Gillian Chung Yan-tung, a member of the female pop duo Twins, 'is shown naked from the shoulder up, but her breasts are not revealed'.
Chung may well have a very sexy neck but, for the life of me, I cannot imagine that any photograph showing a woman naked from the shoulder up can be indecent or obscene.
The public is incensed: close to 3,000 people have complained to the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority. Chung herself is, quite rightly, indignant and is taking legal action.
But the issue of privacy should not be confused with that of obscenity - the two are quite different, and should be dealt with differently. There may well be times when both elements are present, but the violation of privacy does not always result in obscenity.
The publication of revealing photographs of a model who willingly poses for them does not raise issues of privacy, but their publication may well be deemed obscene or indecent. On the other hand, photographs secretly taken, as in the case of Chung, may not be obscene but their publication could be a serious violation of privacy - which in Hong Kong is ostensibly protected by law.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, extended to Hong Kong in 1976, provides in Article 17: 'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation'; and 'Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.' This provision is reproduced in Article 14 of Hong Kong's Bill of Rights Ordinance, enacted in 1991.
