bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Gary Wong Pui-fung

The first round of public consultation as part of the review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance will end on January 31.
When the consultation was launched in October, it attracted a lot of heated debate, particularly the proposals including new media in the monitoring list.
Now that the relevant proposals have been withdrawn by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the debate has cooled down.
However, the regulation of new media is worth more discussion.
New media, which ranges from internet podcasting to video games and educational software, is a new form of digital technology that has changed the media scene.
Its popularity has increased sharply and users can now be found across different age groups.
In some countries, like Australia, more hours are spent, on average, using the internet than watching TV.
New media has penetrated people's lives so widely that many governments have begun to formulate relevant regulations as part of their policymaking.
Like other traditional media, severe restrictions would inhibit freedom of speech but loose restrictions might put public goods at risk.
However, the regulations for traditional media cannot be replicated when it comes to new media. With its distinctive nature, new media needs tailor-made regulations.
New media not only provides entertainment and information to end users, as does traditional media, it also acts as a platform for individual expression and social movements, given its speed of information exchange and networked nature.
The use of the internet during Barack Obama's presidential election campaign and by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico are but two examples.
Everyone could be a new media broadcaster, even if the government does not open up digital broadcasting.
For instance, when an online TV podcast by an individual has a bigger audience than one broadcast by a licensed TV station, should that individual apply for a licence from the Broadcasting Authority?
If so, will the right of freedom of expression be repressed, resulting in censorship?
It is because of the new media's empowerment of individuals, when it comes to freedom of expression and social movements, that regulation could easily become a tool of censorship and political coercion.
It is not surprising that the ordinance review in Hong Kong has been severely criticised by some netizens as the 'online version' of Basic Law Article 23.
Regulation is a double-edged sword. We need more discussion to reach a public consensus.
If new media is to be regulated, such policies should be carefully formulated to prevent instances of 'big brother' in this city, or even the arrival of a 'great firewall'.
Gary Wong Pui-fung is a member of Roundtable Community
 
 


Public must oversee rules for new media

Opinion