Privacy and Obscenity
NOTE: Hard copies of the briefing papers must be submitted in person at the start of class at 6:30 p.m. Soft copies should also be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org
Privacy has become one of the biggest legal issues for journalists, an evolving area of law that has seen many changes worldwide. What does a “right to privacy” mean and does it exist in Hong Kong and elsewhere? What is the status of regulations and proposals that aim to restrict such journalistic practices as hidden cameras, secretly taped telephone calls, ambush interviews and trespassing? What is “breach of confidence” and how does that fit into privacy concepts? Complicating the privacy question are the often overlapping issues involving obscenity, particularly with the ease and proliferation of the online posting of private images. How do these issues affect the media, particularly as they cover controversies involving these sensitive topics?
• Privacy (Chapter 6), and Print and Online Regulation and Self-Regulation (Chapter 11), pp. 207-220, Hong Kong Media Law
• Consultation Paper on Stalking (Hong Kong Government, December 2011).
• Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (See Hong Kong Media Law, Appendix A, pp 297-301)
• Report on Further Public Discussions on Review of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Hong Kong Government, April 2011).
• Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinances (Cap 390)(See Hong Kong Media Law, Appendix A, pp. 258-264)
• Liptak, “When American and European Ideas of Privacy Collide,” New York Times, 26 Feb. 2010
• “Shooting Stars: Privacy Claims in the UK (Appendix II), International Libel & Privacy Handbook
• Stephenson and Kwan, “Pornography…on Internet,” Cyberlaw in Hong Kong, 3d ed., pp. 131-137 (2007)
• Weisenhaus, “Hong Kong DP reform calls: Data breaches and Internet sex scandals in Hong Kong and other Asian countries,” Privacy Laws & Business (2008) and “Hong Kong Tests the Bounds of Decency,” Far Eastern Economic Review (2008)9
• Consultation document on Review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, excerpts.
• Report on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy, Law Reform Commission, Dec. 2004
• Report on Privacy and Media Intrusion, Law Reform Commission, Dec. 2004,
• Bays and Chamberlain, “Law of Privacy in England and Wales,” and Schulz and Kissinger, A, “Policing Privacy: How US Law Navigates the Boundary Between Free Speech and Private Fact,” Publishing in the Global Environment, Media Law Resource Center, Sep 2007.
• Privacy (Chapter 2), First Amendment Handbook and Photographers Guide to Privacy, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (U.S.)
–Eastweek v. Privacy Commissioner 2000 (first case of judicial review of exercise of power by the HK Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data)
–Naomi Campbell v. MGN 2004 (U.K House of Lords)(“misuse of private information”)
–Douglas v. Hello! 2007, 2005 (UK)(privacy of celebrities, post-Campbell)
–Von Hannover v Germany, 2004 (European Court of Human Rights)(Princess Caroline case, privacy expectations in public places)
–Mosley v News Group 2008 (UK, ECHR)(punitive damages?)
–Three Weekly v Obscene Articles Tribunal (Court of Appeal, 2007) (Carina Lau case)
–Ming Pao and the Chinese University student sex survey (2007-2008), Ming Pao v Obscene Articles Tribunal 2008
–Edison Chen celebrity photo scandal 200