-
2 -
You say in your letter that, if a newspaper printed anything which is likely in the view of the authorities to lead to public disorder, the newspaper would have to prove that what had been printed was true in order to avoid a penalty of imprisonment. This is not so. First of all, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what has been published as fact was false and, furthermore, that its publication was likely to lead to public alarm or disorder. Secondly, even if the prosecution does succeed in proving these things, the person accused has a good defence if he shows that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the news was true.
The two bills in question had the support of a large majority of members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. They accepted the principle that the publication of false news that was likely to disrupt public order should be subject to legal sanctions. Government has also made clear its intention that the provision should be used only in the last resort, and even then in a very limited set of circumstances.
The
Since the passage of the legislation in March, there has been no evidence to suggest that the provision has had any inhibiting effect on the local media. The local media have remained as outspoken and critical as they have been for many years. The fear of the Hong Kong Journalists Association that the retention of this provision would lead to newspapers imposing
self-censorship on themselves and would also result in its extension into television and films must be seen as
unfounded.
Nonetheless, the Government have said that they will continue to monitor the effect of this provision very carefully and will take steps to review it regularly.
bcc: HKD FCO
Sicerel
ساون
구
Governor