a matter of
of indifference by the public authorities of the People's Republic of China. Any film whose public showing in Hong
Kong might offend, shock, or disturb the public authorities of
the People's Republic would be at risk of censorship on the basis of the censor's belief that its public showing in Hong Kong would seriously prejudice good relations with the People's Republic. The situation is analogous to an applicant's standing to complain of the mere existence of criminal legislation and his liability
to prosecution for his homosexual conduct, as an interference
with his right to respect for his private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention : see Dudgeon Case, judgment of 22nd October 1981, Series A No.45, paragraph 41, where the
Court observed:
"either he respects the law and refrains from engaging
in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution."
Similarly, either a person wishing to show a film which may
offend or may be regarded as likely to offend the
the public
authorities of
of the People's Republic respects the law (as reasonably foreseen) and refrains from making or purchasing such a film for public showing in Hong Kong, or that person makes or
purchases such a film and then becomes liable to censorship against which there is no effective legal remedy. The right to free expression of such a person, and of the film's audience, is
chilled, or indeed frozen, in breach of Article 19.
Significance of similar restraints elsewhere
19. I do not regard as significant the fact that a small number
of States Parties to the ICPR have, or used to have, laws or
measures which enable or used to enable censorship of films on
good relations grounds. In the first place, several States
Parties have abandoned these measures after having ratified the
ICPR. Secondly, the number of States Parties still retaining such
measures is only a tiny
tiny minority among the States Parties. Thirdly, the fact that these States still retain such measures is
not indicative of any general standard or practice. Fourthly, the
16