TNAG-1687-FCO40-2337-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 59

CONFIDENTIAL

9. Recent measures have greatly relaxed controls.

Ordinance was on statute book for over 30 years.

The 1951

Used 3 times only,

in 1967. Have not prevented Hong Kong press from being among freest

and most outspoken in Asia. Believe this is healthy and should and

will continue.

(Measures will be used to control press after 1997)

10. No reason to believe this will be so. Joint Declaration

provides clear guarantees of maintenance of press and other freedoms after 1997. And the new law itself provides considerable safeguards against any abuse in future considerable burden of proof lies with Attorney General, whose prior consent to a prosecution must be obtained. Adequate defence would be to establish that accused had reasonable grounds to believe news was true when published it.

(Force journalists to disclose sources)

11. Same situation in many other jurisdictions. In practice courts handle these matters with great discretion.

(By extending scope beyond "newspapers", could trap anyone spreading "false news" in a private conversation)

12.

Think not. "Publish" must imply intention to broadcast abroad by some means: and private conversations (or even public ones in small gatherings) could not endanger public order.

(Why not use existing emergency legislation to contain any threat to public order?)

13. Wish to discourage threat to disorder, not to have to introduce emergency legislation once disorder has broken out.

("False news" too vague)

14.

Think not. Prosecution will have to prove it was "false".

(Risks too great. Queen should be asked to disallow)

15. Do not believe risks of present measures could conceivably warrant recommending use of this extreme power now, to override vote of large majority of LegCo. Surely this suggestion would set a dangerous precedent for after 1997?

CONFIDENTIAL