TNAG-1691-FCO40-2341-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 136

of the legislative formulations, actual and suggested). The film may be believed by the censor (whether rightly or wrongly) to be objectionable to the public authorities of another territory, and therefore likely seriously to prejudice good relations with that other territory. That belief may be based not only on grounds which may be rational and foreseeable but also on grounds which may be arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, and hence not reasonably foreseeable. A film which is not believed to be objectionable today to the public authorities of the People's Republic of China may be believed to be objectionable tomorrow, upon the basis of no predictable criteria. Provided that the censor has not himself taken leave of his senses, his belief will be practically immune to judicial review. If, for example, the public authorities of the People's Republic of China convey their displeasure with sufficient force to the censor about the public showing of a film in Hong Kong, the censor will be entitled under the legislation to conclude that relations with that territory will be seriously prejudiced, no matter how arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical may be the source of the displeasure. In other words, the right to communicate information and ideas to the people of Hong Kong will be curtailed because of what may be a wholly arbitrary or whimsical objection, made by the public authorities of the People's Republic of China,

Republic of China, and inducing a belief by the censor that a public showing will seriously prejudice good relations between Hong Kong and

and the People's Republic. Moreover, the scope for censorship is so broad that a film may be banned on this basis even though its contents are wholly unrelated to the People's Republic.

conclusion

on

13. On balance I have come to the

that the

legislative language is so vague and broad that the film producer or distributor could reasonably foresee that the censor is empowered to exercise massively wide powers of censorship these lines. In other words, I

In other words, I consider that, even though it is

arguable that the restrictions do not satisfy the test of reasonable foreseeability, I would expect that the United Kingdom Government would be able to establish that the legislation does give a fair warning to the film industry and others of the true

10