1
2
1987, and one of the reasons I advanced was this "negative" approach (now please don't take it negatively).
of
fan Section 5
3
4
-
of the 1972 Film Censorship Standards A Note of Guidance
reads: (I
I will read certain parts and then come to the more 5 important parts)
"a film or any particular part of a film, trailer
་་
or advertisement/ will not be banned by the censor, unless in
his considered opinion there is a likelihood that its showing
-
in a public place would (and there are some eight such criteria, but I will read out the three most important ones):
6
7
8
9
10
11
(ii)
12
13
14
(iii)
15
16
17
(vii)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24/
corrupt morals or encourage crime, particularly crimes of violence, or encourage the unlawful
taking of drugs;
provoke hatred between persons in Hong Kong of differing race, colour, class, nationality, creed
or sectional interest;
tories"
damage good relations with other territories
w
The negative formulation was followed and the criteria were
in
Regulation 3A of adopted the same eight criteria were adopted the Film Censorship Regulations 1987, I skipped the details but wil
pead the most important ports of regulatfCn 34
The censor shall not (and I will skip (a), and
unless, in the
in the considered opinion of the censor
25 there is a likelihood that its showing in a public place would
26
and then the same eight
27
34 of the pilm Censorship.
28
29
30
ia
fre repeated in Regulation
epeated in Ragul.
However, Sir, the present Bill, changes this negative
I refer members
formulation into a positive one, a newer to sed clame 10 (2) and 10(3)
mil
31 Section 10, I will read one.
32
33
the proposed
(2) The censor shall as
soon as practicable view
the film and consider the following matters for the purpose of
34 making his decision under subsection (4)
35
36
(a) whether the film portrays, depicts or treats
cruelty, torture, violence, crime, horror,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.