淫照事件的法律問題

標籤:

o係「成人貼圖區」、「成人影片區」入面，貼圖／片者係咪犯法？
警方又算唔算係選擇性執法？
見受害者係藝人先咁高調拉人，係咪又再一次證明：法律面前，窮人含撚？
一般會o係咩情況下先唔容許被告保釋？

由於我唔係讀 law（亦唔係讀 social science），懇請熟悉法律o既高人解答。

arttacker 2/02/2008

4 留言:

匿名 說...

Hi, I have studied law in Australia... I will not say I have a good answer, nor do I have the right answer... but here goes my views:
===========
The Victim
===========
In the current HK scandal, the victims are high profile celebrities. They never admitted it was their picture. In fact they denied it was them. They say these pictures had been modified. Whether they are telling the truth or not, they are very much a victim indeed. In case the pictures are fake, some people may think they are lesser of a victim. In actual fact, no matter whether the pictures are real or fake, they are really a "celebrity" victim, which adds the high profile taste to the entire scandal. The important thing to note is, these celebrities never WANTED, EXPECTED or CONSENTED TO having these pictures shown on the internet (I think).


As with "non-celebrity" victims, for example, it may well be that even if they had pictures taken... They are too shameful or scared to report it to the police. Even if they do... the police may not do much about it... They may end up learning a lesson about not having these sorts of pictures being taken...

So the short answer is... Firstly, the police cannot do much until someone complaint... and if no one comaplaint... then 法律面前，窮人含撚 cannot apply...

In the current scandal, I believe, the celebrities or the entertainment industry is certainly complaining...

================
法律面前，窮人含撚
================
Given the current investigation is about criminal law... I will confine this part of the answer to the criminal law

This is my first time hearing this phrase (法律面前，窮人含撚)... I do find it funny, in some ways I admit, unfortunately, I agree... When we say "Everyone is equal before the law" in the criminal law context, this USUALLY applies to the accused...

We say one party has close to unlimited resources (i.e. that government) and the accused is usually a civilian (sometimes rich, sometimes poor)...

What you can see is... when you say (法律面前，窮人含撚), you seem to be referring to the victim of the obscene picture scandal and not the accused...

I am not saying this is a wrong saying... I only wish to clarify one thing... whether you are rich or poor, you can still be a subject of an unjust event...

The law enforcement can only do so much... I am sure they are hardworking people... They can only do all they can... Place trust in this system... No systems are perfect... but everyone can try...

3/2/08 00:45
arttacker 說...

有o的唔關呢件事（但同樣涉及不雅物品）o既判決
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2007/05/11/HK0705110022.htm

警方早前曾指網上討論區的色情資訊泛濫，考慮檢控張貼色情資訊的網友。一名中年男子，因在uwants香港討論區內張貼8個連接至男女性交照片的「超連結」，昨被控一項「發佈淫褻物品」罪名，被告自稱不知自己的行為已觸犯法紀，但仍認罪被罰款5千元。本案成為首宗因張貼帶有色情資訊的超連結而被檢控的個案，有資訊科技界人士指以超連結作為入罪證據，很容易令市民誤墮法網。

被揭8超連結含情淫褻照

　成為首位在網上發佈淫褻超連結而被控的被告胡大偉（48歲），被控於去年11月15日，在深水步家中發佈8張淫褻照片。案情指出，去年11月，有網友向淫褻物品審裁處投訴，指在uwants討論區「成人貼圖區」的一個留言內，發現8條含有色情照片的超連結。審裁處人員進行調查，發現色情照片屬於第3類別色情物品，由一位名為「Fireman1324」的網友張貼，遂透過網主取得張貼者的資料，終將被告拘捕。

求情稱犯案純為與友分享

　被告在警誡下承認張貼該批超連結，但自稱不知自己的行徑觸犯法例。被告昨即時認罪，求情指該批超連結其實連結至外國的網站，張貼在討論區純粹為與網友分享，因為對法律認識不深，故而誤墮法網。裁判官認為涉案照片僅顯示男女性交場面，並不含小童及動物性交等變態內容，故輕判被告罰款5千元。


仲有呢單有關保釋o既問題
雖然我知道未必係Ａ案件被告有得保釋，無咁嚴重o既Ｂ案被告就應該有得保釋，但對比返呢件案以及法官o既理據，發相o個位似乎應該有得保釋


商人涉與女童性交拍影帶

【本報訊】中年汽車商人去年透過友人認識一名未成年女童，其後經她介紹結識另兩名女童，商人疑先後與三名女童在土瓜灣一單位內多次性交，並拍下錄影帶，事後給予千元報酬。他昨日在九龍城裁判法院被控與16 歲以下兒童非法性交，及作出嚴重猥褻行為等 16 項罪名，案件押後至 2 月 12 日轉解區域法院審理 。

控方續指，由於案情十分嚴重，涉及三名未成年女童，故要求加重被告的保釋條件，阻止他干擾本案證人，辯方亦願意將保釋金由1萬元增至4萬元，主任裁判官練錦鴻最後准許被告以現金及人事合共 10萬元保釋外出，但不可直接或間接接觸控方證人。

案件編號：KCCC765/08

3/2/08 09:57
arttacker 說...

btw,「法律面對，窮人含撚」唔知出自邊，但我係o係高登見到先

而且我唔係唔信個制度，只係覺得警方o既手法、準則（如果有）值得討論

其實我都認同今次未必只係窮唔窮o既問題

但我想知，如果貼咸相／link 係犯法o既話，點解一定要有人投訴先做o野？（根據「警方早前曾指網上討論區的色情資訊泛濫，考慮檢控張貼色情資訊的網友。」一句，警方又唔係唔知香港有成人討論區）

3/2/08 10:03
匿名 說...

判決岩大家聽味叫公義，唔岩味含撚。大家一直只係想要怒鍘陳世美既包青天，就係咁簡單。

公正就係，企係自己呢邊既。

4/2/08 03:35
訂閱： 發佈留言 (Atom)