Limits of speech freedom

Hong Kong people treasure freedom of speech and press freedom for a good reason. They think that it is human nature to want to speak one's mind, and to hate to say things against one's true beliefs. Hong Kong people also think that press freedom is essential to knowing what really goes on. In the absence of press freedom, it is possible that the media might present a biased picture of the reality, and that some officials may get away with power abuses, favoritism, and other wrongdoings.

Sadly, however, some people seem to be abusing this precious freedom. It is heart-breaking to see some netizens pour abusive words on another human being who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Stephanie Liu Han, a top student from Yunnan, who graduated from the University of Hong Kong two years ago having earned a full scholarship on outstanding academic merits, and who worked in the city's financial industry, was killed in a traffic accident. Instead of expressing sympathy as a normal human being would, some netizens made outrageous and disturbing remarks.

While she was in intensive care, one netizen remarked: "Quickly take her back to Zhina (a derogative name for China). Otherwise we would be losing medical fees on her behalf."

"Having grabbed a place in the university at the expense of HK people, she now occupies a hospital bed. Soon she may be pre-empting a place in the columbarium. The Chinese really are overbearing!"

"Punishment from heaven!"

There is nothing we can do if people choose to say these things privately. But these words are posted on the Internet. A good question is whether abusive language that hurt people should be banned from publication: on the Internet, in newspapers, or on TV. Will this compromise press freedom?

Perhaps there should be limits to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Language that hurts other people is really not much different from physical assault that hurts other people. In both cases there is an actor, an act, and a victim. There should be no presumption that physical injury necessarily hurts more than "mental injury". In principle, people should not be allowed to arbitrarily hurt others.

But who is to determine if someone has been hurt? Unlike physical injury which can be objectively assessed, it is not easy to demonstrate that someone has been hurt by language, and to what extent. If a government department is to take up this role, people will worry about arbitrary censorship. The alternative is to set up an independent commission or committee, one that has credibility for its professionalism and independence, and to have it determine if the bounds of reason and common sense consideration have been violated.

Excerpt from:
Limits of speech freedom