Hong Kong Media Law

INTERVIEWS:

23 January 2011 “Judiciary keeps watch on Twitter reporting,” South China Morning Post

(SCMP reported on developments in the UK, Australia, Canada and the U.S. allowing reporters to “tweet” live from courtrooms in covering ongoing cases and quoted Doreen Weisenhaus, Associate Professor and Director of the Media Law Project, advocating that Hong Kong reporters be allowed to conduct Twitter reporting to promote openness in the courts. “The truth is, text-based reporting is no different to what reporters do, which is taking notes. It’s just extending the reporting that a journalist can do,” Weisenhaus is quoted as saying. “If it is in furtherance of fair and accurate reporting, then it’s a good thing.”

SCMP reported that the Judiciary in Hong Kong was “watching overseas developments closely after a groundbreaking ruling in Britain” in which  a UK judge in December 2010  ”allowed journalists to use Twitter and other electronic means to update the outside world during the bail hearing of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.”  Shortly thereafter, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales issued interim guidelines on the “use of live text-based forms of communications.”

24 December 2010, South China Morning Post, “HK’s hazy contempt laws leave lawyers, defendants in the dark.”

(Excerpts: “What exactly is contempt of court? Is a court hallway part of the court and does recording there constitute contempt? Solicitor Anthony Kwan Wai-ming aired these and other questions after his client, Ng Wai-bing, was convicted of contempt of court for making recordings secretly in a witness waiting room during her husband’s trail on vice charges. The recordings made by Ng, who was handed a suspended sentence, led to the acquittal of her husband and other defendants and the charging of two police officers. Kwan said…that great clarity was needed in the law on contempt…

Kwan’s concerns, it appears, on are not new. In 1987, the Law Reform Commission issued a report recommending the creation of a Contempt of Court Ordinance stating the principles by which contempt was defined. It outlined clear procedures on how contempt should be dealt with in different situations, guidelines for the media on what constituted contempt, limits on penalties and rules on who may institute and discontinue contempt proceedings….

Simon Young, director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law, said there was merit in rethinking contempt laws…Doreen Weisenhaus, professor of media law at the University of Hong Kong, said while Hong Kong did not have the same clarity as the UK in its contempt laws, there was no urgent need for legislation as the media had learned how to report within the rules.”

15 July 2010, South China Morning Post, “Lawyers upset over gag order protecting victim in blackmail case.”

(Excerpts: “A court order barring the press from publishing the name of a religious group or the occupation of the victims and witnesses in a blackmail case may have gone too far, lawyers said. The ban, imposed in the District Court at the request of prosecutors, could be open to judicial review, the Law Society said….

The order appeared to be stricter than one in a 2007 blackmail case involving a senior government official who was blackmailed (over an affair). In that case, the judge ordered that the officer be named only as ‘Mr X’ but did not bar the press from revealing that he was a high-ranking civil servant.

Professor Doreen Weisenhaus, director of the University of Hong Kong’s Media Law Project, said it was arguable whether occupation would be considered identifying information, adding that Hong Kong courts were traditionally overcautious in disallowing publication of information related to blackmail victims.”

12 June 2010, China Daily (HK edition), “The fading glory of the city’s paparazzi”

17 March 2009, Voice of America, “Lawyers undergo training to defend journalists in Southeast Asia”

March 2009 Far Eastern Economic Review, video interview on media law in Asia

27 February 2009, South China Morning Post, “Ombudsman probes government’s access to information code.”

Jan. 14, 2009, Forbes, ”What’s the Value of Truth?”  (on China’s plans for major media expansion)

Sept. 10. 2008 South China Morning Post, “Judge in high-profile cases wins promotion to the appeals court.” (Summary: Justice Michael Hartmann, who has written many high-profile Constitutional law rulings was promoted to the Court of Appeal. Of his promotion, Weisenhaus is quoted as saying, “Justice Hartmann’s decisions over the years have had a major impact on many fundamental issues in Hong Kong, but among the most important is that he understands and values the significance of a free press in helping to ensure rule of law and an independent judiciary.”

May 9, 2008 RTHK radio program, Backchat, on broadcasting rights in light of court decision upholding RTHK’s right to report on gay marriage.

Feb. 25, 2008 ABC News, “Sex photos stir tempest in Hong Kong”

Feb. 5, 2008  CNN International, “Celebrity sex scandal poses legal questions”

Dec. 21, 2007, Newsbreak magazine, “Legislating Freedom,” Manila, Philippines

June 30, 2007 podcast interview with Ben Kwok, Lai See columnist, South China Morning Post

Fall 2006, Envision, alumni magazine for Northwestern University School of Law

BOOK REVIEWS:

December 2008 The Commonwealth Lawyer (Journal of the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association): “It offers comprehensive coverage of the subject” and “deserves to be the first port of call for anyone seeking guidance on free speech and media law in Hong Kong.”

July 2008 Communications_Lawyer, The American Bar Association (Forum on Communications Law): “truly the first of its kind in the recent past,”  “a singularly important addition to the increasing body of country-specific media law books in Asia.”

June/July 2008 The Correspondent, Foreign Correspondents Club Hong Kong:  “an accessible guide” that would be “particularly useful for correspondents who have recently arrived in Hong Kong or China and are trying to get their bearings.”  Also, the book would be “of interest to non-journalists, whether they are citizens trying to understand the peculiarities of Hong Kong’s copyright laws, public figures confronting the paparazzi or just people who are curious about the mechanics of Hong Kong’s broadcast regulations.”

Spring 2008 Journalism and Mass Commmunication Quarterly : “meticulous yet highly readable.” “For scholars or legal practitioners interested in a concise summary of the law, Hong Kong Media Law is a useful resource. For journalists who plan to go to Beijing to cover the Olympics, it is a necessity.”

Spring 2008  Hong Kong Law Journal: “This is an important book that goes a long way to filling a serious vacuum as far as the Hong Kong media is concerned. If it helps educate Hong Kong journalists and editors enough for them to feel more confident in publishing articles about even the most litigious subjects without fear of losing the resulting court case, the book will also play its part in protecting press freedom in Hong Kong.”

Spring 2008 Media Arts & Law Review: “very timely,” “useful guide.”

April 2008 Chinese Journal of Communication: “well organized and well written, with many of the legal arguments supported or illustrated with previous cases,” “a valuable resource for journalists and media professionals, to be read, kept and referred to.”

Vol 34 Number 2 2007 Media Asia (Asian Mass Communication Quarterly): “authoritative,” “well-researched book fills an important gap in media law studies in the Asia-Pacific region.”

September 2007,   Far Eastern Economic Review: “fills such an important vacuum”

July 2007, RTHK Media Digest (English translation): “extensive research” and “a comprehensive legal guide”

CITATIONS:

International Press Institute, World Press Freedom Review 2007, “Hong Kong”

“As Doreen Weisenhaus points out in her book ‘Hong Kong Media Law: A Guide for Journalists and Media Professionals’, which includes a chapter highlighting the risks of reporting from mainland China, the main problem is that the Chinese media system allows everything to be categorised as a ‘state secret.’ Furthermore, any document can be retrospectively classified as secret, which basically provides the evidence to jail any journalist.

Weisenhaus’ book also highlights loopholes in Hong Kong’s legal system and its lack of protection for press freedom, compared to some Western democracies. For example, Hong Kong’s Code on Access to Information is not only not statutory, but is full of exemptions, allowing for Hong Kong’s government to be secretive.”