立場新聞 Stand News

讀好啲書先嚟打壓新聞自由啦,死黑警

2020/4/2 — 15:28

【文:腸】

黑警自己都完全無膽指控蘋果忽略或捏造事實,只係話報導標題「將警方的依法拘捕行動歪曲為『政治報復』,嚴重誤導讀者」。

黑警聲明之中根本無就鄭麗琼被捕一事提出任何新的事實澄清。唯一的「論點」,就只有自稱「專業執法部門,一直依法辦事。當有人涉嫌違法,警方必定依法採取拘捕行動,並不牽涉任何政治考量」。換言之,我話係就係,阿 sir 做嘢唔駛你教。

廣告

明顯地,在公眾討論中,動機永遠無可能 100% 被證實。但對某人或某些人公共行為(尤其是公權力的行使)背後動機的猜測或批評,若是基於其他不受爭議的事實,則是受法律高度保障的價值判斷或意見,絕不可當作誣衊了事[1]。

正如終審法院在《鄭經翰訴謝偉俊》[2]一案指出, 公允評論的權利是言論自由中最重要的因素。只要「對自己所說的有真誠的信念」,即使評論可能是基於怨恨、敵視等情緒作出,仍然受法律保護。

廣告

因此,按普通法和人權法的精神 [3],掌握公權者行事的動機,自然必須接受社會嚴格的審查和批評。如他們期望所有人必須無條件相信其良好品格,變相阻止任何有關其動機的公開討論,顯然與言論自由背道而馳。在現代民主制度中,法律必須確保此等健康的懷疑論得以存在。

註:

[1] 參見Clarke v Norton [1910] VLR 494 at 499 per Cussen J。

[2] (2000) 3 HKCFAR 339(案件摘錄)。

[3] 參見Branson v Bower [2001] EWHC QB 460, [2002] QB 737 at para 25 per Eady J:
'... He would naturally have to accept close scrutiny and criticism in those circumstances and, indeed, ... people would quite naturally be wondering about his motives. It cannot be right that he should expect at that point effectively to close off any public discussion on the subject, with the assistance of the courts, on the footing that his own assurances had to be accepted by everyone at face value. That would be the antithesis of freedom of expression. In a modern democracy all those who venture into public life, in whatever capacity, must expect to have their motives subjected to scrutiny and discussed. Nor is it realistic today to demand that such debate should be hobbled by the constraints of conventional good manners - still less of deference. The law of fair comment must allow for healthy scepticism.'
另參見Associated Newspapers Ltd. v Keith Burstein [2007] EWCA Civ 600, [2007] 4 All ER 319 at paras 23-24 per Keene LJ。

作者 Facebook

發表意見