Board logo

標題: 蘋 論 ： 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 有 限 制(李怡) [打印本頁]
作者: kipposhi    時間: 2008-2-18 22:41     標題: 蘋 論 ： 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 有 限 制(李怡)

2008/02/18

在 前 天 無 籌 款 節 目 中 ， 阿 嬌 與 拍 檔 阿 Sa 獻 唱 一 曲 ， 筆 者 特 地 看 了 電 視 這 一 段 ， 感到 阿 嬌 神 色 凝 重 ， 笑 與 唱 都 很 勉 強 。 阿 嬌 所 屬 公 司 ， 在 淫 照 事 件 後 要 阿 嬌 多 次 亮 相， 目 的 當 然 是 要 測 試 觀 眾 對 她 的 接 受 程 度 。 然 而 ， 在 事 件 仍 然 擾 攘 不 息 、 所 有 當 事人 都 避 不 露 面 的 時 候 ， 要 阿 嬌 這 去 那 去 ， 無 疑 是 在 她 的 傷 口 上 撒 鹽 ， 也 真 夠 殘 酷 了。
淫 照 風 暴 牽 引 出 來 的 問 題 不 少 ， 其 中 與 公 眾 利 益 直 接 有 關 的 ， 是 警 方 的 選 擇 性 執 法和 屯 門 法 院 主 任 裁 判 官 郭 偉 健 對 鍾 亦 天 不 准 保 釋 的 裁 決 。 在 控 方 基 於 淫 審 處 對 照 片評 級 定 為 不 雅 而 撤 銷 控 告 之 後 ， 鍾 亦 天 也 獲 無 罪 釋 放 。 但 郭 法 官 在 庭 上 卻 花 了 很 多篇 幅 批 評 鍾 亦 天 的 行 為 。 他 說 ， 保 護 私 隱 不 受 踐 踏 是 任 何 人 與 生 俱 來 的 尊 嚴 和 權 利， 鍾 亦 天 將 相 中 人 展 露 性 器 官 的 裸 照 上 載 到 網 上 討 論 區 ， 嚴 重 侵 犯 相 關 人 士 的 私 隱， 不 但 傷 害 他 們 在 公 眾 心 目 中 的 形 象 ， 更 會 影 響 他 們 的 事 業 發 展 ， 在 道 德 層 面 是 極令 人 反 感 的 行 為 。
社 會 上 亦 有 人 提 出 與 郭 官 類 似 的 看 法 。 例 如 鄭 裕 玲 ， 前 天 就 表 示 ， 這 些 照 片 很 Private ， 濫 交 固 然 不 對 ， 但 這 是 他 們 自 己 私 下 的 事 ， 其 他 人 無 權 批 評 ， 亦 不 涉 及他 們 的 工 作 ， 「 搵 都 係 搵 偷 相 人 」 。 不 少 人 都 持 類 似 看 法 ， 認 為 男 歡 女 愛 ， 喜 歡 怎樣 ， 是 他 們 私 人 的 事 ， 不 涉 公 眾 利 益 ， 侵 犯 別 人 私 隱 ， 無 論 是 偷 這 些 照 片 ， 或 發 佈這 些 照 片 ， 因 未 經 當 事 人 同 意 ， 都 是 不 道 德 。
一 般 來 說 ， 性 愛 自 拍 是 很 平 常 的 事 ， 一 般 人 的 私 隱 自 然 應 受 尊 重 與 保 護 。 但 公 眾 人物 則 有 所 不 同 。 台 灣 中 央 大 學 哲 學 所 授 卡 維 波 （ 本 名 甯 應 斌 ） 在 淫 照 風 波 後 寫 了 一篇 文 章 ， 他 說 ， 「 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 是 受 限 制 的 ， 人 們 對 其 隱 私 有 公 眾 的 興 趣 ， 故而 八 卦 狗 仔 的 追 星 可 以 被 社 會 容 忍 ， 被 曝 光 的 名 人 隱 私 也 難 以 被 隱 私 權 所 保 障 。 從這 個 角 度 來 說 ， 警 方 應 更 重 視 普 通 市 民 的 秘 照 外 流 ， 而 不 是 對 於 公 眾 人 物 的 秘 照 外流 ， 以 不 惜 忽 略 法 治 的 威 力 掃 蕩 ， 難 怪 香 港 網 民 要 抗 議 警 方 的 階 級 歧 視 。 」
前 年 ， 警 方 對 普 通 市 民 的 「 極 惡 港 女 迫 女 除 衫 事 件 」 的 報 案 不 了 了 之 ； 今 年 卻 大 舉出 動 掃 蕩 明 星 淫 照 ， 這 是 執 法 上 的 顛 倒 。 正 確 做 法 應 是 保 護 普 通 市 民 ， 而 對 公 眾 人物 的 隱 私 就 可 以 不 了 了 之 。
為 甚 麼 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 受 限 制 呢 ？ 因 為 他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益 ， 基 於 權 利 與 義 務 關 係 的 理 由 ， 也 就 必 然 要 受 限 制 。 例 如 阿 嬌 以 她 的 清 純 玉 女 形 象 賣 錢 ， 自 應 有 珍 惜 羽 毛 的 義 務 ， 淫 照 不 可 免 涉 及 她的 工 作 。 公 眾 人 物 隱 私 的 暴 露 ， 有 可 能 戳 破 公 眾 人 物 的 偽 善 ， 並 引 起 大 眾 的 興 趣 。
名 人 私 隱 ， 是 不 是 牽 涉 公 眾 利 益 ？ 這 關 乎 對 「 公 眾 利 益 」 的 解 釋 。 美 國 法 律 學 者 Clay Calvert 寫 過 一 本 叫 《 Voyeur Nation 》 的 書 ， 提 出 所 謂 公 眾 利 益 ， 究 竟 是指 大 眾 喜 歡 觀 看 的 東 西 ， 所 以 是 被 觀 眾 多 寡 等 經 濟 市 場 因 素 所 決 定 的 ？ 還 是 說 ， 所謂 公 眾 利 益 是 指 大 眾 必 須 觀 看 的 東 西 ， 所 以 是 被 政 府 機 關 和 政 治 人 物 所 決 定 的 ？ 簡單 說 ， 公 眾 利 益 是 由 大 眾 想 要 觀 看 的 東 西 來 衡 量 ， 還 是 由 大 眾 必 須 觀 看 的 東 西 來 衡量 ？

Clay Calvert 引 用 1981 年 美 國 最 高 法 院 的 判 例 ， 指 出 美 國 聯 邦 電 訊 委 員 會 （ FCC ） 尊 重 市 場 因 素 而 非 政 府 干 預 ， 符 合 美 國 憲 法 修 正 案 第 一 條 對 言 論 自 由 保 障 。 這 案件 涉 及 一 家 公 司 買 下 一 個 廣 播 電 台 ， 要 將 原 本 播 古 典 音 樂 的 時 段 改 播 流 行 音 樂 ， 因為 這 樣 比 較 有 利 可 圖 。 當 地 政 府 要 求 FCC 干 預 這 項 改 變 ， 但 FCC 認 為 不 插 手 更 符 合公 眾 利 益 。 法 院 判 FCC 得 直 ， 判 決 是 以 大 眾 喜 歡 看 而 不 是 政 府 認 為 必 須 看 ， 去 闡 釋公 眾 利 益 。 很 明 顯 ， 大 多 數 人 都 對 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 感 興 趣 ， 因 此 對 公 眾 人 物 ， 隱 私權 是 有 限 制 的 。
作 為 公 眾 人 物 ， 既 從 公 眾 中 得 到 利 益 ， 就 要 對 自 己 的 隱 私 冒 較 大 的 風 險 ， 因 此 要 做好 風 險 管 理 。 私 隱 被 洩 漏 ， 形 象 遭 破 壞 ， 是 不 能 訴 諸 執 法 的 偏 袒 的 。
作者: chunsh    時間: 2008-2-18 22:57

講得好﹐食得喊魚就要抵得餲啦
私隱? 的狗仔隊係你地半紅不黑個陣幫你地做新聞個陣又唔見你講私隱
不過李怡講得o岩, 其實阿嬌都係俾獸性同 "many"逼出黎﹐點講﹐佢都係女人﹐就
算係一樓一都有dignity o既,希望佢自愛﹐quit the game la
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-19 04:13

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2008-2-18 22:41 發表
2008/02/18

在 前 天 無 籌 款 節 目 中 ， 阿 嬌 與 拍 檔 阿 Sa 獻 唱 一 曲 ， 筆 者 特 地 看 了 電 視 這 一 段 ， 感到 阿 嬌 神 色 凝 重 ， 笑 與 唱 都 很 勉 強 。 阿 嬌 所 屬 公 司 ， 在 淫 照 事 件 後 要 阿  ...



Wa... I am so amazed... I have never seen analysis so twisted...

1> Re: "「 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 是 受 限 制 的 ， 人 們 對 其 隱 私 有 公 眾 的 興 趣 ， 故而 八 卦 狗 仔 的 追星 可 以 被 社 會 容 忍 ， 被 曝 光 的 名 人 隱 私 也 難 以 被 隱 私 權 所 保 障 。 從這 個 角 度 來 說 ，警 方 應 更 重 視 普 通 市 民 的 秘 照 外 流 ， 而 不 是 對 於 公 眾 人 物 的 秘 照 外流 ， 以 不 惜 忽 略法 治 的 威 力 掃 蕩 ， 難 怪 香 港 網 民 要 抗 議 警 方 的 階 級 歧 視 。 」"
--- There's no source or reference so I couldn't refer to the whole article.  I don't know if the law in Taiwan is different than in HK but "everyone is equal in front of Law".  The fact that public in general is interested a particular thing doesn't make it public.  For example, if 55% of the people in HK are interested in sightseeing at Lee Ka Shing's house, those who trespass on Lee's property should not be charged as it is for the interest of the majority of people in HK?!  I think the statement that "正 確 做 法 應 是 保 護 普 通 市 民 ， 而 對 公 眾 人物 的 隱 私 就 可 以 不 了 了 之 " is truly 階 級 歧 視 and 執 法 上 的 顛 倒.  I am not commenting how the HK police handle this incident; they may have done a lousy job.  I simply do not agree with the statements in the article.

2> Re: "為 甚 麼 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 受 限 制 呢 ？ 因 為 他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益 ， 基 於 權 利 與 義 務 關 係 的 理 由 ， 也 就 必 然 要 受 限 制"
--- As the nature of the professions, people expect higher moral standard from people such as teachers and church pastors because the are the role model for the people in the area they serve.  Of course, some people such as myself do not considered actors and actresses a role model... otherwise, all the "singers" in HK should get a degree in music... or at least pass some kind of standardized exam... Seriously, we expect our doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, engineers... even drivers to be educated and well-trained in their field.  I am not sure how many people find "singers" like twins skillful singers but sure enough their albums aren't doing bad.  I find it more deceiving to have "singers" who can't "sing" (at least not at the PROFESSIONAL level) but are selling CDs than someone was found having a mess up private life.  Also, I don't think celebrity will get much 利 益 if  公 眾 關 注 the wrong things...  I mean, should 公 眾 人 物 be accountable for the fact that the society in general tend to focus on something that they shouldn't be focusing on?  Isn't that part of media's job?  Wouldn't the 公 眾 get more 利 益 if they  關 注 more on the economic growth and development of China, or if a disease is spreading rapidly in a country around them?

3> Re:"一 家 公 司 買 下 一 個 廣 播 電 台 ， 要 將 原 本 播 古 典 音 樂 的 時 段 改 播 流 行 音 樂 ， 因為 這 樣比 較 有 利 可 圖 。 當 地 政 府 要 求 FCC 干 預 這 項 改 變 ， 但 FCC 認 為 不 插 手 更 符 合公 眾 利益 。 法 院 判 FCC 得 直 ， 判 決 是 以 大 眾 喜 歡 看 而 不 是 政 府 認 為 必 須 看 ， 去 闡 釋公 眾 利益 。 很 明 顯 ， 大 多 數 人 都 對 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 感 興 趣 ， 因 此 對 公 眾 人 物 ， 隱 私權 是 有限 制 的 。"
=== it's clear that FCC is serving the public by broadcasting music for the public.  As broadcasting music is a service for the public, of course, FCC should play music that are more popular.  However, in ah-gill's incident, those pictures which were obtained illegally are not to service the public; it's purely for their private use.  Therefore, even thought general public are interested in celebrity's private life, as celebrity's private life is not part of what the being a celebrity has offered, 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 has nothing to do with 公 眾 利益.  Seriously, if 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of 公 眾 利益 , I guess celebrity has to advise the public for who they are marrying, where they are living, what kind of furniture they have in their house... since it's all 公 眾 利益!!  (so ah-gill who is presented as 清 純 玉 女 should decorate her bedroom in pink and sleeping with a teddy bear at night?!  She should get up at 7am and go to bed at 9pm?  The case used in the article is not suitable in this incident.

It's so sad to see that people are encouraged to be 八 卦 in a way that people try to find excuses to justify themselves and make themselves feel better of what they did...
作者: chunsh    時間: 2008-2-19 08:09

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-19 04:13 發表



Wa... I am so amazed... I have never seen analysis so twisted...

1> Re: "「 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 是 受 限 制 的 ， 人 們 對 其 隱 私 有 公 眾 的 興 趣 ， 故而 八 卦 狗 仔 的 追星 可 以 被 社 會 容 ...


no, u are wrong, "if 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of 公 眾 利益 ....."
公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of those 公 眾 人 物 的 利益 too
if they dont want to get attention, go find other jobs
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-19 09:02

chunsh:
人地係公眾人物
我地係私家人物
作者: LOK    時間: 2008-2-19 09:26

李怡 really able to point out the fact.

also agree with chunsh,
"講得好﹐食得喊魚就要抵得餲啦
私隱? 的狗仔隊係你地半紅不黑個陣幫你地做新聞個陣又唔見你講私隱"
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-19 09:28

原帖由 Alcoholic 於 2008-2-19 09:02 發表
chunsh:
人地係公眾人物
我地係私家人物


仲係你老公既私人附屬品
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-19 09:47

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-19 04:13 發表

2> Re: "為 甚 麼 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 受 限 制 呢 ？ 因 為 他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益 ， 基 於 權 利 與 義 務 關 係 的 理 由 ， 也 就 必 然 要 受 限 制"
--- As the nature of the professions, people expect higher moral standard from people such as teachers and church pastors because the are the role model for the people in the area they serve.  Of course, some people such as myself do not considered actors and actresses a role model... otherwise, all the "singers" in HK should get a degree in music... or at least pass some kind of standardized exam... Seriously, we expect our doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, engineers... even drivers to be educated and well-trained in their field.  I am not sure how many people find "singers" like twins skillful singers but sure enough their albums aren't doing bad.  I find it more deceiving to have "singers" who can't "sing" (at least not at the PROFESSIONAL level) but are selling CDs than someone was found having a mess up private life.  Also, I don't think celebrity will get much 利 益 if  公 眾 關 注 the wrong things...  I mean, should 公 眾 人 物 be accountable for the fact that the society in general tend to focus on something that they shouldn't be focusing on?  Isn't that part of media's job?  Wouldn't the 公 眾 get more 利 益 if they  關 注 more on the economic growth and development of China, or if a disease is spreading rapidly in a country around them?


Maggie, I sort of agree with this point in the article, so I am picking this to reply.
I think that it is somehow right that "他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益".  Those professional you mentioned don't get anything from public attention.  So, I don't know why you wrote such reply as an arguement to that point.
The only thing I disagree is the wording that is choosen in the article (隱 私 受 限 制), but I do agree with the idea that it brings out.
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-19 17:15

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-2-19 08:09 發表
no, u are wrong, "if 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of 公 眾 利益 ....."
公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of those 公 眾 人 物 的 利益 too
if they dont want to get attention, go find other jobs


Definition of "public interest"

I am 100% with you in terms of 食得喊魚就要抵得餲啦.  Just like people who are in an open-competition will get criticized by judge as well as public.  If you want to be popular, you of course have to get people to be interested in you.  When it comes to the entertainment industry, in stead of purely interested in their work, people also interested in their private life and this is part of being a celebrity... it's just the nature of the job.  And of course, with no doubt the celebrity got benefit from becoming popular.


"Greene says that “You simply have to be present, in the right place at the right time.” Whereas “...public[ly famous] people were once defined as such based upon the fact that their remarkable skills had brought them to the attention of the public,” Greene states that with reality TV, “one can become a public person just by being a person, in public.”

Celebrities often have fame comparable to that of royalty. As a result, there is a strong public curiosity about their private affairs. Celebrities may be resented for their accolades, and the public may have a love/hate relationship with celebrities. Due to the high visibility of celebrities' private lives, their successes and shortcomings are often made very public. Celebrities are alternately portrayed as glowing examples of perfection, when they garner awards, or as decadent or immoral if they become associated with a scandal.

Tabloid magazines and talk TV shows bestow a great deal of attention on celebrities. To stay in the public eye and to make money, more celebrities are participating in business ventures such as celebrity-branded items including as books, clothing lines, perfume, and household items."  Celebrity on Wiki


HOWEVER, what I am trying to say is, yes people are interested... but what is the boundary?  
One scenario: You found whoever eating alone at food court and reporters wrote an article about it saying that this particular individual looked so miserable eating alone... must be having financial problem etc etc... This is perfectly understandable as this person is in public and may not look like things have been well... Even though honestly the fact if that person is rich or not doesn't matter to anyone else, there's still a boundary there.  Later on, this person went into the washroom and reporter collected some "left over" and learn that this person is on medication for last stage cancer... then reporters then further investigated on this case and interviewed nurses or other clients in the clinic and published an article that this person will die in 3 months with all the supporting details... Has the reporter stepped on the boundary?  To make the case stronger, the reporter took pictures of the person receiving painful treatment without make up and wearing proper clothes... totally opposite to the image that the public used to see.  

We know there are two types of being famous: 流芳百世 or 遺臭萬年... I think these people and their companies are smart enough  to figure out what is the right thing to do.  Therefore, it is not always true that celebrity 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益.

Gosh this is taking too long... gotta go now... to be continued...
作者: chunsh    時間: 2008-2-19 18:10

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-19 17:15 發表

HOWEVER, what I am trying to say is, yes people are interested... but what is the boundary?  ...


Assume that u are those stars, once you took those pics and stored by third party hand (or even your own computer), the boundary is gone. You are the one to give the "keys" to other to break that boundary
作者: big_tooth    時間: 2008-2-20 03:51

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-2-19 18:10 發表


Assume that u are those stars, once you took those pics and stored by third party hand (or even your own computer), the boundary is gone. You are the one to give the "keys" to other to break that bo ...


Why stop at computer?  When you put your underwear in your drawing, it's already up for grab.  Whatever you put into your wallet is also up for grab.
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-20 08:59

our pretty panties are worth nothing. we are a nobody, and even if we were somebody, even if they stole our panties, they can only say that it belongs to us. but no one will see us in the panties that you stole off of me because they're in your hands & not on my @$$.

the cards, if you grab them, when there's 500 cards with 1/5 of them with your face on it, you cant go around telling people that it wasn't you in those panties that you're wearing in the cards.

unless it's a secret thought going through your mind, anything can be stolen.

even if we each had our own cards, & they got stolen. at the most, we'll suffer from the humiliation of our own stupidity for taking those pics. who cares if you're a former stripper now applying or working in an office job? it has no affect on our value because in the eyes of the public, we are worth nothing.

but when you're a public person, your talent, image & impact on society is your asset. you are valued at a high price because of those. if you mess it up, who's to blame? you can have all your weird fetishes all you want...if you quit & be a civilian or was a civilian all along. it's just like how there were some side "fake" cards. if we see a fake card, we'll discard it because it's a nobody, it has no value. how much an entertainer is paid, can have nothing to do with your talent...it's based on how much the public wants to see you. of course, the cards is a negative item...so therefore, since so many people want to see them, it just reflected how much audience wanted to see you positively.
作者: big_tooth    時間: 2008-2-20 09:16

So it's fair game to take your underspants and whatever in your wallet.
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-20 10:41

原帖由 big_tooth 於 2008-2-20 09:16 發表

Why stop at computer?  When you put your underwear in your drawing, it's already up for grab.  Whatever you put into your wallet is also up for grab.

So it's fair game to take your underspants and whatever in your wallet.


Great point.  Thanks big_tooth.

I just don't understand the concept of justifying their act of taking advantage of people who are in a vulnerable position.
Again, I totally agree with the fact that there's a price to pay and sacrifices of private life (such as their family...  i.e. Eason's dad for being Eason's dad which made the case 200% more interesting to public...) for being a celebrity; it's all expected.  However, for general public to believe that they have all the right to violate celebrity's privacy is a social problem.  To me, this kind of behavior (one believes that they are in the position to judge and exploit others who are in a different position) is not any better than bullying in elementary school --- the stronger-built kids has the authority to do things to another kid for being a geek.  And of course, they feel good about what they are doing; being able to humiliate legitimately brings people satisfaction.

Gosh talk too much again.  gotta get back to work.  to be continued...
作者: blueprint    時間: 2008-2-20 11:05

Exactly Maggie, that is bullying in a way.  But to those people who did it, I don't think they really realize that because they are too much enjoyed and consumed into the scandal and into their own sexual releases.  And good logical debate there, big_tooth.
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-20 11:09

原帖由 big_tooth 於 2008-2-20 09:16 AM 發表
So it's fair game to take your underspants and whatever in your wallet.

of course it's fair, as long as you have the ability to pull it off & violate what you're after & succeed, & be able to suck up whatever result & consequences that may follow. this is real society.

this world is evil. if the stars know that the public is after their privacy in order to become a star, that's what they choose to forfeit in order to take that path. so why weep about it & wished that your world is in utopia when you know it isn't? be realistic. issit so hard to distinguish the difference between ideal & real?
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 11:16

原帖由 big_tooth 於 2008-2-20 03:51 發表


Why stop at computer?  When you put your underwear in your drawing, it's already up for grab.  Whatever you put into your wallet is also up for grab.


Of course, if I ever put my drawer or wallet on the street or some public place, they are up for grab   

And, I think both you and Chunsh are wrong in this case.  How do you guys know that someone hacked into his computer or stole it from his computer?  I would think that the chance of him sharing with his buddies is very likely too.  So how those pictures leaked out remains mysterious...
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 11:23

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-20 10:41 發表

However, for general public to believe that they have all the right to violate celebrity's privacy is a social problem.


Yes, it is a social problem... but that's also how the celeb. get big bucks.  If people are not interested in the celeb, they would be outta job.  When people are interested in the celeb, the celeb's private life becomes interesting... Also, I would not consider myself violating someone's privacy as a reader when I read some 八掛 magazine.  It is the 狗仔對 that did it. LOL
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 11:25

原帖由 blueprint 於 2008-2-20 11:05 發表
Exactly Maggie, that is bullying in a way.  But to those people who did it, I don't think they really realize that because they are too much enjoyed and consumed into the scandal and into their own se ...


Duh... really, i don't know about you, but those pics did not turn me on sexually (I was LOLing)... well, may be I am not normal...
作者: LOK    時間: 2008-2-20 11:43

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-20 11:25 發表
Duh... really, i don't know about you, but those pics did not turn me on sexually (I was LOLing)... well, may be I am not normal...

those pics didn't turn me on too, I think we are normal...
those pics are ugly... I didn't even look at any of them more than 3 seconds... I rather go download some Japanese AV.

and over 50% of pics with EDC's d*** in it, I guess we are normal becuz we don't like to look at his d*** too.

[ 本帖最後由 LOK 於 2008-2-20 11:45 編輯 ]
作者: chunsh    時間: 2008-2-20 11:46

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-20 11:16 發表


Of course, if I ever put my drawer or wallet on the street or some public place, they are up for grab   

And, I think both you and Chunsh are wrong in this case.  How do you guys know that someon ...



maybe i work in IT industry and I have been hacked before, so I know it is damn so easy for a computer with an owner who has no computer background to be hacked in
作者: big_tooth    時間: 2008-2-20 12:12

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-20 11:16 發表


Of course, if I ever put my drawer or wallet on the street or some public place, they are up for grab   

And, I think both you and Chunsh are wrong in this case.  How do you guys know that someon ...


Well you put yourself and your wallet out on the street.  You do have people come over to your place right?  How about getting some contractor or electrican to fix up your house?

You are right in one way, if he shared those with his buddies and his buddies passing it on, he is the one to blame.  But we don't know that.
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 12:24

原帖由 big_tooth 於 2008-2-20 12:12 發表


Well you put yourself and your wallet out on the street.  You do have people come over to your place right?  How about getting some contractor or electrican to fix up your house?


I think it takes much more effort to go thru ME, then my WALLET, to take the stuffs in the wallet. And I won't call that "up for grab" lor.  If I put my wallet on the street (i.e. put it on the groud), then yeah... it is up for grab LOL

People who come to my place... lol, i don't think they are interested in my underwear.  However, if they do, yeah, they can take it and it is up for grab.  It would be my own fault to let someone I should not trust into my house.

If I don't accompany the contractor when they come to my house and I just leave valueable things lying around, yeah, that would be my own fault and things are "up for grab". I would shoot myself in this case instead of blaming people taking stuffs away from me.
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 12:25

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-2-20 11:46 發表



maybe i work in IT industry and I have been hacked before, so I know it is damn so easy for a computer with an owner who has no computer background to be hacked in


Just don't connect to a network?
Damn... I would be bored to hell....
作者: SAZABI    時間: 2008-2-20 12:26

原帖由 LOK 於 2008-2-20 11:43 發表

those pics didn't turn me on too, I think we are normal...
those pics are ugly... I didn't even look at any of them more than 3 seconds... I rather go download some Japanese AV.

and over 50% of p ...


yeah... why on earth would some people call that sexual release... what a weirdo...
作者: big_tooth    時間: 2008-2-20 16:01

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-20 12:26 發表


yeah... why on earth would some people call that sexual release... what a weirdo...


Because both you said Chunsh said you guys are "ham sup" and wants to see those pictures.
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-20 22:57

if ham sup, then i rather ham sup AV girls la.... easy to collect cards/videos too!
- face, body, definitely much better than the stars
- technique.... need a test drive to know la
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-23 18:28

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-19 09:47 發表

I think that it is somehow right that "他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益".  Those professional you mentioned don't get anything from public attention.  So, I don't know why you wrote such reply as an arguement to that point.


These professional, if they are caught doing something like EDC did, people will react to it because people expect higher moral standard from these professions.  Maybe it's beneficial for them to be popular, but mostly like, they won't get much 利 益 from 公 眾 關 注.  Also, ah gil and EDC were blamed for bringing bad influences for the society as they are supposed to be role models.  If a doctor is caught for not having a valid degree, this doctor will be in big big big trouble.  However, how many of those who considered and called themselves "artists" or "singers" are artistically/musically talented and are able to sing in a professional level?  How many of them got their degree in vocal music?  Therefore, I think having "singers" who can't really sing (not in a professional level yet produce albums and earn money from public out of it) is a bigger and more serious problem than having "artists"/"singers" taking hardcore pictures of their private parts.
With that said, I think 公 眾 should pick the right thing to 關 注. It is very bad for a child to believe that "I don't have to reveal much good inner qualities and master in what I do as long as I have a cute looking face".
沈殿霞 is remembered for her professionalism in terms of techniques (her singing as a singer and hosting skills as a MC for many big events) as well as her inner qualities (punctuality, love and care for friends, generosity, willingness to teach and assist unexperienced "youngsters", respect towards her mother and affections for her child).  Think about all the Hong Kong "artists" in this generation: how many of them will be remembered for their inner qualities and techniques?  If only a minority of them can be truly considered a true artist, shouldn't 公 眾 in Hong Kong pays more 關 注 towards the quality of their "artists" since their children (or even themselves) considered them "role models"??
作者: superberry    時間: 2008-2-24 00:47

Maggie, I don't agree with your points.... seems like you getting two things mixing up.

1. All professionals that you mentioned have their own union/organization to guide their code of conduct. People are required to have certain degree and to pass certain exams to become a professional. So, if a person claims to be let say a doctor, but he doesn't have a vailid degree or license, then he breaks the code of conduct, and it is not forgivable by the society. Or if a pastor sexual harrass a girl, it is a big deal to the society since the pastor is governed by the code of conduct of his own church. However, there's no such organization or code of conduct to require an artist to have a vocal or musical degree. So, comparing a doctor or pastor with an artist is like comparing orange and apple.

2. Like the article said, Ah Gill had been selling her 純情玉女 image. This is simply a demand and supply. Now, we all know she is not a 純情玉女 at all from day one. So demand drops dramatically for sure! I think that's partly explain why people are more forgiving to EDC after he makes his appologize. Since, he has been selling a bad boy image to sell money. So demand won't drop as much, his image in our mind is always a bad boy. The only thing that surprises me is that EDC has a small dick

[ 本帖最後由 superberry 於 2008-2-24 00:49 編輯 ]
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-25 02:33

原帖由 superberry 於 2008-2-24 00:47 發表
Maggie, I don't agree with your points.... seems like you getting two things mixing up.

1. All professionals that you mentioned have their own union/organization to guide their code of conduct. Peopl ...


Exactly superberry.  Occupations such as doctor has high education requirement (as well as moral of course, they have their own codes of conduct) and pastor has the Bible.  Other than the specific requirements in their own field, they are also judge by public.  I am sure we have heard our mom and their friends sharing tips such as which family doctor is better, which accountant is more helpful and which church has friendlier people.  It proves that other than the "standard" requirements from their own field, people "grade" their doctors and etc according to their own needs.  How come only "professional artist/ actors/ actresses/ singers" can be exempted from their "professional requirements"?  I don't know if you play any musical instruments but I think most people know that there's standardized exams for musicians such as violinists and pianists.  There's formal training for singers too and there's exams such like for singers exactly like violinists and pianists.  In addition, Eason Chan had formal vocal training when he was in UK; not sure what grade he got however.  Also, there are acting schools and singing schools.  Many HK celeb attended 香港演藝學院.  You have pointed out the problem that I have.  Artists/ actors/ singers have EVERY formal trainings they need just like other professions.  How come Hong Kong people are okay to accept and buy albums of a "singer" who is simply selling her image, not her singing skills?  Shouldn't the public feel deceived?  Why do they have such low expectation on "artists" comparing to other professions??  Shouldn't the core focus be the qualification of the "artist" just like we have on other professions even though they were not required to present their degree as after all, "art" which is not scientific study.  I don't know how much good 純情玉女 image does to a singer.  Anita Mui was never really a 純情玉女 and I think she is a great singer.  Twins had sung live shows and I wasn't really impressed by their singing skills nor their dance.  Since they called themselves singer, because I can't see themselves as singers by their level of singer, I did not buy their 純情玉女 image.  By the way, since I don't really believe that she is/ was a 純情玉女, therefore I wasn't that offended or disappointed when those pictures were out.

In summary, the questions that I have are:
1) Why the public has such low requirement and expectations from "artists/ actors/ actresses/ singers" in terms of technical levels?? Isn't their skills in what they are doing the most important (more important than??  They make lots of money from YOU!!!!!
2) Why people are ok with singers who can't sing but not okay with someone who has a 純情玉女 image but not a 純情玉女 in reality??

So weird... people's reaction in the past while is just illogical to me...
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-25 08:30

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-25 02:33 AM 發表

1) Why the public has such low requirement and expectations from "artists/ actors/ actresses/ singers" in terms of technical levels?? Isn't their skills in what they are doing the most important (more important than??  They make lots of money from YOU!!!!!
2) Why people are ok with singers who can't sing but not okay with someone who has a 純情玉女 image but not a 純情玉女 in reality??

1. obviously the honger artists have very low technique, even if they went through any "professional" training. The whole world knows that most honger artists' skills SUCK. we don't want any of that sh!t, but the record company only pushes these kinda product out. and since alot of new generation audience only look at appearance, & chinese world needs entertainers, so trash artists continue to be promoted every year. but since, i don't find their appearance attractive, & their "talent" is painful to my ears with lyrics that doesn't make sense, i don't even watch chinese movies or listen to any chinese songs. so thus, they can't make any $ off of me.

2. as stated in #1, people already lowered their expectations. & since their acting skills SUCKS too....AND they get busted for not being able to keep the ONLY ASSET THAT HONGER ARTISTS HAVE - IMAGE, then it's even more disappointing to the audience because their expectation are basically lowered to the floor just for the sake for having some sort of entertainer.
作者: Maggie    時間: 2008-2-26 00:03

原帖由 Alcoholic 於 2008-2-25 08:30 發表

1. obviously the honger artists have very low technique, even if they went through any "professional" training. The whole world knows that most honger artists' skills SUCK. we don't want any of that  ...


so i guess we can conclude that the adaptability of HK audience is wonderfully and amazingly excellent.  All they need is more "artists" like ah-gill who doesn't have natural talent in what she is doing as her career, inner qualities as a person and pure image as a "commercial product".  Eventually, HK audience will be able to be satisfied with anything they get, and they will be able to appreciate any form of entertainment.

It made me LOL when I heard the news that Chinese government will penalize "artists" who matches with the recording instead of singing live.  It's so funny...
作者: chunsh    時間: 2008-2-26 01:05

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-26 00:03 發表


so i guess we can conclude that the adaptability of HK audience is wonderfully and amazingly excellent.  All they need is more "artists" like ah-gill who doesn't have natural talent in what she is d ...



"It made me LOL when I heard the news that Chinese government will penalize "artists" who matches with the recording instead of singing live.  It's so funny..."

funny and not funny
people pay $$ to watch their live shows, not paying to listening CD
if they can't do live, then don't do it
作者: Alcoholic    時間: 2008-2-26 08:41

原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-26 12:03 AM 發表


so i guess we can conclude that the adaptability of HK audience is wonderfully and amazingly excellent.  All they need is more "artists" like ah-gill who doesn't have natural talent in what she is d ...


Yes ga. other than the old artists that were a big hit on TV while i was young... otherwise, i don't see any/much talented artists that deserves that kind of career nowadays. and look at how well those trash artists are doing so well in mainland (ie: twins), and you know that how important it is for HK to to keep on producing the same sort of hallow artists. if you go back to hk, and look in any magazine, then look at the people out on the street.... they all copy what the artists are wearing, style, personality etc. i wouldn't say all, but ALOT of hongers have no personality. that's why they need stars, to guide them their way through life, give them something to so-call "look up to". pretty sad. that's why this incident has such big impact on hk.



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2