終審法院的陳宥羲案

本以為在返港期間可以停筆休息一下, 終審法院有關網上平台的討論內容, 是否構成罪行, 又掀起一些討論。陳宥羲案(HKSAR and Chan Yau Hei FACC 3/2013)的判決，發出了兩個重要訊息。其一, 有違公德罪未必足以處理現代電腦作媒介滋生的罪行, 雖然判辭裏建議本案如果傳召證據的方法有異於本案原本呈遞同意案情的方式, 加入在公眾地方公眾人士能夠看到有關訊息的元素, 定罪有可能維持原判。歸根究底重新訂定法律, 才足以處理這些罪行。其二, 本案上訴得直, 主要是因為法庭覺得一般電腦討論平台的留言, 不符在公眾地方發生的元素, 因為這些討論的留言, 並非發生在一個實在具體的地方（physical and tangible place）, 參與者要通過電腦下載去取閱訊息, 如果是黑客入侵某些在公眾地方展示的熒幕訊息, 情況會很不同。在那種情況下發出的訊息, 就會符合法律元素「公眾」一詞的要求。但我整體印象是, 終院覺得正確做法是訂立針對性的法例。

終院判辭也比較罕有地討論其他控罪的可能性, 尤其具體提到《簡易程序治罪條例》的12A及20條都不適用，因為它們都不是針對網上發布訊息的行為，判辭第91段這様講：

Although there are statutory offences under Hong Kong law which address the sending and exhibition of, amongst other things, lewd, obscene and disgusting material, those offences do not apply to material posted on the internet and the statutory provisions have not been updated or extended to reflect the fact that the mischief addressed by those offences can arise by means of activity conducted via the internet. By way of example, the following two offences may be considered:

Section 12A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap.228) makes it an offence to take part in, provide or manage any public live performance of an indecent, obscene, revolting or offensive nature, but, by virtue of the definition of “public live performance” (see section 12A(9)), a video of such a performance exhibited via the internet would not constitute the offence.

Section 20 of the Summary Offences Ordinance makes it an offence to send any message “by telegraph, telephone, wireless telegraphy or wireless telephony which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”, but the medium of the internet is not addressed by that provision.

判辭有討論案中具煽惑元素（incitement），不過沒有進一步講有可能違反的其他罪行，譬如煽惑他人「導致相當可能會危害生命或財產的爆炸」（法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第53及221章《刑事程序條例》第101C(1)(iv)條）及《刑事罪行條例》第10(1)(a)條的作出煽動意圖行為罪，即

(1) 任何人─

(a) 作出、企圖作出、準備作出或與任何人串謀作出具煽動意圖的作為；或
..............

根據同一章法例第9條第1款的介定，

(1) 煽動意圖是指意圖─

........
(f) 煽惑他人使用暴力；或 (由1970年第30號第2條增補)
(g) 慫使他人不守法或不服從合法命令。

判辭第82段講：

The content of the message in this case is clear and requires no context to inform the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used.  It is a straightforward and unambiguous incitement to carry out an act of terrorism, namely to bomb the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government.  An incitement to bomb any premises would be potentially obscene and disgusting because of the brazen disregard for the potential loss of life, personal injuries and damage to property as well as the public trauma caused by an act of terrorism.

毫無疑問，終院並不覺得陳宥羲只在網上吹牛，而是直接了當在煽動他人去炸中聯辦，那麽上面提出這兩項控罪都有可能成立。不過，想深一層，在大笪地、公園或甚麽公眾地方高談闊論，口沫橫飛，把同一番對話搬上網上的討論平台，就分分鐘會以身試法，不是有點兒戲嗎？