Research FindingsBack
The key findings of the survey are summarized below. Cross-references could be made with the frequency tables listed in Appendix 2. It is noteworthy that the figures in the text are rounded up to the nearest integers, whereas for figures with the first decimal being "5", the second decimal place will also be considered to decide if the rounding-off is deemed appropriate. The survey began by gauging the respondents' general knowledge of the COIAO. After the interviewers briefly introduced the existing definition for "articles" under the COIAO, all respondents were asked, based on their knowledge, for articles classified as "obscene" and "indecent", to what age groups of persons they could be published? Results showed that 71% of respondents wrongly believed that articles classified as "obscene" could be published to persons of age 18 or above. Only 25% recognized that these articles were prohibited from publication to anybody. As for the "indecent" articles, 71% recognized that they were restricted to be published to persons of age 18 or above only, while 21% wrongly thought that they were prohibited from publication to anybody. Summing up, only 13% of the overall sample could answer both questions correctly, but more respondents (15%) answered both questions wrongly (Tables 3 to 5). The survey continued to ask if "films for public exhibition", "television broadcast" and "radio broadcast" were under the regulation of the COIAO. Results revealed that 8% respondents knew that "all three" of the abovementioned items were not under the COIAO's regulation. 77% wrongly believed that "television broadcast" was included, 74% mistook "films for public exhibition", and 69% wrongly thought "radio broadcast", was under the COIAO's regulation. A small proportion of respondents expressed no idea (5%; Table 6). According to the results of the first three questions, respondents' knowledge level of the COIAO could roughly be categorized into three types – 1) those who gave two to three correct answers were regarded as "more knowledgeable", accounting for 18% of the total sample; 2) those who gave only one correct answer as "fairly knowledgeable", taking up 67%; and 3) those who failed to give any correct answer as "less knowledgeable", amounting to 15%. Although such a classification may not be able to precisely reflect the respondents' knowledge with regard to the COIAO, it bears certain reference value when used as a variable to cross tabulate with other opinion questions. It should be noted that, since only a very small amount of people had answered all questions correctly, they were not singled out but also grouped under the "more knowledgeable" category. Summary Table 1 Knowledge of the definition of "obscene" and "indecent" articles and the regulation area of the COIAO (Base = 1,531)
Summary Chart 1 Knowledge of the definition of "obscene" and "indecent" articles and the regulation area of the COIAO (Base = 1,531)
As for the classification of articles related to sex, a landslide majority of the respondents considered photographs or pictures with description of "other types of sex, such as bestiality, necrophilia, etc." and " sexual intercourse, revealing the contact of male and female genitals" not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view. The corresponding percentage was 97% and 93%. Besides, 83% and 66% respectively considered photographs or pictures with "male(s) and female(s) revealing their genitals" and with "female(s) revealing her/their breasts" not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view, while only a very small amount of respondents (2%) considered all items suitable for persons below 18 years old to view (Table 8). As for the classification of articles related to violence, over 80% of respondents considered photographs or pictures that "displaying a human's head separated from body" and that "displaying a human's internal organs being exposed" not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view, with 85% and 82% respectively. Meanwhile, 63% and 33% considered photographs or pictures "with large space in displaying blood coming out from a human body" and that "displaying many bruises on a human body" not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view. Only 6% thought all of the above mentioned items were suitable for persons below 18 years old to view (Table 9). Should any of the above-mentioned articles be prohibited from publication for all ages? Results revealed that the largest proportion of respondents thought photographs or pictures with "description of bestiality and necrophilia" should be prohibited from publication for all ages, accounting for 63% of the total sample. Items that followed, in descending order, were photographs or pictures with "description of sexual intercourse, revealing the contact of male and female genitals" (49%), "displaying a human's head separated from body" (47%), "displaying a human's internal organs being exposed" (46%) and those with "male(s) and female(s) revealing their genitals" (40%), each took up a percentage ranging from 40% up to 50%. Besides, approximately 15% to 25% respondents thought photographs or pictures that "with large space in displaying blood coming out from a human body" (27%), "with female revealing her breast(s)" (26%) and "displaying many bruises on a human body" (15%) should be prohibited from publication for all ages. Finally, 25% of the overall sample thought all the above-mentioned items should not be prohibited from publication at all (Table 10). Summary Chart 2 Public views on photographs or pictures considered to be not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view [Base (sex) = 1,457; Base (violence) = 1,458] and prohibited from publication for all ages (Base = 1,455)
Regarding the adjudication system, over 90% of the respondents said they had "heard of" (91%) the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT) prior to the interview. However, among the sub-sample of those who had (1,387 respondents), only less than one-tenth thought the work of OAT had been "well done" (9%), which was significantly less than those who gave a negative assessment (33%), while almost half of this sub-sample said "half-half/average" (47%) and around one-tenth failed to give a definite answer to this question (11%; Tables 12 & 13). After a brief description of the current adjudication system and the number of adjudicators serving on the OAT, the interviewers read out a total of six improvement proposals to gauge the respondents' support level to each of the propositions. Findings showed that, nearly 80% were in favour of "increasing the number of adjudicators in each hearing, i.e. from 2 to 4 persons for interim hearings and from 4 to 6 persons for full hearings" (78%) and "prescribing in the legislation that each tribunal hearing should consist of adjudicators from specified sectors, e.g. education, social welfare, etc." (77%). The proposal of "establishing an independent classification board for making interim classifications on articles, while the existing OAT will remain as a judicial body to consider appeals against the classification decisions of the board" gained a support rate at 63%. Meanwhile, the opposition rates of the aforementioned proposals were 7%, 11% and 17% respectively. On the other hand, those who were in favour of "drawing adjudicators from the list of jurors instead of the list of adjudicators for each tribunal hearing" amounted to 58%, while 21% objected to this proposal. As for "expanding the existing panel of adjudicators from 300 to 500 individuals" (43%) and "abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate" (40%), the objection rates were 31% and 41% correspondingly (Tables 14 to 20). Summary Chart 3 Support level to 6 improvement proposals of the adjudication system (Base = 1,522 - 1,530)
With regard to the regulation of obscene and indecent articles on the Internet, three quarters of the respondents wished that the government regulation would be "stricter than it is now" (75%), of which almost half of them opted for "much stricter" (47%). Another 13% considered the current regulation was "appropriate", while only less than one-tenth wished that the regulation would be "more lenient than it is now" (8%). Excluding those who said "appropriate" and "more lenient", the survey continued to ask those respondents how could the regulation be further tightened. Of all valid responses, the two most frequently cited ones were "improving the existing regulatory system" (21%) and "raising the penalty" (19%), followed by "promoting the usage of computer filtering service" (8%), "stepping up the enforcement by police, increasing the frequency of online patrol" (5%), "enhancing public education and promotion" (5%), "verifying the age of Internet users" (4%), "verifying the identity of Internet users, enhancing international cooperation so as to facilitate the tracing of publishers" (2%) and "to establish a special working team to enforce the regulation by the government" (1%). Meanwhile, 44% said they had no idea (Table 21 & 22). Out of the overall sample, more than 40% of respondents reported that they would spend no more than 14 hours a week on Internet (42%), meaning no more than 2 hours per day. Another 14% would use the Internet for 15-28 hours per week, and 8% for 29-42 hours per week. Those who indicated that they would use the Internet for 43-56 hours, 57-70 hours and 71 hours or more amounted to 3%, 2% and 1% respectively. The remaining 28% were non-Internet users. Excluding these non- users, about half of the users said they were "concerned" about the online publication of articles deemed unsuitable for persons below 18 years old. Those who opted for "not concerned" (26%) and "half-half" (25%) each accounted for around a quarter of the sample. At the same time, only 22% of the Internet users had used computer filtering software. As for the reasons of not using any filtering software, over half of the sub-sample said "no such need" (55%), 13% claimed "total ignorance in this software". Other less popular answers included "lack of technical skills to operate" (3%), "to avoid the fuss" (3%), "good trust in his/her children/family, education and self-discipline being more important" (2%), "too expensive" (1%), "affecting the computer performance" (1%) and "results not ideal" (1%, Tables 24 to 26). As for the classification standard set by the OAT, i.e. articles that are neither obscene nor indecent and suitable for all persons as Class I; articles that are indecent and unsuitable for persons of age below 18 as Class II; articles that are obscene and unsuitable for persons of all ages as Class III. As high as 60% of respondents considered this system "appropriate", whereas 21% and 14% respectively thought the existing classification "inappropriate" and "half-half". The remaining 5% had no idea (5%, Table 28). If there was a practical need to focus its resources to handle certain articles first, respondents believed that TELA should prioritize as follows: "local newspapers" (30%), "local magazines" (19%), "DVDs/VCDs" (19%), "electronic game products including computer games" (17%) and finally "comic books" (6%). If adding up the percentages of the "first" and "second" priorities, apart from swapping the orders of the first two items, the rankings of the other three remained unchanged. They were, in descending priority, "local magazines" (50%*), "local newspapers" (50%*), "DVDs/VCDs" (35%) and "electronic games including computer games" (30%) and "comic books" (19%). Conversely, if to rank by the percentages of "the fifth priority" obtained for each item, the results also matched and the orders were "comic books" (23%), "electronic games including computer games" (22%), "DVDs/VCDs" (21%), "local newspapers" (17%) and "local magazines" (9%, Table 29). Summary Table 2 Respondents' priority setting for different articles (Base = 1,524)
Overall speaking, three-quarters of the respondents expressed their wish that the penalties for breaching the COIAO should be "more severe than now" (75%). Meanwhile, 15% of respondents considered the current penalties as "appropriate". Only 7% thought the penalties should be "more lenient than now" (Table 30). The questionnaire ended by asking through what channels the respondents would prefer the government to publicize and educate the public about the COIAO in future. Results revealed that nearly three-quarters of the overall sample preferred "television advertisements/programmes" (74%), followed at a distance by "newspapers/magazines" (36%) and then "school talks" (34%). Those who opted for "radio advertisements/programmes", "Internet" and "posters/pamphlets" amounted to 23%, 18% and 10% respectively. Other less frequently mentioned channels included "community activities" (5%), "incorporated into the school curriculum" (2%), "advertising on public transportations" (1%) and "promotion in places where teenagers hang out, such as cyber cafes or amusement game centres" (1%, Table 31). As shown from the cross-tabulation analysis based on gender, females were more inclined than males to believe that there was a need for Hong Kong to regulate the publication of all articles through legislation. Besides, females' tolerance level towards articles deemed not suitable for persons under the age of 18 or for all ages was comparatively lower than their male counterparts. On the other hand, the knowledge level of the OAT was significantly higher among the males. Generally speaking, more females than males wished for stricter regulation of obscene and indecent articles on the Internet and were more concerned about displaying articles not suitable for non-adults online. As for the Internet users, a higher proportion of females than males had used computer filtering software. Also, females were more inclined than males to push the court for heavier penalties when dealing with offenders of the COIAO. With respect to different age groups, relatively more respondents aged between 31-50 tended not to agree that Hong Kong society should call for legislation to monitor all publication of articles to the public as compared to the younger and older counterparts. Their acceptance level regarding the publication of sex-related articles to persons under the age of 18 was also higher than other groups in general. Nevertheless, as for whether or not the articles should be prohibited from publication for all ages, the older the respondents, the lower their tolerance level, implying stricter standards. Among all, respondents aged 51 or above were the least knowledgeable about the OAT. On the other hand, apart from the proposal "abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate", the younger the respondents, the higher the support rate obtained for all five proposals tested in this study. Besides, the older the respondents, the higher the percentage seeking for stricter government regulations related to obscene and indecent articles on the Internet. Those aged between 31-50 were found to be most concerned about articles classified as unsuitable for persons below 18 years old displaying on the Internet. Overall speaking, older respondents were more in favor of raising the court penalties when dealing with obscene and indecent articles. In terms of education attainment, the lower the education level, the more likely the respondents would agree that there was "a need" for Hong Kong society to have legislation in monitoring all publication of articles to the public. They were also relatively stricter than the others when classifying articles that were unsuitable for non-adults or should be prohibited from publication for all ages. Those with higher education level showed significantly higher knowledge of the OAT. Regarding the various improvement proposals, except for "abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate", the higher the education level, the higher the support rate obtained for the other five proposals. Those with tertiary education or above tended to think that the current government regulation of publishing obscene and indecent articles online was already "appropriate" or even hoped it could be more lenient than now. As regards the Internet users, respondents with secondary education level were more likely to have used computer filtering software. Similarly, respondents with secondary education level generally thought that the current classification system adopted by the OAT was "appropriate". Finally, those with lower education were more likely than other education groups to ask for heavier penalties from the court when dealing with obscene and indecent article. As far as occupation is concerned, cross-tabulation analysis found that the white collars were relatively more knowledgeable of the OAT when compared to other occupations as well as the non-working groups. Yet, it is also the white collars who tended to rate its work effectiveness as "poor". Regarding the improvement proposals put to test, the student group was more inclined to agree with "expanding the existing panel of adjudicators from 300 to 500 individuals", "drawing adjudicators from the list of jurors instead of the list of adjudicators for each tribunal hearing", "prescribing in the legislation that each tribunal hearing should consist of adjudicators from specified sectors, e.g. education, social welfare, etc." and "increasing the number of adjudicators in each hearing, i.e., from 2 to 4 persons for interim hearings and from 4 to 6 persons for full hearings", whereas white collars showed more support to "establishing an independent classification board for making interim classifications on articles, while the existing OAT will remain as a judicial body to consider appeals against the classification decisions of the board" than the others. On the other hand, more blue collars tended to be in favour of "abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate". Results also showed that, compared to people from other sectors, a relatively higher percentage of students considered the classification currently used by the OAT appropriate. According to the cross-tabulation analysis with the respondents' knowledge level of the COIAO, the "more knowledgeable" group was relatively stricter than the other two groups when deciding which articles were not suitable for persons under the age of 18 or even prohibited from publication for all ages. Furthermore, the higher the knowledge level, the more likely the respondents would consider the current classification adopted by the OAT as "appropriate" and also the more likely to ask for heavier penalties from the court for the offenders of the COIAO. On another front, it is found that respondents who rated the work effectiveness of OAT negatively were more likely to agree with "drawing adjudicators from the list of jurors instead of the list of adjudicators for each tribunal hearing" and "abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate". In contrast, those who rated the OAT's work effectiveness positively inclined to agree with "prescribing in the legislation that each tribunal hearing should consist of adjudicators from specified sectors". Last but not least, cross-tabulations between the Internet usage and respondents' view on the government regulation revealed that the less frequent the usage, the more likely the respondents would call for stricter control of obscene and indecent articles online. Those who used the Internet for no more than 15 hours a week were classified as the first tier, among whom nearly 80% asked for stricter regulation. Those who used the Internet for 15 to 56 hours per week were classified as the second tier, and the corresponding figure was close to 70%. The third tier referred to those who used the Internet for more than 56 hours per week, and almost 50% of this tier shared the same view in this aspect. Finally, as shown from the cross-tabulation results, the more concerned about the online publication of articles deemed unsuitable for persons below 18 years old by law the Internet users were, the more likely they had used computer filtering software. Concluding Remarks This survey finds that people's knowledge of the COIAO is just fair. According to the results gathered from the first three questions of the questionnaire, 18% of the respondents answered two to three questions correctly and they can be classified as "more knowledgeable". Those who only answered one question correctly can be classified as "fairly knowledgeable", comprising 67% of the sample. Those who could not give any correct answer can be classified as "less knowledgeable", comprising 15% of the sample. Whether those questions are too difficult or too easy is, of course, a subjective matter. Nonetheless, dividing the respondents into three groups helps to analyze the reasons of their opinions. The consensus among the respondents is that Hong Kong society needs legislations to monitor the publication of articles. Over 80% of the respondents agreed that photographs or pictures with descriptions of bestiality, necrophilia, revealing the contact of male and female genitals, with male(s) and female(s) revealing their genitals, those displaying a human's head separated from body, and those displaying a human's internal organs being exposed were not suitable for persons aged below 18 to view. Moreover, about two-thirds consensus is struck that photographs or pictures With female revealing her breast(s), or those with large space in displaying blood coming out from a human body were not suitable for persons aged below 18 to view. As for articles which should be banned for all ages, only photographs or pictures with description of sexual intercourses related to bestiality and necrophilia got the support of two-third majority. Those revealing the contact of male and female genitals, displaying a human's head separated from body, and those displaying a human's internal organs being exposed got about 45% to 50% support. This survey shows that most people are aware of the existence of the OAT, but they generally regarded its effectiveness to be "neither good nor bad". Among the six proposals for improving the adjudication system listed in the questionnaire, people seemed to be very supportive of increasing the number of adjudicators in each hearing, and requiring each hearing to include adjudicators from specified sectors. Both proposals captured almost 80% support. About 60% supported the establishment of a new independent adjudication system, and the replacement of adjudicators by jurors. It would be a difficult task to blend together these rather unrelated and even contradicting suggestions. As for the regulation of Internet, three-quarters of people urged the government to step up its regulation, mainly to improve the existing regulatory system and to increase the penalty. Survey results also show that around 70% of the respondents had the habit of using the Internet. Although they were rather concerned about the Internet displaying articles which were classified by law as not suitable for persons of age under 18, only about 15% of the sample used computer filtering software. As for other more general questions, research results show that three-quarters of the people wished the court to increase the penalty for violating the COIAO, and that the government would educate the public through the television. Sixty percent considered the classification standards set by the OAT to be "appropriate". Most said TELA should handle local newspapers first, followed by magazines and DVDs/VCDs. In terms of demographic analyses, women were generally more inclined to ask for more regulations and heavier penalties than men, but their awareness of the OAT's work was relatively lower. In terms of age, those between 31 and 50 were more open to different kinds of articles, and they were more concerned about problems over the Internet. Older respondents tended to ask for heavier penalties from the court, while their knowledge of the OAT was the lowest, but their rating of its effectiveness most negative. As for education attainment, those with lower education attainment tended to ask for more regulations and heavier penalties. Those with higher education attainment were more familiar with the OAT, and rated its effectiveness more negatively, but tended to think the current government regulation of the Internet was already adequate. In terms of occupation, white collars were more familiar with the OAT, but rated its effectiveness more negatively. Moreover, respondents who were more familiar with the COIAO seemed to have stricter standards in classifying different articles. Those who rated the effectiveness of the OAT more poorly tended to ask for greater changes to the existing adjudication system. The less frequent Internet users tended to ask for more government control on obscene and indecent articles on the Internet. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
