Frequency tablesBack

[Interviewer to read out: The government is currently reviewing the operation of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (COIAO), and a public consultation on the review is underway. The following questions are related to this review. "Articles" under the COIAO refer to general articles, such as newspapers, magazine etc., but not including works of art nor articles with scientific and academic value.]

Table 3 [Q1] As far as you know, those articles classified as "obscene" can be published or sold to which of the following groups of persons to view? [Interviewer read out options 1-3]

	Freq.	% (N=1,531)
Can be published or sold to persons of age 18 or above only	1,081	70.6%
Are prohibited from publication to all ages (correct answer)	380	24.8%
Can be published or sold to all ages	33	2.2%
Don't know/hard to say	37	2.4%
Total	1,531	100.0%

Table 4 [Q2] As far as you know, those articles classified as "indecent" can be published or sold to which of the following groups of persons to view? [Interviewer read out options 1-3]

	Freq.	% (N=1,531)
Can be published or sold to persons of age 18 or above only (correct answer)	1,093	71.4%
Cannot be published or sold to any person	315	20.6%
Can be published or sold to all ages	86	5.6%
Don't know/hard to say	37	2.4%
Total	1,531	100.0%

Table 5 Integrate the answers of [Q1] and [Q2]

	Freq.	% (N=1,531)
All answers correct	193	12.6%
Only one correct answer	1,086	70.9%
No correct answer	235	15.3%
Don't know/hard to say	17	1.1%
Total	1,531	100.0%

Table 6 [Q3] As far as you know, which of the following is/are subject to regulation by the COIAO: films for public exhibition, television and radio broadcast? [Interviewer read out options 1-3, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=3,570)	% of sample(N=1,530)
Television broadcast	1,179	33.0%	77.0%
Films for public exhibition	1,136	31.8%	74.2%
Radio broadcast	1,058	29.6%	69.2%
None of the above (correct answer)	119	3.3%	7.8%
Don't know/hard to say	78	2.2%	5.1%
Total	3,570	100.0%
Missing	1

Table 7 [Q4] Do you think there is a need to regulate all published articles by law in Hong Kong?

	Freq.	% (N=1,529)
Yes	1,220	79.8%
No	272	17.8%
Don't know/hard to say	37	2.4%
Total	1,529	100.0%
Missing	2

Table 8 [Q5] Which of the following photographs or pictures related to sex do you think is/are not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view? [Interviewer read out options 1-4, order to be randomized by the computer, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=4,952)	% of sample(N=1,457)
With description of other types of sex, such as bestiality, necrophilia, etc.	1,412	28.5%	96.9%
With description of sexual intercourse, revealing the contact of male and female genitals	1,348	27.2%	92.6%
With male(s) and female(s) revealing their genitals	1,208	24.4%	82.9%
With female revealing her breast(s)	956	19.3%	65.6%
All of the above are suitable for persons below 18 years old to view	24	0.5%	1.6%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	4	0.1%	0.3%
Total	4,952	100.0%
Missing	74

Table 9 [Q6] Which of the following photographs or pictures related to violence do you think is/are not suitable for persons below 18 years old to view? [Interviewer read out options 1-4, order to be randomized by the computer, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=3,945)	% of sample(N=1,458)
Photographs/pictures displaying a human's head separated from body	1,245	31.6%	85.4%
Photographs/pictures displaying a human's internal organs being exposed	1,196	30.3%	82.1%
Photographs/pictures with large space in displaying blood coming out from human body	924	23.4%	63.4%
Photographs/pictures displaying many bruises on a human body	482	12.2%	33.1%
All of the above are suitable for persons below 18 years old	86	2.2%	5.9%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	13	0.3%	0.9%
Total	3,945	100.0%
Missing	73

Table 10 [Q7] Which of the above mentioned photographs or pictures do you think should be prohibited from publication to all ages? [If needed, interviewer can read out options 1-4 in the above two questions, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=4,950)	% of sample(N=1,455)
Related to sex:
With description of other types of sex, such as bestiality, necrophilia, etc.	924	18.7%	63.5%
With description of sexual intercourse, revealing the contact of male and female genitals	713	14.4%	49.0%
With male(s) and female(s) revealing their genitals	582	11.8%	40.0%
With female revealing her breast(s)	375	7.6%	25.8%
Related to violence:
Photographs/pictures displaying a human's head separated from body	682	13.8%	46.9%
Photographs/pictures displaying a human's internal organs being exposed	666	13.5%	45.8%
Photographs/pictures with large space in displaying blood coming out from human body	390	7.9%	26.8%
Photographs/pictures displaying many bruises on a human body	221	4.5%	15.2%
All of the above should not be prohibited from publication to all ages	358	7.2%	24.6%
Others (Please specify: )	2	0.0%	0.1%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	36	0.7%	2.5%
Total	4,950	100.0%
Missing	76

Table 11 [Q7_others] Which of the above mentioned photographs or pictures do you think should be prohibited from publication to all ages? (Other responses)

	Freq.
Description of sexual intercourse with children or same sex	1
Pedophilia	1

Table 12 [Q8] Have you ever heard of the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT)?

	Freq.	% (N=1,531)
Yes	1,388	90.7%
No (skip to Q10)	141	9.2%
Don't know/hard to say	2	0.2%
Total	1,531	100.0%

Table 13 [Q9] (Only ask respondents who had heard of OAT) How good or bad do you think the OAT has done its work? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

		Freq.		% (N=1,387)
Very good	) Good	9	) 122	0.7%	) 8.8%
Quite good		113		8.1%
Half-half/average		653		47.1%
Quite poor	) Poor	306	) 461	22.1%	)33.2%
Very poor		155		11.2%
Don't know/hard to say		152		10.9%
Total		1,387		100.0%
Missing		3

[Interviewer to read out: Under the existing adjudication system, OAT is a judicial body, which comprises a presiding magistrate and two members of the public appointed by the Chief Justice to serve as adjudicators. Currently there is a pool of 300 adjudicators serving the OAT.] Now, I am going to read out a number of improvement proposals related to the adjudication system. Please tell me, how much do you support or object to these proposals? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

Table 14 [Q10] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (i) Expanding the existing panel of adjudicators from 300 to 500 individuals

		Freq.			% (N=1,530)
Very much support	) Support	203	) 653		13.3%	) 42.7%
Somewhat support		450			29.4%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection		286			18.7%
Somewhat object	) Object	324		) 478	21.2%	) 31.2%
Very much object		154			10.0%
Don't know/hard to say		114			7.4%
Total		1,530			100.0%
Missing		1

Table 15 [Q11] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (ii) Drawing adjudicators from the list of jurors (a pool of 570,000 jurors) instead of the list of adjudicators (a pool of 300 adjudicators) for each tribunal hearing

		Freq.		% (N=1,523)
Very much support	) Support	381	)890	25.0%	)58.4%
Somewhat support		509		33.4%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection		188		12.3%
Somewhat object	) Object	239	)320	15.7%	)21.0%
Very much object		82		5.4%
Don't know/hard to say		125		8.2%
Total		1,523		100.0%
Missing		8

Table 16 [Q12] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (iii) Prescribing in the legislation that each tribunal hearing should consist of adjudicators from specified sectors, e.g. education, social welfare, etc.

		Freq.		% (N=1,528)
Very much support	) Support	536	)1,173	35.1%	)76.7%
Somewhat support		637		41.7%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection		126		8.3%
Somewhat object	) Object	112	)161	7.3%	)10.5%
Very much object		49		3.2%
Don't know/hard to say		69		4.5%
Total		1,528		100.0%
Missing		3

Table 17 [Q13] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (iv) 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

		Freq.		% (N=1,527)
Very much support	) Support	544	)1,190	35.6%	)77.9%
Somewhat support		646		42.3%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection		157		10.3%
Somewhat object	) Object	80	)112	5.2%	)7.4%
Very much object		32		2.1%
Don't know/hard to say		68		4.5%
Total		1,527		100.0%
Missing		4

Table 18 [Q14] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (v) 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

		Freq.		% (N=1,522)
Very much support	) Support	328	)960	21.6%	)63.1%
Somewhat support		631		41.5%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection		190		12.5%
Somewhat object	) Object	172	)261	11.3%	)17.1%
Very much object		89		5.8%
Don't know/hard to say		112		7.3%
Total		1,522		100.0%
Missing		9

Table 19 [Q15] How much do you support or object to these proposals? (vi) Abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate

		Freq.		% (N=1,523)
Very much support	) Support	233	)606	15.3%	)39.8%
Somewhat support		373		24.5%
Half-half/neutral/a little support and a little objection t		195		12.8%
Somewhat object	) Object	414	)618	27.2%	)40.6%
Very much object		204		13.4%
Don't know/hard to say		103		6.7%
Total		1,523		100.0%
Missing		8

Table 20 [Q11-Q15 Summary table] Support and objection rates of each of the improvement proposals

Proposals	Support	Object
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	77.9%	7.4%
Prescribing in the legislation that each tribunal hearing should consist of adjudicators from specified sectors, e.g. education, social welfare, etc.	76.7%	10.5%
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	63.1%	17.1%
Drawing adjudicators from the list of jurors (a pool of 570,000 jurors) instead of the list of adjudicators (a pool of 300 adjudicators) for each tribunal hearing	58.4%	21.0%
Expanding the existing panel of adjudicators from 300 to 500 individuals	42.7%	31.2%
Abolishing the OAT and having the articles classified by a magistrate	39.8%	40.6%

[Interviewer to read out: Under the existing arrangement, TELA will refer cases of obscene Internet content to the Police, while for indecent articles on the Internet, TELA will ask the webmaster to add the required statutory warning, or to remove or block access to the indecent articles. Websites using oversea servers are not subject to the laws of Hong Kong.]

Table 21 [Q16] Do you wish the government regulation of the obscene and indecent articles on the Internet to be stricter or more lenient than it is now? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

		Freq.		% (N=1,526)
Much stricter than now	) Stricter than now	718	) 1,151	47.1%	)75.4 %
Somewhat stricter than now		432		28.3%
The current regulation is appropriate		203		13.3%
Somewhat more lenient than now	) More lenient than now	72	) 120	4.7%	)7.9%
Much more lenient than now		48		3.1%
Don't know/hard to say		53		3.5%
Total		1,526		100.0%
Missing		5

Table 22 [Q17] (Excluding those who said "appropriate" and "lenient than now" in Q16) Then how do you think the regulation could be enhanced? [Do not read out answers, multiple answers allowed, interviewer to probe by asking "anything else?"]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=1,302)	% of sample(N=1,178)
Improving the existing regulation system	246	18.9%	20.9%
Raising the penalty	228	17.5%	19.4%
Promoting the usage of computer filtering service	98	7.5%	8.3%
Stepping up the enforcement by police, increasing the frequency of online patrol	58	4.5%	4.9%
Enhancing public education and publicity	55	4.2%	4.7%
Verifying the age of Internet users	49	3.7%	4.1%
Verifying the identity of Internet users, enhancing international cooperation so as to facilitate the tracing of publishers	19	1.4%	1.6%
The government to establish a special working team to enforce the regulation	13	1.0%	1.1%
Others (Please specify: )	16	1.2%	1.3%
Don't know/hard to say	521	40.0%	44.2%
Total	1,302	100.0%
Missing	30

Table 23 [Q17_others] (Excluding those who said "appropriate" and "lenient than now" in Q16) Then how do you think the regulation could be enhanced? (Other answers)

	Freq.
Encouraging the public to report publishers breaching the COIAO	3
Involving the cultural professionals to enhance regulation	2
Involving the public in Legislative Council and Human rights organizations	2
Persuading and advising	2
Verbal warnings	1
Adding statutory warnings on the Internet	1
Very difficult, no resources	1
The government and parents have to enhance regulation, self-discipline of website	1
Require the users to pay to access the website	1
Do not let people browse after simply pressing the "reader is of age 18 or above" button	1
Using password at home computer	1
Self-discipline of public	1
Difficult to regulate, depends on self-discipline	1
Cooperation with professionals in this field	1

Table 24 [Q18] How many hours on average do you spend on using the Internet a week? Please consider all forms of usage (e.g. e-mailing, browsing websites)

	Freq.	% (N= 1,527)
14 hours or less	643	42.1%
15 - 28 hours	212	13.9%
29 - 42 hours	123	8.1%
43 - 56 hours	39	2.6%
57 - 70 hours	35	2.3%
71 hours or more	15	1.0%
Do not use Internet (skip to Q21)	435	28.5%
Don't know/hard to say	25	1.7%
Total	1,527	100.0%
Missing	4
Mean	16.9 hours
Standard error of mean	0.57 hours
Median	10 hours
Mode	10 hours
Base	1,067

Table 25 [Q19] (Excluding non-Internet users) How much are you concerned about the online publication of articles deemed unsuitable for persons below 18 years old to view by the law? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

		Freq.		% (N=1,090)
Very much concerned	) Concerned	215	)519	19.7%	)47.6%
Somewhat concerned		304		27.9%
Half-half		269		24.7%
Not quite concerned	) Not concerned	207	)283	19.0%	)26.0%
Not concerned at all		77		7.0%
Don't know/hard to say		19		1.7%
Total		1,090		100.0%
Missing		6

Table 26 [Q20] (Excluding non-Internet users) Do you have the habit of using computer filtering software, e.g. CyberPatrol, Family Safety (OneCare), etc.? [If the respondent says "no", interview to ask "Why not?". Do not read out answers, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=1,123)	% of sample(N=1,089)
Yes	240	21.4%	22.0%
No, there is no such need	590	52.5%	54.2%
No, no knowledge of these software	138	12.3%	12.7%
No, lack of technical skills to operate	34	3.1%	3.1%
No, to avoid the fuss	31	2.7%	2.8%
No, trust his/her children/family, education and self-discipline more important	18	1.6%	1.6%
No, too expensive	12	1.1%	1.1%
No, software affects the computer performance	11	1.0%	1.0%
No, results not ideal	10	0.9%	1.0%
No, with other reasons (Please specify: )	17	1.5%	1.5%
Don't know/hard to say	21	1.9%	1.9%
Total	1,123	100.0%
Missing	7

Table 27 [Q20_others] (Excluding non-Internet users) Do you have the habit of using computer filtering software, e.g. CyberPatrol, Family Safety (OneCare), etc.? (Other reasons)

	Freq.
There is password control in the computer already	3
Could not name any specific reasons (already probed)	3
All computer-related matters are handled by other family members	2
The computer does not belong to the respondent, he/she will not handle any of these software	2
Did not notice	2
There are general filter functions in the computer already	1
Not interested in	1
The computer belongs to the office	1
Will use it in future	1
Seldom go online	1
No time	1
Have not bought any software	1

Table 28 [Q21] Do you think the current classification standard used 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, is appropriate or not? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

		Freq.		% (N=1,529)
Very appropriate	) Appropriate	207	)923	13.5%	)60.3%
Somewhat appropriate		716		46.8%
Half-half		208		13.6%
Somewhat inappropriate	) Inappropriate	231	)321	15.1%	)21.0%
Very inappropriate		89		5.8%
Don't know/hard to say		78		5.1%
Total		1,529		100.0%
Missing		2

Table 29 [Q22] TELA has practical need to focus its resources to handle certain articles first. Please use a scale of 1 – 5 to indicate how you think the articles should be prioritized, 1 means first priority. [Interviewer to read out items 1-5, order to be randomized by computer]

Local newspapers	Freq.	% (N=1,524)
First priority	464	30.5%
Second priority	298	19.6%
Third priority	198	13.0%
Fourth priority	188	12.4%
Least priority	260	17.0%
Failed to clearly prioritize all items	46	3.0%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	70	4.6%
Total	1,524	100.0%
Missing	7
Local magazines	Freq.	% (N=1,524)
First priority	294	19.3%
Second priority	473	31.0%
Third priority	239	15.7%
Fourth priority	267	17.5%
Least priority	135	8.9%
Failed to clearly prioritize all items	46	3.0%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	70	4.6%
Total	1,524	100.0%
Missing	7
DVDs/VCDs	Freq.	% (N=1,524)
First priority	288	18.9%
Second priority	237	15.6%
Third priority	300	19.7%
Fourth priority	263	17.2%
Least priority	320	21.0%
Failed to clearly prioritize all items	46	3.0%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	70	4.6%
Total	1,524	100.0%
Missing	7
Electronic game products, including computer games	Freq.	% (N=1,524)
First priority	266	17.5%
Second priority	195	12.8%
Third priority	283	18.6%
Fourth priority	326	21.4%
Least priority	338	22.2%
Failed to clearly prioritize all items	46	3.0%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	70	4.6%
Total	1,524	100.0%
Missing	7
Comic books	Freq.	% (N=1,524)
First priority	96	6.3%
Second priority	205	13.5%
Third priority	388	25.5%
Fourth priority	363	23.8%
Least priority	356	23.3%
Failed to clearly prioritize all items	46	3.0%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	70	4.6%
Total	1,524	100.0%
Missing	7

Table 30 [Q23] Overall speaking, do you wish that the penalties for breaching the COIAO should be more severe or more lenient than now? [Interviewer to probe intensity of opinion]

		Freq.		% (N=1,528)
Much more severe than now	) More severe than now	652	)1,140	42.7%	)74.6%
Somewhat more severe than now		488		31.9%
The current penalties are appropriate		234		15.3%
Somewhat more lenient than now	) More lenient than now	64	)103	4.2%	)6.7%
Much more lenient than now		38		2.5%
Don't know/hard to say		51		3.4%
Total		1,528		100.0%
Missing		3

Table 31 [Q24] Through what channels would you like that government to publicize and educate the public about the COIAO in future? [Do not read out answers, multiple answers allowed]

	Freq.	% of responses (N=3,321)	% of sample(N=1,526)
Television advertisements/programmes	1,125	33.9%	73.7%
Newspapers/magazines	546	16.4%	35.8%
School talks	524	15.8%	34.4%
Radio advertisements/programmes	350	10.6%	23.0%
Internet	273	8.2%	17.9%
Posters/pamphlets	155	4.7%	10.1%
Community activities	76	2.3%	5.0%
Incorporated into the school curriculum	37	1.1%	2.4%
Advertising on public transportations	18	0.5%	1.1%
Promotion in places where teenagers hang out, such as cyber cafes or amusement game centres	14	0.4%	0.9%
Exhibition at shopping malls	6	0.2%	0.4%
Others (Please specify: )	37	1.1%	2.4%
No promotion is needed	6	0.2%	0.4%
Don't know/hard to say/no comments	154	4.6%	10.1%
Total	3,321	100.0%
Missing	5

Table 32 [Q24_others] Through what channels would you like that government to publicize and educate the public about the COIAO in future? (Other answers)

	Freq.
Family education	6
Stars/artistes	4
SMS	3
Heavier penalties	3
DVDs/VCDs	2
Prescribe in legislation first, then promoted by Legislative Councilors	2
Promotion video to be played before movie in the cinema and warnings in computer games	2
Talks for parents	2
Encourage public opinions/discussion	2
Provide more legislative guidelines	1
Enhance monitoring for warning purpose	1
Normal channels	1
Inspection	1
Hire PR firms to promote	1
Step up prosecution as a deterrent	1
Give more details in publicity and education programmes	1
Parents, church	1
Parental guidelines	1
Business charter	1
Office	1
Prosecute those persons who publish obscene articles	1
Police	1