香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "書展中不為人知的十六本書"

渴望

這16本書
我真想逐一買下
好好珍藏紀念

淫審制度的罩門

一言記之:淫審制度的罩門正正是其邏輯錯亂, its logical inconsistency.
So now we should know where to attack. Surely they will defend. But at what costs? Is their own creditability one of them? Is "the exposure of the dark side of this whole 'media control' system" another?

食品與精神食品

既然人民有權知道有害食品的名稱,以免誤買及誤服,所以人民也同样應知那些被評為不雅刋物的名稱,以免誤買及誤閱. This is just simple logic.
So I demand: In order to protect my children and all those poor fragile souls in HK from reading these dirty books accidentally, we must know what those dirty books are.
If they refuse to reveal the names, then they should be responsible for the possible consequences.

一年數以千計的物件消失了, 而市民沒有權知道!

Zizek 簡單地區分了人們的意識為: 知道自己知道的, 知道自己不知道的, 不知道自己知道的, 和不知道自己不知道的.

每個星期, 被評級的刊物數十件; 但要到被評級這一步, 先經過影視處的 "建議", 十個收到 "建議" 的, 九點九個都會收埋本書, 每星期影視處發出的 "建議" 可能有幾百個, 亦即是說, 每星期有幾百件物件, 被收埋, 成為一些我們 "不知道自己不知道" 意識. 是一種最隱閉的意識控制.

可否用公開資料守則來取得十六本書的資料?

公開資料守則詮釋和運用指引:
1.9.1 and 1.10.1 Most requests for information are simple and straightforward, and can be met speedily and informally in the manner suggested in paragraph 1.10 of the Code. Where an individual is not clear where the information he seeks is to be found, his request should be discussed with him, and he should be advised where and how to direct his request. Care must be taken not to convey the impression that the initial contact point is simply passing the buck to someone else: before referring an applicant for information to another department, it may be wise to telephone that department to ensure that
it does, in fact, hold the information requested.

守則:
1.14 The Code does not oblige departments to -

* acquire information not in their possession
* create a record which does not exist
* provide on request information which is already published, either free or at a charge, or
* provide information available through an existing charged service.

In these circumstances an applicant for information will, where possible, be directed to the appropriate source of the information.

好明顯影視處是有資料在手而不肯公開, 而並非無資料在手

再者
影視處的總行政主任唐富強明確指出「不向外公佈，並不是根據甚麼守則或法例，而是影視處一向的決定及做法」
而公開資料守則詮釋和運用指引則稱︰''When access to information is sought pursuant to the Code and there is no legal restriction on access to information, the request should be acceded to, unless there are reasons under Part 2 of the Code to withhold the information. When there are reasons under Part 2 of the Code to withhold the information but a statutory access right exists, the applicant should be informed of the statutory access right and how to pursue it.''

守則有列出多項政府可拒絕披露的資料︰
防務及保安
對外事務
國籍、出入境及領事事宜
執法、法律訴訟程序及公眾安全
對環境的損害
經濟的管理
公務的管理及執行
內部討論及意見
公務人員的聘任及公職人員的委任
不當地獲得利益或好處
研究、統計及分析
第三者資料
個人私隱
商務
過早要求索取資料
法定限制

但似乎與是次影視處被要求發放的資料無關
而商務及經濟發展局新聞主任譚思敏小姐及影視處的總行政主任唐富強先生似乎並無覆行守則的條文及精神

可考慮再聯絡影視及娛樂事務管理處公開資料主任
楊仕英女士

電話號碼 (852) 2594 5891
傳真號碼 (852) 2507 3880