泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用?

陳冠希的事件,真是一筆豐富的社會學資源,無論怎樣寫也寫不盡當中的社會/政治/經濟/心理互動。
其中一件我留意到的是香港似乎抱着「泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用」的精神,在情感上認同泛道德主義,但行為細節就依法治精神來做。因此,一般人都認同裸照中的女星是受害者,因為她們被無禮對待,赤身露體任人評頭品足;另外,奇拿的「俠義行為」亦被視為不道德,屬於不問自取,不禮貌地向公衆展示女星的性交照;陳冠希首先是有婚外性行為,後來因承擔責任而令公衆對他的印象改觀;都是屬於的泛道德主義的範圍。
而法治精神對於香港人以言,是該案例的處理手法是否合乎法治的程序,以及法例是否被濫用,因此是不屬於泛道德主義管理的範圍,所以網民上街遊行抗議社會不公義時,泛道德主義陣營連一句話都說不出。可見在泛道德主義者心中,泛道德主義和社會公義是兩碼事,泛道德主義者談的是人與人之間的道德,卻不是統治者行為的道德,似乎和泛道德主義祖宗的儒家思想的以仁德來治國的政治理想相去甚遠。為什麼不可以用泛道德主義來分析香港統治者行為?為什麼不可以同一思想、同一標準來看待陳冠希、他的性伴侶、香港警方、奇拿、英皇娛樂集團及上下載陳冠希性交照的網民?可見泛道德主義只是在情感上生效,在具體執行時卻和法治精神無關,泛道德主義是不是有道德而無法治?網民是不是有法治而無道德?為什麼網民不可以以政府行為不道德號召泛道德主義者?為什麼泛道德主義不可以用法治精神來捍衛網民的合法權益?

奧運去政治化及陳冠希事件

中共常說奧運是體育和政治無關,但是和政治無關的事卻是由中共最高權力代表胡書記接奧運聖火,而和政治無關的奧運卻無端端被中共拖進西藏暴動的政治事件,和政治無關的奧運在香港竟由和政府有密切關係的人仕來傳聖火,和政治無關的奧運在中共國內卻引發中共國內的反西方傳媒運動,和政治無關的奧運在中共國統一發稿,和政治無關的奧運在中共國拒絕中共國境內政治立場和中共南轅北轍,在香港的蘋果日報採訪,和政治無關的奧運在中共國底下成了關押異見份子的理由。奧運如果真的和政治無關,反對奧運怎可能成為異見份子癲覆國家政權的罪證?奧運和政治無關而是體育活動,為什麼反對國足貪腐/吹黑哨的人不見中共以同樣罪名拉他們坐牢?奧運和政治無關只是體育活動,為什麼香港的蘋果日報因為政治立場不同而不准入境採訪呢?
本來去政治化只是專制政體剝弱人們不滿的花招,意思大約是,中共國沒有政治,政治就是鬥爭,因中共國的管理永遠只從民生出發,因此中國無政治,人民無政治權利自是理所當然,你要政治權利就是想爭權,就是想搞政治鬥爭。政治因在泛道德主義的思想下成了負面名詞,從而令人民在本質上討厭政治。既然政治就是醜陃,民主化大可不必,其他地方如台灣的民主化成果亦是不值一文,中國只要經濟發展就可以了,中國沒有政治。
中國沒有政治,膚淺、功利及思想底子簿的香港人亦全盤接受,因為在香港心目中,政治的目的無非經濟發展,既然在現實的環境下中共國不喜歡政治發展,亦和它合拍,來過香港版本的去政治化。問題倒來了,如果政治只關經濟、民生非關意識形態,則每年選民用什麼去決定投哪一位侯選人一票?不用意識形態,如何去理解政府每一項經濟、民生的政策背後的理由?如何去理解各政黨的經濟、民生的政策背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨在每一次立法會會議投票背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨的投票行為模式?沒有意識形態,要民主選舉來幹什麼?不如每年來過民意調查,最高分數的議員自動留任?
去政治化不單使明明應由意識形態主導的政策討論欠缺深度,或把意識形態隱藏到所謂客觀的研究的假設背後;亦使香港政府無法明正言順以其意識意態去處理任何可以成為公衆關心的焦點事件,例如在陳冠希事件中,警方忘記了其實每一條法例都是政治產物,背後都有意識形態、心理學及經濟上的考量,其客觀效果亦會在不同的政治、經濟下有分別,警方不敢說出每一項行動背後的整體考量是什麼,有什麼目標,和想達到什麼效果,因為涉及其行為理念即意識形態。禁示色情資訊流通其實是右傾保守主義的表現,警方本能地防些社會的權威及道德價值受到衝擊,隱藏的社會秩序受破壞。很簡單,一字以敝之,就是像中共一樣怕社會大亂。誰知它發覺原來公衆對法例的理解和自己不同,又不可以引用意識形態來支持,結果只好由不懂法律背後的政治考量的人去把法例向對其有政治考慮的行動有利的方向解釋,破壞了法例背後的邏緝。因為法例背後的邏緝正是建基於意識形態,為什麼強姦的罪行和殺人不遑多讓?和女性主義的冒起,和英國是由女皇統治有無關係?法例背後的邏緝不能獨立於意識形態,否則單憑邏緝和事實是無法決定法例的內涵,如罪行的輕重就一定涉及價值觀,價值觀當然是由意識形態決定。香港警方想做的事,正是想單用邏緝和事實來臨時決定法例的內涵,這根本在邏緝上是無可能的事,破壞法例的邏緝性是必然的結果。
中共喜歡用去政治化的「純」法治是因這樣看來較文明,較合乎西方法治文化中程序理性,而且可以讓人民以為會有包青天為他們主持公道。既然政治無公平可言,但最少可以有機會在法例面前人人平等。卻忽略了如果立法的過程沒有人民以民主制度方式來參與,即中國無政治,再公平的執法亦不可以防止政府用法例名正言順剝削人民本來的權利。同理,因為香港政府並不是全由民主政治產生,欠缺正當性,在中共國的專政陰影下亦未必有可能發展正常的民主政治,因此唯有借鏡中共的去政治化下的法治,想用去政治化的法治來建立其正當性。它以為香港人一向對本港的法治有信心,因此任何政治的決定只要借法治的名義來行,所有政府官員包括警方只是執行法例,和政治無關,一定是公平公正的。誰說香港人民眼晴雪亮,一下子就理解到執法的公平公正不一定代表法例本身的公平公正,在不完全的民主制度下,怎可能保證法例一定是對各階級都是公平公正的?法治在去政治化變成缺乏邏緝基礎、自相矛盾的特色,在陳冠希案中表露無遺!

Return of the Repressed in Edison Chen’s scandal

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

(中文版)

It is often amazing to realize how accurate is Freud’s understanding of human psychology. In his book ‘Civilization and Its Discontent’, he talks about the displeasure as the price for modernization of society.
If we could analyze Edison Chen’s scandal, we can analyze the event along the line of Freudian psychology. We all understand that all dictatorship tend to repress the political will of the citizen, therefore it is not surprise that Hong Kong government is doing its best to de-politicalize Hong Kong. The theory is that politics means conflict against the goal of harmony and prosperity confessed by the bless of Beijing, so all government decision is made without regarding the political(partisan) consideration. Then use the remaking of election system to ensure that no political party could dominate the political system. Its disgusting of political party is so great that in 2000 election, political party are prohibited from displaying their name and symbols in the ballot. Moreover, it encourage all media to interpret current event from any perspective that is not containment by local politics. But how is it related to sexual repression?

It strike me as odd that why Hong Kong government would repress both sexuality of its citizen and expression of political will at the same time, while China has only sex as taboo. In Freudian theory, the political energy stream essentially from sexual energy of all citizen. Therefore, China’s decision made sense when they permitted expression of political energy of citizen in sexual arena. Hong Kong government’s policy is thus against the basic human Psychology. It is asking for trouble if Freud’s understanding if accurate. There are few ways to understand that.
It maybe that Hong Kong government’s political power require the support of organized religion, Christian being one of the most powerful force. Moreover, Hong Kong is a cross-breed between East and West, thus West would be best represented by Christian. The natural tendency for Christian to meet China is to find their common ground, which unfortunately that is sexual repression. Pan-Moralist from Beijing see sex as evil because of its relationship with political will, Christian see sex as evil because of doctrine from Bible. Therefore this hypothesis suggested this is just a historical coincidence sexual repression is becoming the norm in Hong Kong.
Another theory is stressing Hong Kong government’s active part in creating an environment to repress both expression of political will and sexuality of the mass. Hong Kong government try to imitate China’s cultural and political style out of both necessity and its influence-by-proximity. In a sense, Hong Kong government try to prove its ‘cultural heritage’ by outdoing China. So China repress only the political will of the people; and Hong Kong has to go one step further than China, because it is afraid that ‘excessive’ sexual energy of the mass would eventually seek outlet in political arena. Therefore, it try curb the root cause of all political-’unrest’: sexual energy. However, it doesn’t have enough resource nor understanding of Freudian psychology to diverted the repressed sexual energy of the mass from sex and politics to creative industry, therefore make the society as a whole a living bomb.

Liken complex in human psyche, this bomb would resolution whatever it sense the opportunity. Aggression against the rich/powerful/famous in the Internet has done much to reduce the explosiveness of this bomb. Therefore, Hong Kong government’s attempt to shutoff this ’safe’ outlet of aggression thus ultimately set off this bomb. Then as we observe in this social movement, the rebellion against sexual repression then going back to the root cause: Repression of political development in Hong Kong. One repressed object thus aligned itself of another repressed object in their quest to be acknowledged.
To Freud, all this is predicted by Freudian Psychology. Hong Kong government, along with China government, is keeping the lid tight on the political will of the mass; thus digging its own grave. Since when the pressure is suddenly drop of in the lid, explosion is what we expected!

從陳冠希案去再思考版權法

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

如果不是陳冠希一案,版權法和知識產權的慨念問題,在香港恐怕一百年也不會有人提起。
版權法和知識產權的法例的原意是:假設只要保護原創人的權利若干年,即剝削一般人的知情權若干年,以確保原創者可以由此賺取一定的利潤。因為收入有國家公器的保障,所以原創者會因此有強烈動機來生產受版權法和知識產權的產品,社會整體因此而得益。
問題當然是這個假設是否合乎事實:即版權法和知識產權的產品生產者的心理學,以及在法例操作的實際過達不達到法例的原意呢?是不是所有喜歡寫文章的人都會因為他/她寫的文章可以有機會去賺錢,所以更努力去寫文章?貝多芬是不是因為作曲可以賺錢就作曲?愛迪生因為發明有專利保障才去發明呢?另外,是不是所有受歡迎歌曲的作曲作詞人都收入豐厚?是不是所有在全港最高收視率的無線電視台為最受歡迎節目的編劇都因此而富有?是不是所有在全港最受歡迎電影的編劇都因此而富有?由此可見,一是法例在本質未必有作用,另外是法例在實質執行時未必達到法例理論上想達到的效果。
拿陳冠希一案來說,他根本不想發表這些相片,法例為什麼要去保障他不雅物品的版權呢?難道香港社會因他的相片而整體得益,所以要豉勵他更努力去為我們拍更類似的相片?剝削一般人對相片的知情權是如何傷害了陳冠希的商業利益呢?我不見香港政府如南韓政府去盡力改善創意工業的發展,想辨法令香港的文化產品風行世界,卻用盡心機去維護一個富家子有傷風化的知識產權!荒天下之大謬!
再想深一層,其實知識產權及版權是借用了實物經濟的「物以罕為貴」的公式來思考,但是一般物理實物生產及複製都要不低的成本,受知識產權及版權保障的產物生產成本說不定,作一流傳萬世的故事可能只是某人一杯雪糕,花重金禮騁的重頭劇卻可能叫好不叫座;此外,受知識產權及版權保障的產物在本質是一個念頭,如何去保護一個思想呢?如何去確保世上其他人都不可以同時有同一個思法呢?而且複製一個受知識產權及版權保障的產物卻是十分便宜,因此不會「物以罕為貴」。而且兩者的市場性質亦不同,戲可以百看不厭,但就算再富人的人都不會買一百部一模一樣的電腦吧?再拿陳冠希來做例子,到底他的不雅相片的「市場價值」是隨着產品的氾濫而增加,還是「物以罕為貴」?他是如何計算他的「經濟損失」呢?

A reflection of the idea of copyright in Edison Chen’s scandal

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

(中文版)

If not Edison Chen’s scandal, very few of us in Hong Kong would care about the issue of copyright. Many have taken for granted that it is self-evident that we can extent the concept of legal regulation of the physical goods to the realm of thought and ideas (Intellectual Property). Only after Edison Chen has made a mocking of the copyright law then we realize how shaky is the foundation of copyright law in Hong Kong.
Follow the analogy in ‘The symbolic meaning of Edison Chen’s case‘, any clever reader would discover that there are something uncanny when using cheese to represent Edison Chen’s indecent photos. Because cheese is a finite physical object that is limited in its nature, while his photos could be replaced easily and cheaply at will. So the analogy break down there. My point being, he has a case when we could use cheese as analogy, his case is broken when the analogy is broken. Therefore,logically, he shouldn’t have any case at all. However, only because the legal system is illogical then he has a case.
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of non-physical product that is beneficial for the progressive of humanity. The theory is that the society would scarify the right to know of many of a limited period, and using the legal resource to protect against their right; while preserve the right of those making these product so they can make a decent living. Thus, the society as a whole benefit from this considerations. However, both the theory and in practice are broken.
The rationale against the theory is very simple: The theory make the wrong assumption when applying the economic consideration of physical goods to non-physical goods, since the reproduction cost of former is much higher than later. Cultural product clearly doesn’t subject to the law of scarcity as physical goods. Instead, the more popular is a song, the higher is its demand; thus any movie producer would rather his movie to be pirated then to be ignored. Moreover, the motivation behind the production of cultural goods are not necessarily money, so giving them cash incentive may not has the intended effect.
Applying the logic back to Edison Chen’s case, certainly the society doesn’t want to reward Edison for indirectly making available these photos. Let alone to protect his right for owning these photos until copyright expired. During the period when these photos is circulating in the Internet, the demand of it increased but not decreased; and businessperson are selling related video like hotcakes.

泛道德惡霸?

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

怪不得凡是有重大醜聞,如陳冠希事件,社會大眾的主流共識一定是我們要提倡道德,淨化身心;然則,暗地裏卻大罵泛道德主義者迂腐及不合時宜。口是心非,最後又回歸道德實用主義,道德不要過份,不道德者也不要太過份,中庸之道最緊要。
拿今次事件為例,泛道德主義者往往在討論熱潮冷卻期間,不知不覺間過了火位,激怒佔社會大多數的「中庸主義者」,結果是泛道德主義在每次爭論最後都成了輸家。我倒以為這是泛道德主義者的「無心之失」,這不是他們在意識層面所能察覺到的,自由派其實應可憐他們,為他們做一做心理分析治療,解除他們的泛道德主義心結。他們今次到底不知不覺期間做錯了什麼呢?
以自由派來論,今次他們在事件差不多告一段落時,有教師卻要對羨慕陳冠希「艷福無邊」的學生進行輔導,或日思想工作,正學生的不道德心態,或以泛道德主義者來論,是不正常的心態。大約泛道德主義者可能有一套非常態道德心理學,以為學生抱着這樣的心態做人,他日必成社會禍端。自由派看來,泛道德主義者如此的態度,比委內瑞拉的查維斯強行解散民間電台、美國打伊拉克來反恐和香港政府的「為私營化而私營化」還霸道!食色性也,人之大欲,是可以隨你說不許羨慕就連想都不可以去想的嗎?我相信孔子的態度亦未有這樣的彊化,而泛道德主義者(如明光社之流)根本是用逃避去解決泛道德主義的最根本困境,相近於基督教神學的「痛苦問題」:為什麼宇宙是由道德管理,不道德之人為何好像可以活得比不道德之人幸福、快樂,為什麼我們還要守道德?守道德的意義在什麼?
泛道德主義不能自圓其說,因此永遠以同一套行為模式來回應所有的社會爭議,而自由派亦因此愈來愈覺得泛道德主義者就是虛偽的化身。

明星裸照門的公衆利益辯解(II)

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

本文是依據最新對奇拿動機的理解來為任何被控上載/發佈不雅相片的人作辯論,奇拿的行為表面上是為打擊明星的聲望,但實則上是為了打擊陳冠希父親—「老左」的政治聲望,藉此打擊親建制派在九月立法會的選情;同時,亦是利用此事件,來令香港警方「親疏有別」的行為充份表露在香港公衆面前,泛民主派的支持者及黨友因而有所警剔,提高對香港警方的戒心,特別是在九月選舉時提防香港警方有所偏袒。
在任何社會/政治學的理論中,都提到民主普選和法制的公平性的關係,在邏緝上,我們很難期望一個只有八百人的選舉委員會,可以有民意上的代表性(如果如此普選就無需要了!)。要證明,最簡單的例子是選舉委員會在民主普選及特首投票中,沒有一次取向是和公衆民意一樣,例如上次梁家傑得100票,而曾陰權有700票;但民意調查中,曾陰權比梁家傑的支持度只領先不到20個百份點,為什麼得票可以相差近六部?不要忘記,梁家傑在民間特首選舉反而是勝出的。因此,選舉委員會不代表民意,反而因為制度漏洞,導政富商可以有選舉前成立大量空公司來間接操縱選舉;而特首本身不受ICAC管轄,因此有誘因而在政策及立法上和有錢操縱特首選舉的富人進行利益交換,而陳冠希的父親正是其中之一。我們有合理的理由去懷疑,香港警方在處理有關富人的案件時,可能有所偏袒,破壞法律的公平性,是為重大公衆利益。
另外,今次處理陳冠希的手法,尤其是先放主犯離港一月,才再收集證據,保證陳冠希一定有足夠時間毀滅證據,以及警方一定不可能成功起訴陳冠希任何罪行。反而把重心放在發佈的網民上,目的明顯不是為查出真相(例如不追究英皇集團發虛假聲明之責,又曾表明真相並不重要),只是要保護陳冠希本人的聲譽。否則為什麼要未曾經淫審處評審所有不雅相片就要大規模搬捕網民,製做白色恐佈,今天仍在控告網民上載不雅相片?除了警方不惜一切而保護陳冠希及其家人的聲譽外,沒有更合理的解釋。
為什麼要不惜一切保護陳冠希及其家人的聲譽呢?陳冠希的父親是老左,和民建聯等親建制政黨有密切關係,而陳冠希及其一衆性伴侶,如阿嬌,都是明顯的親建制派政黨支持者,曾支持葉劉—泛民主派的眼中針在港島區競選,又拍多套政府的宣傳片。如果公開的支持者的醜事被揭發,連帶所支持的親建制派政黨聲譽亦有一定的損害,影響它們在九月立法會選舉的選情。因此,特首為了維持其支持者,不得不去做點事去保護他們的利益。

Yet another defence for Public Interest in Edison Chen’s scandal

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

(中文版)

After get wind of the Edison Chen’s father’s ‘Old Left’ political background, we can construct another argument to the defendant in the case of ‘Distributing/Uploading’ Edison Chen’s scandal photos.
The motive for Kira is to distribute these photos is expose the Police’s favorism toward those who has a Pro-Beijing political background. Anyone with common sense could certainly see how Police has violate the due process in the processing of such a case.
First, it has violate the basic legal sense that most important defendant/evidence shouldn’t be allowed to depart from the possible crime scene. And the evidence should be preserved immediately by all means. However, any case against Edison Chen is dead because HK Police give Edison Chen a head start of one month before he is being interrogated, which never happen in the legal history of Hong Kong. Doesn’t construe as favorism of this suspect?
Why such level of nervousness and apprehension? Because that the content of these photos would destroy the public image of many Pro-government celebrity, the notorious one is Gillian. Using political-psychological logic, the scandal of its supporter would taint the image of politician they support. Thus the effect of curbing the transfer of these photos is for the motive of protecting the image of Pro-government political party; otherwise, why would Police still pursue the case against Netizen on uploading photos which are never classified by OAT in the first case, given they lost the first case already?
One case, by itself isn’t sufficient to prove the political correctness of the selective application of law. As now, Szeto Wah, a famed politician because of his position against Beijing’s June 4 massacre, is being prosecute in the case of civil radio while at least two Pro-Beijing politician is involved but ignored. In the case of indecent hyperlink, in over thousand of possible candidates: InMediaHK, a leftist organization famous for their anti-government position on privatization, globalization and universal suffrage, is selected as the first case. Then we have a list of liberal-against- Christian-Right case which Society of Truth Light, an organization that is politically correct in their position against Universal Suffrage, always had their upper hand against sexual minority.
So the motive for the defendant is to aid the cause of Kira. It is much more important for the public to realize that the Police is politically-minded in their law enforcement, for the sake Pro-Beijing politician in September election. Moreover, it is also important for the public to know those who are embracing political position against HK government has a higher chance to be prosecuted for any offense. That is logical for any oligarchy to be biased against those are politically powerless.

到底陳冠希事件中誰做錯了?

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

陳冠希事件發生,不論是基督右派明光社為首的泛道德派,或自由派/左派/人類主義者,都不約而同指責事件中有人做錯。而一向不深究內容的傳媒,就壟統稱為人人皆錯,我在這裏且看他們如何錯。

1. 陳冠希:明星裸照門的始作俑者,依泛道德主義者來說,在有未婚妻時和其他異性發生性行為已經是不道德,何妨把這過程拍攝下來慢慢欣賞;為防下一代的思想受到「污染」,不惜一切去阻止相片在網上流通反而是合乎道德。
相反,以後者的角度,和任何自願的異性性交本身不違反道德,把過程拍下來亦無不何。只是他不小心處理他和其他人的私隱才有問題,因此間接傷害了其他人。相反,他為了阻止明星裸照在網上流通,所用的方法和手段已直接傷害了網民的資訊自由,做成白色恐佈。再者,他以版權阻止不利自己資訊在網上流通的先例一開,其他明星亦可以用類似理由禁制任何不利自己資訊在網上或傳媒公佈。(自己的名字當然有版權!)
以此來論,從哪一個角度來看,陳冠希都是不道德。

2. 陳冠希的各性伴侶:以泛道德主義來說,在有未婚妻時和其他異性發生性行為已經是不道德,何妨留這些相片和片段,更有可能傷害各人的婚姻和前途。
只要是你情我願,性交自拍,由後者的角度來看,有何不可?只是這套理由不可以由阿嬌來用,她一向站穩泛道德主義/基督右派的立場,因此她從任何角度去看都是錯。

3. 香港警方雷厲風行,以非常手段,先斬後奏,對於泛道德主義者,是為非常合理,因為要防止香港的道德受到衝激(特別是一定「無腦」的青少年)。治亂世,用重典!法治不法治不及社會整體利益重要,因此警方臨時釋法的目的是合乎道德,只可惜是警方舉棋不定,破壞了警方的權威,做成長遠的傷害;所以警方只是在手段上有所不足。
由後者來看,因為警方繞過了正常的程序:先由淫審處判級,通知影視處,再通知互聯網供應商;因此是無可置疑地破壞法治,掣做白色恐佈,用近乎恐嚇的手段來對付疑犯。不單手段是不道德,目的亦是不道德。

4. 基督右派/泛道德主義者,他們是比陳冠希的錯的前因,如果不是他們騎劫了社會價值觀,陳義過高,不切實際,不由自由派的價值觀來平衡一下,陳冠希及一衆性伴侶不用扮無情無慾的聖人,把道德變成虛偽;泛道德主義就不會被自由派一舖掃地出門,在年青人心目中幾乎完全破產。泛道德主義者良好的動機可以捕償這個後果嗎?

5. 以泛道德主義者來說,任何有份上載/下載/發佈不雅相的網民,等如是有份參與陳冠希的不道德行為,但私隱不私隱卻不是在泛道德主義的框架內,如果不是為了教育下一代這是不道德的行為而臨時「犧牲」一下自己的道德,反而是純為樂趣而為,更是不道德中的不道德。但是,陳冠希的聲譽受損,他們不是主因是副因,反而有陳冠希有誘人犯罪之嫌,因此純以道德而論,陳冠希不能向他們為自己的錯負責而索償;
由自由派的角度而論,純以私隱來論,陳冠希做的是不論是道德不道德,任何有份上載/下載/發佈不雅相的網民,都是不道德;但是,如果沒有泛道德主義者視婚外性為不道德之事,則公開陳冠希及他的性伴的相片又何來不雅?又何來不道德?公開一些無傷大雅的相片又如何傷害得了他們?

6. 傳媒,即使從泛道德主義者來說,如實地報導明星中的不道德事也可以說成是為了正社會風氣,警戒下一代而為;目的是使下一代不會被這些假道學的外表欺騙,被騙去感情、金錢甚至貞操。但是泛道德主義的一大困難是要肯定傳媒的動機是正確,不含為了自身利益的成份,誰可以肯定它的動機?另一個可爭辯的地方是它的報導手法問題,到底怎樣才是只含教育成份、不誇張、不過份喧染的報導?就算它的結果有副作用,但出發點是為教訓讀者不道德行為的後果,不算是以功捕過嗎?
從自由派的角度而言,傳媒是為了市民的知情權而報導事實,而事件不單牽涉幾個明星床上的私隱,更涉及重大的公衆利益,包括互聯網的資訊自由、香港的審查機制、法律的公平性、警方執法標準等。因此沒有任何人的私隱可以比整個社會的重要,所以不能說傳媒不道德。

7. 娛樂集團,無論以泛道德主義角度,或自由派的角度而言,用說謊來否定事實,就是不道德,而它一直以來用藝人純情的的形象來欺騙觀衆,謀取利益;再用不道德的手段來否定藝人不道德的事實,甚至意圖以法律手段來阻止網民/傳媒得悉,口才再好都不能這樣的行為辯論。

陳冠希一案的政治含意

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

怪不得香港警方十萬火急,非要停止互聯網上陳冠希的性交照流出不可,因為陳冠希的父親是老左,是中國共產黨的忠實支持者。陳冠希的形象受捐事少,親中共的政客商人的道德形象受損事大,因此法律及邏緝都不要理,可以讓首犯陳冠希離開香港一個月來找律師從長計議,保護親北京的支持者為第一,就算萬一為平民憤而要控告陳冠希時也一定確保他無罪釋放。警方口口聲聲是維護法治,原來香港市民被集體欺騙,它其實的用意是不想泛民主派在九月立法會選舉時可以有一個現成的藉口來攻擊親建制派和陳冠希的父親蛇 一窩,親建制派的人在法律面前比其他人更平等。怪不得出來為警方濫捕的網民辯護的,清一色是泛民主派的成員,親建制派的一個也沒有。親建制派是不是在保障社會整體利益呢?當然是,親建制派的「和諧社會理念」原來是保障富有的人受到「公平待遇」,免受民綷暴民/網民所侵,因此他們樂於繼續投資香港,施捨窮人。因此,如果無理拘捕捉二、三十個網民可以換回一/兩億的投資,何樂而不為?