(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。)
How does the public interest related to webmaster who make available these scandal photos of Edison Chen, and Gillian?
In my last article, Defending Public interest in Edison Chen’s scandal, I have raise the point that Gillian is using the last Gillian-undress-photo-scandal as a weapon to destroy One Media Group, thus indirectly weakening the Pro-Democratic Political parties’ political influence, given One Media Group is the only voice for Pro-Democratic Parties. Everyone can appreciate the fact that media (especially the major newspaper) is a power broker second only to HKSARG after 1997. It is also well know that Pro-Democratic Parties has no source of funding other than public funding, weakening their political support is no different from killing them. This complete my argument that Gillian’s conspiracy to damage Pro-Democratic Parties politically.
Now, let’s complete the motive, process and consequence as we were in the court of law. I will attempt to make arguments include common sense and hypothesis that could be independently validate and scientifically investigated. Then we could debate and discuss on merits/strengths/weakness of each argument. Kira’s photos could be divided into roughly two parts. In one parts showing he is engaged in sexual activities with various young celebrity, while in another parts he is having sex with Gillian. The second part demonstrate that Gillian is not a female strictly adherent to the code of moral by Pan-Moralist: That she is fooling around someone who already engaged with his girlfriend: Vincy Yeung; while the first part give a clear picture that Edison is a playboy. Therefore, the sexual act between them is likely to be consented sex between adults, sex for the sake of pleasure but NOT sex take place in the context of love. Thus, Gillian can NOT label herself as a feminist/humanist who just happen to love sex. That essentially destroy any ideological coherence for Gillian’s complain. So her complain against One Media Group can NEVER be based on any moral motive in her part, unless she is schizophrenic.
To further prove her political motive, she is generally consider as Pro-Government celebrity. She has been featured in several government sponsored commercials to promote ‘Love Basic Law’ and ‘Cherish Our national identity’. In the given ‘Entertainment-Economic-Political monopolization’ of Hong Kong; It is impossible for a celebrity to win government contact when s/he express displeasure with the oligarchy. So is that possible she would like to secure her income through hurting HKSARG’s political rivalry, which Beijing called it a ‘destabilizing force’, and HKSARG label it as the ‘No Party’? Furthermore, it is also possible that she want to promote herself to be ‘The media representative of HKSARG in 2008 Beijing Olympic? Or to be featured as representative of HKSARG in more government-sponsor commercials? This is thus a valid hypothesis whether Gillian actually gain anything or not.
We are all familiar with the process, therefore we can skip to the consequence. The result is that One Media Group’s Next Magazine has been boycotted, the public confidence in its publishings, including AppleDaily has reach a new low. Politically, we have a tactic to ruin a Party’s image via ruining its close associate. Pro-Democratic parties has been on the moral upper hand by its full adherence to the call for Universal Suffrage in 2000/2008, and open condemnation of June 4 massacre by Beijing. It wouldn’t be too surprising to see that some Pan-Moralist supporter of Pro-Democratic’s political support to Pro-Democratic Parties would be weaken, and less likely to vote for it in a local election. This is again another valid hypothesis.
I thus complete the process of building a defending argument for Kira and anyone arrested because of Edison’s scandal photo in the court. Unlike Edison Chen, I would not copyright this!
(If you indeed succeed in using this in defending yourself at a court, please invite me for a dinner. And young girls, of course!)