Talk:Internet censorship in Hong Kong

Is this really censorship?
How does this classify as censorship? Blocking celebrity images have been done before. Benjwong (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that something has been done before, does not mean it's not censorship. As it stands, the first part of this article is rather relevant and good. The second part is long on opinion and short on facts, as well as being not very well written. The Hong Kong police are currently using obscenity laws to enforce privacy issues. As there's plenty of obscenity on the internet, that means they place themselves in a position of inconsistency. In magazine publishing there is no way the images of Gillian Chung in a changing room were obscene. Yet that decision was made, as invasion of privacy could not be prosecuted. Mainland China has a strong internet censorship infrastructure that can take down politically, morally, or philosophically confrontational material in an average time of 45 minutes. Does Hong Kong want or need a similar infrastructure? Currently this article is simply wrong on the question of authenticity. The 200+ new images now circulating leave no doubt on that score. As does the police response. A valid question here is that if the police were investigating on the grounds of posting obscene or fake images, why arrest the guy in the computer store? He did not do so. And if the initial complaints filed were false on the question of authenticity, is the police investigation legally challengeable if they are not fake? And why did the commissioner of police say he'd never heard of such a thing, when there are hundreds of fake nude pictures of HK stars easily found on the internet? Many interesting and troubling issues raised here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.212.133 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the Edison Chen photo scandal can be said to be first and foremost an issue of Internet censorship in HK. It was very badly handled by a police force without a clear vision of its mission and objectives, that's all. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research
This article was chock-full of original research and material from primary sources - I have just removed them for now. If anyone intends to re-insert any or all of this, please cite reliable secondary sources instead of primary ones like evchk.wikia.com or article23 concern. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, I am currently in HK and decided to check a lot of the links. HongKongWatch.org is not blocked, and dpp.org.tw is (as of 16 Oct., 2023). I'd love to change these sites' status on the table, but... original research and all. The list of blocked sites/their status as blocked needs far more citations, or to at least be updated. 223.255.151.234 (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet censorship in Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205040310/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61125&sid=17431562&con_type=3 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=61125&sid=17431562&con_type=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)