dye

有興趣的可以「申請」,能不能加入呢,不是由幾個官僚去決定。
由終審法官定(李國能)

淫審條例本身有例，只是有灰色地帶。並不是隨意的。

「設立一個機關有權決定何種刊物禁止向何種人出售,同時有權執行該當法例」
超錯

淫褻及不雅物品管制條例
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/ch/ord/390/

dye

立法的並不是法庭

dye

是這:
http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/tc/crt_services/pphlt/html/oat.htm

按法例要求，審裁處在裁定及評定物品類別時，須考慮以下各項事宜：

一般合理的社會人士普遍接受的道德、禮儀及言行標準；
物品或事物整體上產生的顯著效果；
擬發布或相當可能發布物品的對象是甚麼人，屬那一類別或年齡組別；
如屬公開展示的事物，則須考慮展示地點及相當可能觀看該事物的人屬那一類別或年齡組別；及
該物品或事物是否有真正目的，還是用作掩飾其不可接受的內容。
------------------

每年進行全民民調去決定淫穢定義?
但「淫穢」定義會變，而且很視乎物品。是否每件也要全民表決一次?

用代表不行?
-----------------
釋法權本屬法院。

見律師公會對人大的釋法看法

http://www.hkba.org/whatsnew/bar-column/1999/0629.htm

釋法權離開法院才是衝擊法治。

Marbury v. Madison
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

dye

我想…你誤會了。
在法治社會，法官的其中的一件工作正是釋法。(為何要看判詞?正是為此)
相反，在內地依法而治的社會，法官才沒有釋法權。

----------------
美國「淫穢定義」，也是看先例，也是由法官釋出來的 "Three Prong Obscenity Test"


Miller v. California
The judge famously said, ""I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.""

There is not even a tribunal.  Whatever the judge(s) rule, goes.

dye

"state law"並不一定是「一個釘死的標準」。
以Virginia's obscenity statute為例

"... that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

又或Michigan obscenity statute?

「(5) “Obscene” means any material that meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(b) The reasonable person would find the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(c) The material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.」

又或死布殊個德州?
(1) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
(B) depicts or describes:
(i) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or
(ii) patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
------------------

我的「說法」並不是「本身沒有內容的法例」，而是「本身有例，只是有灰色地帶。並不是隨意的。」
在黑和白也是有分，也有灰色地帶，也不會令黑白成了沒有內容的字。
事實上很少法律是有「一個釘死的標準」的黑白分明。

重覆一次判詞
Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene", famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…ut I know it when I see it…"[1]

在美國也沒有「釘死的標準」。MILLER TEST 更確定了每區也有自己的準則，要視乎文化。

-----------
無論是美國還是英國，到最後仍是由法官分級。見Miller v. California不正正是一例?

---------------
23條不同，警權和法庭權力不同。

23條是怕警權

淫審條例是法庭權力

-------------
沒有第三機構制定標準之下?

淫審條例的「制定標準」是立法會立法權內。立法會不算「第三機構」?