| 法庭已確認：公共交通工具的廣播，侵犯乘客的基本權利
One Justice has the following
view regarding advertisement on public transport:
On the intrusive nature of advertisement
on public transportation
"advertisements of this sort are constantly before the eyes
of observers ... to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition
on their part.
Other forms of advertising are ordinarily seen as a matter of choice
on the part of the observer. . . . In the case of newspapers and
magazines, there must be some seeking by the one who is to see and
read the advertisement. The radio can be turned off, but not so
the billboard or street car placard.
On the difference between public
transport and other public facilities
"Buses are not recreational vehicles ... they are a practical
necessity for millions in our urban centers."
On the similarity between visual
and audio advertisement on public transport
"There is no difference when the message is visual, not auricular.
In each the viewer or listener is captive. "
On limitation of freedom of expression
" The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental
in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with
opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public
place and at any time.
The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of
an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty
itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy.
Other issues
Monopoly
A. Bus companies holds a monopolistic right to censor content
of the broadcast on buses, allowing them to censor speech of which
they disapprove.
B. Bus companies in effect are given a momopolistic right
to operate an advertising and broadcasting channel on buses, with
the effect of circumventing the Ordinance governing public proadcasting.
C. Citizens are not given equal right to assess this "public
forum" since only the haves will be able to afford the price
for running messanges on buses.
D.
More will follow....
>> 首頁 |
