Hong Kong pop star Gillian Chung ® wipes tears during a press conference in Hong Kong, August 2006.

Source: Crienglish

A Hong Kong magazine criticised for publishing secretly shot photographs of a semi-naked pop star has lost its appeal against a court's findings that the article was obscene. The Obscene Articles Tribunal Wednesday upheld a previous classification that the photographs of singer Gillian Chung -- one half of the popular duo Twins -- published in an August edition of "Easy Finder" magazine were indeed obscene. 　　

The grainy pictures, taken while Chung was changing costumes backstage during a concert in Malaysia, showed her bare back and a hint of bra strap. 　　

The article was referred to the tribunal after Hong Kong's media watchdog received a record number of complaints about the pictures. 　　

In Wednesday's appeal, a panel of one magistrate and four lay members, upheld the judgement, saying that the article was a "calculated act of selling sexuality which is corrupting and revolting". 　　

Chung has said she will sue the magazine, published by Next Media, which also publishes the city's biggest selling newspaper, the racy tabloid Apple Daily. 　　

The case sparked a furious backlash from celebrities who complained that the city's ravenous press had often overstepped the line of decency. They called for the government to introduce curbs on the paparazzi and tabloids. 　　

Hong Kong's highly competitive mass media are notorious for their pursuit of sensational scoops and have often been accused of invading individuals' privacy in the process. 　　

In 2002, action star Jackie Chan launched a protest against Three Weekly magazine after it published naked pictures of pop star and actress Carina Lau allegedly taken when she had been kidnapped by triads.

Well if it's just a bra strap then it's fine. Next time have your crew becareful of the surrounds and don't let ppl take pics of her ^^

regardless of WHAT was shown, the problem is that there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed. This time, there is NO DOUBT that they overstepped and violated her privacy. Yes, being in the public eye demands that you are under constant observation but really, there are rules, limitations.

good to know the media lost in the case...as well as the appeal..
hopefully, this would send some signal out to them..on what;s not acceptable...

then again, it's quite predictable outcome..
afterall, this case is under the limelight...and with so much that took place, it's highly unlikely that the court would decide otherwise.

but whatever it is, one thing remains true:
the harm is done..

well, i think the goverment should do more to prevent such incident from happening again.

at least they lost their appeal.. some justice has been granted

Just wanted to say in response to the article that said it was 'just a bra stra'.....

I don't think it is right regardless of what the photograph was taken of. Security guards and people around cannot watch over like a hound of what the pap are taking pictures of. If they wanted to take a picture, they will take whatever means possible to do it.

It makes me wonder in what way a public figure changign can be seen as 'newsworthy'. Everyone changes everyday of their lives, but to make it a form of entertainment, it baffles me to think that there are people that would think that there is something important to say in the pictures. It puts the credibility of the newspaper on the line and to hear that the courts and the law are finding them at fault, brings a sense of hope that things are beginning to change.

Public figures are people that entertain the public with their talents and we watch and listen to them because they have a presence that illudes us. They should have some preparation in knowing that their lives will be in public scrutiny, but it seems like because the the pap, that they are getting punished for a talent and for working towards their dreams.

Just a thought..............

-M

oh wow i thought she was gonna win the case especially when it got s big and so many ppl supported her. now she just gotta becareful. nothing they can do about ti.

regardless of what was shown, the problem is that there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed. this time, there is no doubt that they overstepped and violated her privacy. Yes, being in the public eye demands that you are under constant observation but there are limits. this would never happen overseas

good for the magazine to lose the appeal cuz there is a border line in takin pics of ppl..........

i'm glad tat the magazine didn't win the appeal....this is not only serving Gillian justice, it is also a warning to other media tat there r boundaries tat cannot be crossed.....hope the magazine learned its lesson....

well said jayda. Anyway, i doubt that Pooky is a girl cause any girl would know what it feels like if that happens to them. It's true that they only took pics of her back but what if it's the front? Not to mention it's violating a person's privacy. That reporter should be going to jail for that.

omg whoever invaded gillian privacy is a scumb bag, he or she should go to jail and be punish severely, even if photos was taken of her back, it is still painful for her to go through this, i cant believe this guy or somewhat had the ardansity to take photos of her and get away..

Although the picture didn't show too much.. the reporters still went overboard.. they dont know how to respect her privacy at ALL. its considered sexual harassment and what these stupid paparazzi people do strongly influences the people of HK .. since the pictures they take appear on magazines , which everyone reads.. especially younger children, because they won't know its wrong.

This show that this magazine is not sorry for what they had done and it seems that they will still continuing their style of scooping news. I will support Gillian and every celebrity to sue this magazine to give them a lesson so that they will think of the consenqueces before publishing such news.

i can agree how some popel are furious about gillian getting pictures taken of her...but honestly....i know what im going to say many people disagree with, what im trying to say is that the problem wasnt that big in the first place, i mean im not saying that gillian shouldnt have taken legal action, what im saying is that the media made the whole problem into something which was about to end the world. getting a picture taken while your changing is not a small problem, its quite a issue. but theres a difference between a big problem and going on about it for like months. the picture was taken, ok? theres nothing we can do about it now, shes already taking legal action, so ithink its about time to kind of stop talking about it.

i am glad they have lost both. the paparazzi should know they can't go over the line just to get news. this should teach them a lesson

The paparazzi is going too far. They need laws and restrictions to control what they are doing and what can be showed. They should be held liable if any offending or improperiate material is being shown.

well just bra strap 2 some r damage enuf especially if u a pop star ....i mean they still young wat if some1 taken fotos of ur kids showering..similiar speaking must dmged her alot ....hope she will recover soon...its a trategic..the magazine should be shameful of their behaviours..no sense of morale/ethics

it's not just her back and a little of her bra strap.. the meaning is so much more.. invasion of privacy.. which dumb f would do such a thing?

yay! finally d court is doing something...i hope d mag will b stop printing.

It's excellent to hear that Gillian's side of the court case won on both terms because it does send a big and important messsage that it's not okay to do whatever the photographer and the magazine company did.

I'm curious to hear abt Carina Lau's incident though? Can anyone explain?

I am glad that the magazine lost it's appeal. That was such of an invasion of privacy to have taken pictures of Gillian Chung changing clothes.