If
You Are Slapped
 |
| Photo source: http://news.takungpao.com.hk/paper/q/2013/0810/1818927.html |
Story
Background
The incident we would like to study is an
incident happening in the pedestrian area of Mongkok, Hong Kong on 14th
July 2013. A teacher named Ms. Lam Wai Sze shouted and said profanity to the
policemen. It happened when Hong Kong Youth Care Association members used their
banners to surround the banners of another association named Falun Gong
practitioners. Many pedestrian were criticizing the police for simply cordoning
off the two battling associations rather preventing the harassment. Ms. Lam
just walked by and also remonstrated with the police.
Reference Link:
Subtitle: "Profanity words to police" at 00:06
Subtitle: "WTF" at 3:10
Are
you willing to be slapped?
In the incident, we are not going to
investigate who is right or wrong on the political position of any parties.
Instead, we would like to study the ethical behavior of Ms. Lam when she
reflects that saying offensive language to the police is kind of Freedom of
speech. Under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Freedom
of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using
ones’ body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them (1). In this
case, it is thought that profanity is obviously an offensive language to the
police. Even thought the offensive way is not physically, but mentally. It
still hurts the opponent – the police who is reluctant to receive this
“attack”.
Can
you do this in HK?
In addition, ethical is generally regarded as social norm. Different counties have different cultures. Different cultures would bring different personal value. Different values would eventually come up with a social norm. Even thought there is no rule by government to forbid profanity in the public area. There are still many areas where profanity is not allowed. For instance, it is not permitted to use obscene language in Ocean Park, otherwise, it is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 1 month (2). In MTR, it is also prohibited to use any threatening and offensive language. Otherwise, it is liable on conviction to imprisonment (3). Regard with these norms, it is thought that social norm in Hong Kong does not accept profanity in the public area. Therefore, it is seen that HK culture does not accept profanity.
In addition, ethical is generally regarded as social norm. Different counties have different cultures. Different cultures would bring different personal value. Different values would eventually come up with a social norm. Even thought there is no rule by government to forbid profanity in the public area. There are still many areas where profanity is not allowed. For instance, it is not permitted to use obscene language in Ocean Park, otherwise, it is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 1 month (2). In MTR, it is also prohibited to use any threatening and offensive language. Otherwise, it is liable on conviction to imprisonment (3). Regard with these norms, it is thought that social norm in Hong Kong does not accept profanity in the public area. Therefore, it is seen that HK culture does not accept profanity.
How “Freedom of Speech” is been used in Hong
Kong
Satire
Comic Strip 1
 |
| Satire Comic Strip 1: MongKok Incident (Reads from left to right) |
The
first Satire we have is a parodied version of the MongKok incident. This Comic
strip is a combination of 2 blocks.
The main
message we would like to carry out is how Hong Kong People nowadays blindfold
the use and concept of “Freedom of Speech”. The contents before the incident is
not so important, but the how Hong Kong People use “Freedom of Speech” , “Core
Value of Hong Kong” and “Justice” to defense or blurrify one’s mistakes and
accuse other people is the key value for our investigate.
We have
used the incident of Ms.Lam where she had use profanity words to Police, when
legally is violating the government’s law. But then after the incident, there
were 2 clear parties on support and not supporting her profanity words in the
incidents. On one hand, the supporting party claims the persecution of Ms.Lam
is writing off the “Freedom of speech” (They claimed this is the core value of
Hong Kong); and on the other hand, the non-supporting party was rejecting the
use of profanity word which could poison the next generation if such action
continues.
On the
first block we had started with the moment when she swore to the police which
it had really happened, then caricaturize the second block by make up a scene
at the court where Ms. Lam submit a Self-defense letter for the reason of “Freedom
Of speech” to prove she is not guilty and had set free from the judge.
To
ensure the satire and the persuasion of message are able to deliver
effectively, we went straight to the point on profanity word; this is to
neglect the unnecessary background story which would not help on our persuasion.
Whether she is telling the justice is not so important, it is also not as
important about the opposing parties’ political background as to avoid wrong
perceptions from audience eyes. “The
logos of persuasion” (4) we have used is to simplify the complexity on the
background story in the 1st block of satire strip. Rhetorically, we
used lively dialogue to release the tensions and formality of proper English
rhetorical method. Furthermore, lesser words to make the dialogue outstanding,
more salience; in terms of composition of the comic strip, we have magnified
the focal point on each block. For example, magnifying Ms. Lam’s character is
to signify its focal point of the strip.
Moreover composing characters postures and gestures to reinforce Ms. Lam’s
tensions versus police’s calm to create a strong contrast and impression for
the comic. Then on 2nd block, using the Magnified Judge character to
represent the common thinking of Hong Kong People regarding to the “Freedom of Speech” (1) where this has been
widely used as excuses and to defense one self.
To make
the comic strip successful, “The Ethos of
persuasion” (4) played a very important
part where it has influenced the way how we construct the comic strip. We have
used Ms. Lam from Mongkok incident as a starting point but on the 2nd
strip, we have used the judge, the highest authority of legislative court to
reversely making decision perfunctorily by just a simple reason of “Freedom of
speech”. We have used the authority to show how Hong Kong People now being easily
influenced and twisted their logic of thinking. Therefore we have chosen the
Judge in the 2nd block of strip making a perfunctorily decision as a
super big contrast where a judge should really be a very detailed mind and knowledgeable
person.
On the
comic strip, using “the Pathos of persuasion”(4) we continuously repeating
the message of the foul word consistently to raise the emotion of audience, to
get audience to engage into our strip, rethink about the message we are trying
to deliver, as we are trying to persuade our wide audience. We tried to
re-capture our audience logic; help them realize our message.
Freedom of Speech V.S. Cultural Context of
Hong Kong
Hong
Kong is a well-known successful British colony, yet, there are many cultural
and political conflicts and contradictions between democracy and pro-communist
party after handover to China in 1997. Although we are not going to talk about
politics and it is not the right forum to share here anyway, the conflicts
between these two believes supporter are destroying the social harmony of Hong
Kong. Whenever and whichever ways Hong Kong Government take actions to settle
the confrontations, the Anti-communist would came up with HK Government
interfere the freedom of speech.
Hong
Kong People are very sensitive about the Freedom of Speech where some of Hong
Kong people think that the Freedom of Speech overcomes anything. To effectively
deliver the message that fits in cultural context of Hong Kong. We have not
only use one comic strip above and rhetorical strategy stated above but also
created 2 other comic strips to show the cause and consequences that are
interrelated.
Satire
Comic Strip 2
 | |
|
This
comic strip is to show the consequence from MongKok incident at family and kid‘s
level and assuming its being accepted for using the excuse of Freedom of
Speech. By using a simple context of
message in a fun way, bringing humor in the comic strip to draw more audience
attentions; we have strategically expanded the audience and narrow it down to parent’s
level, persuading them through their only kids; assuming their kids are also
being influenced by the false logic, foul words in society to recall their
concerns. The technique we used is an innocent kid character to reinforce the
empathy from audience, and the contrast of grown man and kid (Father and son)
to make the scene more salience. Furthermore, repeat and consistently use of
foul words in the strip also help to recall the severity of wrongly use the concept
of Freedom of Speech and the consequence it could possibly happen from
supporting the MongKok incident, creating resonance from the very first Comic
strip.
Satire
Comic Strip 3
 |
| Comic Strip 3: Mongkok Incident rethink |
The
Final Comic strip is been setup at the new generation and school level. Exaggerated the fact that the influence could
be to kids when school is setting a penalty policy on swearing and get fines
when swears in school. Again, used of simplicity words refers to the 1st
and 2nd comic strips, exaggerated and highlighted the size of the
swear box to magnify the severeness from the social cause. We also have used a
huge contrast, perhaps a hidden line on this last comic strip. The idiotic/robotic
ways of paying fines from innocent kids versus grown man with an obvious
motive, it signify how followers not think thoroughly and being take advantage
from motived party. This hidden line is being set up to help persuade and
rethink our social and political issue we are continuously having in Hong Kong
where the protest people are being use by motive parties for fulfilling their
only interest and goals. Those political parties are experts in manipulating
follower’s mind and misleading their path like those kids were being poisoned
and finally get penalty on themselves. The connections of the three comic
strips would be a good cycle that can help effectively persuade audience
fitting in the cultural context of Hong Kong and made decision with their only
mind and logic not with perceptions, hence, improve their society and social behavior.
Summary
– Can violence solve the problem?
In the argument, we try to apply different
theories/ methods such as ethos, logos and pathos to persuade people not to
abuse freedom of speech. This may raise the unnecessary conflict within the
society.
According to Jay, A. Conger, Four essential
steps of persuasion, HBR 1998_The necessary art of persuasion, we try to
identify the common goal with all audiences (5), we share the social norm in HK
with quoting different examples such as the rule on profanity in Ocean Park and
MTR. And then we reinforce our position by using vivid language and compelling
evidence in the comics (6). Finally, we try to connect emotionally with their
audience (7). That is the reason we show the consequences if profanity becomes
freedom of speech in the comics. This may bring a negative impact to our next
generation.
We truly encourage people to think twice
before action.
Reference:
1) Definition of Freedom of Speech, Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
2) Ocean Park Rule on Profanity, http://www.oceanpark.com.hk/html/en/footer/rules/
3) MTR Rule on Profanity, https://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/legal/cust_terms_of_use.html
4) Definition of Logos, Pathos and Ethos, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion
5) Four essential steps of persuasion, Jay,
A. Conge, HBR 1998_The necessary art of persuasion P.87
6) Four essential steps of persuasion, Jay,
A. Conge, HBR 1998_The necessary art of persuasion P.88
7) Four essential steps of persuasion, Jay,
A. Conge, HBR 1998_The necessary art of persuasion P.88
