Recently, there is a "controversial film" called "City without baseball" 無野之城. The film is controversial because 1. its poster is considered "indecent":

There isn't any problem with men without shirts, but the problem is: people imagine they aren't wearing any trousers.

The second controversy is too much nudity is pictured in the changing room, ie this is not a film about baseball but a homoerotic film. In short, it's selling dog's meat in disguise of a goat's head.

The third controversy is the baseball player-and-actor said that he isn't gay and if any gays express interest in him, he'd beat him up.

Honestly, I am not interested in this film, because: 1. they don't appeal to me. 2. I am fed up that if naked men are featured in a film, it is considered to be targeting gay audience. I don't think that gays are as superficial as that, at least I am not. And, I can download tons of gay porns in one click. I don't mind the director or distributor using naked men as gimmicks or as a commercial element, like in "Lust, Caution", you can say that the sex scenes are a way to attract audience, but at the end, it is the quality and the script of the film that count.

To that homophobic baseball player, I can find an atheletic who is 100% sexier than you and not afraid to be an object of (homo)sexual-fantasy:

It's so difficult to track the past entries in xanga, but I have to as I am writing this entry. I can't believe that I have written two incredibly long entries about an episode of 鏗鏘集. This epidsode, called 'gay lovers' documents the life of a gay man and a pair of lesbians, but it received a 'strongly advised' warning from the Broadcasting Authority as they received lots of homophobic complaints. The gay man, Cho Man Kit  who appears on the episode sought for judicial review and recently, he won.

I feel so proud of the judiciary system we still have, or the government will be doing whatever they want. Let's look at the grounds for the warning issued by the authority again. The Brodcasting Authority was accusing the programme for 1. only reporting on the life of homosexuals, so it's not being impartial. 2. it advocates same-sex marriage 3. may cast bad influence on children. Not surprisingly, judge Hartmann and all sensible Hong Kong ppl like myself hold the same view that these are groundless reasons.

As I have said in the previous entry, it is impossible for a programme to be absolutely impartial. It is also what Hartmann said in the judgment:

[N]ot all matters of ‘public policy’ can, in any sensible way, allow for due impartiality if that term is to mean that ‘both sides of the story’ must always be put.  How are ‘both sides of the story’ to be put in an RTHK programme dealing with the fight against bird flu or child slavery?

And for advocating same-sex marriage which I don't see in the programme at all, Hartmann's judgment is remarkable:

As a study of gay people involved in stable, long-term relationships, it naturally recorded matters that they considered important, such as the hope that one day their unions may receive some form of legal recognition.  But the issue, as I have said, was not ‘advocated’ by them.  People, by their natures, have aspirations.  Hunter-gatherers may express the hope that their lands will not be further encroached upon by farmers.  A daughter looking after her invalid mother at home may wish that the state would provide her with qualified assistance.  Such expressions, in any study of the human condition, are entirely organic to it and on any reasonable viewing are accepted as such.

As for casting bad influence on children (ie making them gay), the counsel for the applicant made a powerful ground:

Mr Paul Harris SC, leading counsel for the applicant, said that the finding that the programme was unsuitable for watching by young viewers was inconsistent with the provision that school children be taught about homosexuality as part of the compulsory Hong Kong schools sex programme.  He went on to say that it was, in any event, unrealistic to suggest that modern children are so vunerable that they should not see the programme.  But these assertions, it seems to me, go to the merits of the Authority’s findings not to their lawfulness.  It is for the Authority to take into account such factors as sex education in our schools and the sophistication, or lack of it, of young viewers in Hong Kong.

I am so glad about the judgment. Not only does it fight against the discrimination, it also protects the freedom of expression, so that the media will not be discouraged to report on matters about homosexuality. But it is only a little victory. To ensure that the expression of different sexual orientation would not be discriminated against in future, legislation is essential. The christian fundamentalists, homophobics, the Broadcasting Authority and all prejudices are using 'this is a controversial matter' and 'this will upset certain people' as excuses to delay legislation. But in this world, there isn't a thing that is not controversial and will not upset anybody. The anti-sexual discrimination law is also controverisial. It upsets men, employers or even women for being not comprehensive enough. What is important is that can legislation protect and respect the interest of the minorities and can it eliminate inequality, because the advancement of a society relies on diversity, equality and freedom.