- 12 A B A 28. This is not a case of barring access of the public to certain B information, or preventing the press altogether from reporting certain C C matter, or restraining the publication of information. It is estimated that D E there will be over 1,000 journalists covering the election on Sunday. The authorities that Mr Chan SC has drawn to my attention emphasising the D E freedom of expression such as Observer and Guardian v UK (1991) 14 F G H I EHRR 153; Stoll v Switzerland [2007] ECHR 1060 and Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 have to be looked at in that context. 29. I appreciate the point made by Mr Chan SC about the plurality and diversity of reporting. In my view, however, the present F G H I case is not primarily about the scope of the freedom of the press; it is J K more about the scope of the press. Before you get to freedom of the press it is necessary to see who the press is. Does it extend to any person who J K claims to work for some online platform for the dissemination of L M information? In the absence of an accreditation system, which is apparently still being studied by the Government, the Applicant is L M effectively asking this court, on this application for injunction, to accredit N O P Q its members for Sunday’s purposes on the basis simply of their membership of the Applicant. In my view this is not a correct course. 30. The intended respondents have so far distinguished online media from traditional media because the latter are subject to legally N O P Q binding registration or licensing regimes. Newspapers and periodicals R S have to be registered under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance (Cap 268). There are various legal provisions there R S concerning registration of the particulars of the proprietor, manager, T T U U V V