- 6- precise evidence on the date it became viable. Counsel for the Appellant said the Magistrate was incorrect in interpreting the word ‘article’ as he did, when common sense dictated that such an interpretation could not have been contemplated or intended by the Legislature. A superficially attractive argument proceeded during which counsel exhaustively examined the Ordinance to show that its tenor was to control books, magazines, radio and television material and that computer generated material was never contemplated by the legislature. Further it was a distortion of the definition of publish to include in its meaning the transmission of a stream of electricity, as “publish” was given a restrictive meaning and publication had to be to the public or a section of the public - to transmit an electronic stream to persons who had to actively download it was not sending to the public. The Respondent argued that the definition of article in section 2 of the Ordinance amply covered the computer files the subject of the charge, and that such an interpretation accorded with the language of the section, as well as being consistent with the policy objectives sought to be achieved by the Ordinance. The Respondent argued that the acts of the Appellant fell within the definition of publish as section 2(4) of the Ordinance contemplated it, both as to section 2(4)(a) and also within the alternative limb 2(4)(b). As for “public” or “a section of the public”, Mr. Wong argued that the element of public or a section of the public was not to be