“culture” of the Website for its members to post various fanciful creations in the message boards, the viewers of the Website and the Message Board would only regard the whole incident as a joke or a bluff. As such, the argument follows, the contents of the Messages lack the lewd, obscene or disgusting character as constitutes an outrage of public decency. 32. Whilst I agree that some viewers of the Message Board might so regard the contents of the Messages, that does not alter the nature of the Defendant’s act itself. What is so outraging objectionable, disgusting and obscene is that the contents of the Messages went beyond the promotion of such horrible crime or a free expression of opinion, the Messages were in substance a public invitation to others to indulge in such sexual perversion with the Defendant. Specific mode to commit the crime was suggested in the Messages, and according to the wordings, the Defendant was serious about his plan. He also clearly indicated that he would be enjoying committing the crime and he was looking forward for the same. Further, what was alarming was that, as indicated by Madam Wong’s evidence, internet would provide a good forum to group together people with common interest, and there might be a possibility that the invitation would group together such kind of people, with or without the Defendant himself, to plan for the gang rape, and what Defendant says to be a fanciful creation might materialize into a horrible crime. Although the title of the Message Board was “GOSSIP”, it did not in any way lessen the impact of the Defendant’s outraging and disgusting act. 33. Mr. Cheng further submits that in ascertaining the standard of public decency, the court should take into account the “culture” of the 14