expectation as it was a foreseeable consequence of your own actions which might lead to the commission of a criminal offence. (c) The information on your arrest is not hate speech or libel. (d) There is no evidence showing that the information in question is inaccurate, irrelevant or excessive. (e) The matters reported in the news articles i.e. the allegedly unauthorised assembly in the public place in question and the arrests made by the Police have indeed aroused wide public concern and continued to form a basis for a great many discussions in society.“ (emphasis added) 15. Fourthly, the Respondent considered that the Appellant's personal ' reputation was outside the ambit of the Respondent s office: " 25. We note that your primary grievance was against Google LLC for publishing allegedly defamatory information on you (i.e. you were arrested in the Incident) on the Internet by showing the Links in the search result when someone conducts [']Google search[，] using [][the Appellant's name][’] as search index. ' 26. You believed that some members of the public would perceive you unfavorably after perusing the information on your arrest published through the Links. You also stated that employers would li