Website and the possible responses of its viewers. However, the Defendant’s Messages were no private communications. The Message Board was a public forum and any persons could gain access to its contents. There might be a lot of viewers who just participated in the discussion for the first time or who might not be familiar with the so-called “culture” of the Website. In such case, the court should base on the standard of ordinary right thinking members of the public, as suggested by Roch LJ in R v Ching Choi, ibid., in deciding whether the Defendant’s act was one which outrages public decency. 34. Even if the court were to adopt the standard of the “culture” of the Website, a lot of viewers of the Message Board were very much upset by the Defendant’s conduct. They used strong words to express their outrage and disgust about the Defendant’s invitation, and some claimed that they had reported the matter to the police. One viewer even attempted to contact the Defendant privately using the latter’s e-mail address for further discussion on the topic, all these factors show that these viewers did not regard the Defendant’s plan just as a joke. Even worse, after the Defendant knew about the outrage expressed by some viewers after the posting of the First Message, he posted the same message 2 days later. The only logical conclusion is that the Defendant wanted to cause further outrage to the viewers of the Message Board. 35. Mr. Cheng submits that the Prosecution has not called these persons to testify as to whether they were in fact disgusted or annoyed by the Defendant’s conduct. However, as established by the Knuller case, it is not necessary for the prosecution to do so. In any event, the 15