In 2002 a geologist called Kenneth Adelman started a project in which he documented coastal erosion in California with a series of aerial photographs, uploaded to the internet and still visible here.
But in 2008, he was sued by the owner of a coastal property, Barbra Streisand, who claimed US$50 million for invasion of privacy, and sought an order for the removal of photograph no. 3850, which included her clifftop home:
As a lawsuit this was not a success. Adelman counter-sued under a California law against SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Streisand lost and was ordered to pay her opponent’s costs, which came to US$177,000. An order to remove the offending picture was refused.
As a way of preserving Streisand’s privacy this was not a great success either. Before the case blew up, “image 3850” had been viewed six times, including two visits from Streisand’s lawyers. More than 420,000 visits were recorded in the month after the case hit the headlines. Everyone now knows where she lives.
In her memoirs, Ms Streisand blames her lawyer for attempted overkill. She says she would have been quite happy just to have her name removed from the caption and that was all she asked for. The bid for US$50 million in damages was not her intention. No comment.
However the curious result of this affair is that Streisand enjoys a curious form of long-term fame which has nothing to do with her undoubted proficiency as a singer and actress. The “Streisand effect” is used for attempts to suppress something which achieve the perverse effect of making it more widely known.
The local relevance of all this is that future updates of the page may well include the Hong Kong government’s long-running efforts to banish the protest song “Glory to Hong Kong” from the internet.
This ditty – a popular item in shopping mall singalongs back in 2019 – caused acute pain to local fans of the new order. For a while, people who Googled “Hong Kong national anthem” found it at the top of their list, and – as a result – some people erroneously played “Glory” to salute the achievements of Hong Kong teams in international sporting contests.
The problem, it seems, was that Hong Kong used the Chinese national anthem and the website explaining this was only available in Chinese. This has since been fixed. Google searches now find a link to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau website, where the situation is explained in English.
This is, however, still not always the top result. And this is where Ms Streisand’s legal misadventure becomes relevant. The top results are currently reports of the Hong Kong government’s efforts to ban the song globally, which were endorsed by the Court of Appeal last week.
What has made the song even more famous is the government’s efforts to expunge it from the internet. Alas, the horse has now bolted. It is not just out of the stable but over the horizon.
“Glory” now appears in the most unlikely places, including the public piano in London’s St Pancras station. Hongkongers who are reassured by Ronny Tong’s learned opinion that it is legal to “have it at home” can download the necessary chords for home performances with guitar or ukulele. But if I understand Mr Tong’s advice correctly, the performance must not be audible to your neighbours.
The prospect of the latest appeal hearing catapulted the song up the download charts again. Many international media reported the matter, often providing a link for consumers who wanted to know what the fuss was about.
Data from Google trends, which measures the frequency of search queries, show upticks in interest which correlate with times when the song has been misplayed at sporting events, irate government reactions and ensuing legal attempts to ban it altogether. It is perhaps time for our leaders to contemplate the possibility that if they stop kicking this hive the bees will sleep.
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
