It prompted the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to implement the "Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance" review.

As a result, the relevant content has aroused discussion and controversy from all walks of life, and the Film, Television, and Entertainment Licensing Authority has also received many complaints from citizens.

At the end of the first forum, the school issued a warning letter to the editorial board and demanded that the CUHK Student Newspaper stop publishing.

Ming Pao also issued a temporary indecent rating on May 22 for citing the pornographic sections of "China" and "Student News" for discussion.

After discussing the follow-up work with the school, the CUHK Student Newspaper editorial board submitted a review request to the Eastern District Court.

The adjudication panel concluded that the pornographic version "exceeded the moral bottom line acceptable to society, and the content was indecent and disturbing" and handed it over to the disciplinary committee.

However, none of the invited school authorities, Society for Truth and Light, and Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union Association attended.

Therefore, it questioned the students’ motives as they just wanted to find people with similar stances to support them and lacked sincerity, so they refused to attend.

Near the end of the first forum, Wu Shupei, Acting Provost of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Academic Affairs Council, issued 12 warning letters to all members of the current and previous editorial committees, stating that all members must be responsible for this, and ordered students to stop publishing CUHK Student Newspaper, and said that the relevant content exceeded the moral bottom line of society and harmed the reputation of the school.

[4][5][14][24][25] The CUHK Student Newspaper criticized that before the disciplinary committee held a hearing, the editorial board had received a warning letter from the school, and it was still "punishment before trial.

[26] In the following half month, voices began to appear in society that supported the CUHK Student Newspaper or criticized the school's practices.

In order to avoid endangering the public's freedom to exercise these rights, the Chinese University of Hong Kong is urged to withdraw the ruling issued against the CUHK Student Newspaper.

He also urged the Department of Justice to exempt him from criminal liability on the premise of academic freedom, and requested the Chinese University of Hong Kong to withdraw the punishment against the student.

[33] In terms of opposing voices, there is an online signature campaign called "Have the courage to admit mistakes and make amends - please ask the editorial board of the CUHK Student Newspaper to find out where it went astray.

[34] The Christian News, Sing Tao Daily on May 16, and Ta Kung Pao the next day also published a full-page open letter signed by another group of "really vulnerable Hong Kong citizens and CUHK students," with the statement "Relentless Criticizing the 'erotic version' for its low-level obscenity, excessive writing, and the editorial board's use of freedom of speech to confuse the public," and objected to it on the grounds that the content lacked academic value and the style was vulgar.

[4][35][36] Lin Ziling, the director-general of New Christian News, believes that students do not understand that taboos and morals are established to protect the weak and are necessary.

[37] The second forum was held on the evening of May 12 in Sai Yeung Choi Street, Mong Kok, titled "The Bottom Line of Speech Space - Diversity and Respect."

[5][39] Li Yazhuang, the treasurer of the CUHK Student Newspaper, admitted at the forum that there were shortcomings in the handling of this incident, and that the pornographic section should be able to discuss sex in a deeper and more in-depth way.

[38] Chen Yufeng, editor of CUHK Student Newspaper, also attended the "City Forum" organized by Radio Television Hong Kong on May 13.

He Hanquan said that students have good intentions in setting up an erotic version, but he believes that They should reflect on why people in the public are so dissatisfied with its content; Li Weiyi questioned that both the school and the Obscenity Tribunal decided before trial.

[42] Three weeks after the incident began, Eric Tsang attended the forum program "Speak It Straight" broadcast live on the Interactive TV Happy Health Channel.

Wu Minlun pointed out on the program that foreign countries would not cause such a big reaction if they briefly mentioned bestiality and incest.

Ming Pao also temporarily rated it as "indecent" on May 22 due to citing the erotic section of "University Student Daily" for discussion in "Sunday Life" on May 13.

[53] Li Weiyi, who hosts a sex mailbox column in the newspaper, analyzed that the purpose of these actions is to expose the "double standards" of sexual interrogation.

[58] On May 17, the editorial board of China University Daily met with Vice President Zheng Zhenyao of CUHK to discuss follow-up work.

Later, due to lawyer Shen Shiwen representing China University Student Daily pointing out that the prescription did not specify the "indecent" part according to the procedure, it was submitted to the High Court for trial.

[62][63] After the victory of the High Court, the school still refused to withdraw the warning letter issued to the editorial board of the China University Student Daily [4][64] The Fengyue edition of some newspapers decreased in frequency after the incident, and even closed completely on Sundays and public holidays.

In addition, there is also a situation of self censorship in the selection of letters from readers of sex mailboxes due to fear of exceeding the standards of social figures.

One example of this is the website created or operated by a person named "Omega" and the Facebook page "Trembling Bible," which also participated in the complaint against the Bible; The Facebook page was renamed "Trembling Faith" due to the gradual coverage of other faiths in its criticism scope, and was independently operated by a group of netizens[66][67] The Office of the Ombudsman (Hong Kong) has begun to intervene in response to the widespread social attention caused by the incident.

[68][69][70] In addition, the Hong Kong government has also been prompted by this incident and the institutional challenges brought by Edison Chen photo scandal, and has held two public consultations.