Later, different organisations, including Hong Kong Journalists Association, expressed great concern of the impact of the ruling on future editorial deliberations.

Still, the Court simply saw the Authority would and must take account of public opinion of reasonable Hong Kongers in the drafting process of the Codes or in the examination of complaints about any particular programmes.

Judge Hartmann believed and further explained that those who were reasonable must understand that any consensus based on prejudices, personal aversions and dubious rationalisation could never justify any infringements of fundamental rights and freedoms, including free speech.

(judgment, paragraphs 72-76) After reviewing the reasoning of the admonition, the Court discovered that the Authority's central concern of the nonconformity of impartiality was related to the topic of same-sex marriage raised by the participants appeared in the documentary.

Since the programme was a study of human condition, the Court simply accepted that it would be absolutely natural to record what would be important to homosexuals, including their hopes in legalising same-sex marriage.

Then, Judge Hartmann concluded that the only answer for the Authority had come into the ruling of the programme's failure to be impartial for only one reason: the subject matter of the documentary was homosexuality.

It was clear to the Court that such belief had been founded upon ‘a supposed consensus among certain people based on “prejudices, personal aversions and dubious rationalisations”.’ In his attempt to define the phrase ‘prejudices, personal aversions and dubious rationalisations’, Judge Hartmann quoted a passage of Professor Dworkin’ work which had also been cited by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v. Yau Yuk Lung Zigo: Even if it is true that most men think homosexuality an abominable vice and cannot tolerate its presence, it remains possible that this common opinion is a compound of prejudice (resting on the assumption that homosexuals are morally inferior creatures because they are effeminate), rationalisation (based on assumptions of fact so unsupported that they challenged the community’s own standards of rationality), and personal aversion (representing no conviction but merely blind hate rising from unacknowledged self-suspicion).

If so, the principles of democracy we follow do not call for the enforcement of a consensus, for the belief that prejudices, personal aversions and rationalisations do not justify restricting another’s freedom, itself occupies a critical and fundamental position in our popular morality.

(judgment, paragraphs 66, 86-92) The Court had no doubt that the Authority was allowed and obligated to establish guidance to regulate programmes broadcasting time for protecting young viewers.