An opinion piece in the Washington Examiner on 24 July, titled “Reading Is Now a Crime in Hong Kong”, is totally wrong and unacceptable. Two bookstores were raided by Hong Kong police last week, with five staff members arrested. Yet that fact, taken alone, does not justify the sensational claim that reading itself has been turned into a criminal act. Such a conclusion confuses a specific law enforcement action with a general prohibition on intellectual activity, and it replaces legal analysis with political exaggeration. A sound assessment must begin with the actual legal and social context of Hong Kong, rather than indulging sensationalism.
The simplest fact that contradicts such a claim is that reading remains deeply embedded in Hong Kong’s public life. The Hong Kong Book Fair was held from 15 to 21 July, and its linked expos drew nearly a million visitors this year. Despite heavy rain during the opening days, the enthusiasm of the public and visitors for the book fair was unaffected. That scale of participation clearly shows that books, ideas, and public discussion are highly visible and valued in Hong Kong. A place where nearly a million people attend a major book fair can in no way be described as a place where reading has become a crime.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is governed by a constitutional order that expressly protects freedom of speech, of the press, and of publication under Article 27 of the Basic Law. That protection is fundamental, and it remains a defining feature of the city. However, constitutional freedom has never meant that all forms of publication are beyond legal scrutiny. Rights coexist with responsibilities, and expression may be regulated within clearly defined statutory limits. The question is not whether Hong Kong permits publication, but whether a specific publication breaches existing laws. The law makes a real distinction between legitimate expression and material that is seditious and lawfully restricted.
That distinction invalidates the Washington Examiner’s wild claim. Hong Kong has long maintained laws that regulate obscene and indecent material, protect copyright, and address speech that crosses into sedition or national security-related offenses. These laws are not unusual in principle. They reflect a basic feature of civilized legal systems, including in the Western world: Expression is protected but not absolute. Their existence does not mean that reading or publishing has been criminalized. It means that certain categories of material, when they meet legal thresholds, may be subject to investigation or law enforcement.
The claim that the recent arrests amount to proof that reading or publishing is a crime is therefore illogical and departs from the facts. A bookstore is not the same thing as the entire publishing industry, and a police investigation into titles is not evidence of a blanket ban on books. Converting a targeted legal action into a total accusation is a deliberate distortion, intended to seduce readers to infer a wider political meaning from facts that do not support it.
Western critics have invariably tried to play down the national security dimension of seditious acts. Since the legal reforms of recent years, Hong Kong has retained and strengthened provisions dealing with seditious intent and offenses that threaten national security, including secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. These are not casual restrictions on opinion. They address conduct that may undermine public order, institutional stability, and the lawful governance of the city. A legal system has both the power and the duty to protect itself from material intended to incite hatred or destabilize the constitutional order. That is not a denial of freedom. It is the legal framework within which freedom can continue to operate responsibly.
The Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance under Cap. 390 also shows that Hong Kong regulates harmful content without suppressing literature as such. The law is directed at material that may be harmful to the public and therefore warrants control. In the same way, the Copyright Ordinance protects authors and publishers against unauthorized reproduction, demonstrating that publication is subject to legal rules even where the underlying material is not offensive. Taken together, these laws show a coherent principle: Hong Kong regulates publication to preserve legality, order, and fairness, not to extinguish publishing and reading as a civic activity.
What makes the Western media’s claims especially misleading is their refusal to acknowledge that lawful regulation and freedom of expression can coexist. They arbitrarily assume that any enforcement action against a bookstore must signal “political repression”, when in fact the more ordinary explanation is that authorities are applying existing law to specific material. Such an assumption always serves a predetermined narrative, but it does not satisfy the standards of academic or journalistic rigor. A serious observer should avoid reducing a complex legal matter to a slogan. Hong Kong remains a society where books are published, sold, discussed, and read every day. That reality is incompatible with the notion that reading itself has become illegal.
The HKSAR government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain public order and safeguard national security. That responsibility is not optional, nor is it hostile to the rule of law. On the contrary, it is part of the rule of law. When authorities investigate whether certain publications violate legal provisions, they are performing a public function recognized by the legal system. To characterize that process as a ban on reading or publishing is to misstate the purpose of enforcement and to overlook the government’s duty to uphold legal standards for the wider community.
The truth is straightforward. Hong Kong does not criminalize reading or publishing. It regulates specific harmful content through laws that are publicly known, constitutionally grounded, and legally defined. The recent bookstore case should be discussed in those terms. A careful reading of the issue shows that Hong Kong law draws a meaningful line between protected publication and unlawful material.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
