The recent convictions of former Stand News editors Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam have ignited a widespread debate, particularly highlighted in Western media narratives and commentaries. These discussions often portray the judicial actions against online media outlet Stand News as emblematic of a broader “suppression” of press freedoms in the name of maintaining national security in Hong Kong. This narrative, predominantly advanced by Western media outlets and critics, frames the authorities’ legitimate law enforcement action as a straightforward clampdown on journalistic freedom, highlighting the defendants’ profession while deliberately ignoring or straightforwardly denying the legitimacy of Hong Kong’s national security regime.
However, this portrayal overlooks the case’s intricate legal and societal nuances, distorting the reality. The fact is, the judicial scrutiny of Stand News involved a detailed examination of the published materials deemed by the courts to possess the potential to incite societal unrest. The content in question, which includes various articles and editorials, was analyzed for its intent and impact on public perception and stability. This aspect of the case suggests a more complex interaction between national security concerns and the boundaries of journalistic freedom.
This complexity invites a deeper exploration of the Stand News case, challenging scholars and observers to look beyond surface-level interpretations. It raises crucial questions about the balance between State security and freedom of expression, urging a more nuanced understanding of the media’s role in society, especially in contexts marked by political sensitivity and social volatility. By providing a comprehensive analysis that considers both the legal framework and the societal implications, we can achieve a more balanced perspective on the implications of such judicial actions on press freedom and public order. This balanced perspective is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
The legal proceedings against Stand News and its former editors are grounded in a comprehensive legal process, with allegations centered on a “conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications”. This charge relates to 17 articles produced between July 2020 and December 2021. These publications, which include commentaries, interviews and profiles, have been scrutinized for allegedly promoting illegal ideologies and inciting hatred against the authorities and the national security laws implemented in Hong Kong. The content in question transcends the bounds of traditional journalism, acting as a vehicle or platform for spreading opposition against the governmental authority. The legal process involved in these allegations and the specific charges against Stand News and its editors is crucial to understanding the severity of the case and the legal basis for the actions taken.
One of the contentious articles offers an exhaustive analysis of the 2019 incidents at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. This piece indicates the media outlet’s broader editorial strategy, as it reports on events and frames them in a context that portrays violent conflict and resistance against law enforcement as justified. This portrayal could arguably have incited further unrest by validating opposition against State authority.
Similar seditious narratives are abundant in those articles. They reflect a deliberate journalistic approach that extends beyond mere reporting. Stand News appears to craft narratives to strategically influence public opinion and political sentiment. This strategy aims to challenge the legitimacy of State authority and potentially destabilize public order. By analyzing these articles, it becomes evident that the outlet’s editorial choices may not merely inform but also provoke, potentially stirring public sentiment and encouraging actions that could threaten societal stability.
Critiques of Hong Kong’s security protocols often stem from Western commentators who either lack a deep understanding of the region’s intricate legal and political landscape or intend to distort the picture for certain purposes. These assessments typically reflect a superficial grasp of the situation, predominantly shaped by ideological biases rather than a thorough, impartial analysis. This tendency leads to skewed representations distorting the narrative, failing to accurately reflect the realities on the ground. In Hong Kong, where maintaining law and order is crucial — as evidenced by the riots in 2019-20 — these misrepresentations overlook the essential need for robust security measures designed to safeguard the well-being and security of the majority. Consequently, such critiques misinform the global discourse and undermine the legitimacy of the legal frameworks intended to preserve societal stability and safety in Hong Kong.
Chung and Lam’s trial was conducted under the auspices of Hong Kong’s Judiciary, which is renowned for its independence and meticulous adherence to due process, ensuring transparency and fairness throughout the proceedings. The judicial process was comprehensive and managed by judges acclaimed for their professionalism and impartiality. These judges are recognized for their capacity to remain uninfluenced by external pressures, a significant point given the critiques from some quarters alleging potential bias, particularly from the West. Such assertions are countered by the Judiciary’s consistent record of upholding stringent legal standards, reinforcing the credibility of the trial outcomes and the judicial system’s commitment to fair legal practices.
Amid external criticisms, the actions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government aimed at preserving stability and security are frequently subjected to unjust vilification. Often depicted negatively, these government measures are overshadowed by portrayals that overlook their legitimate functions in safeguarding the safety and prosperity of its residents against genuine threats.
The assertion that freedom of speech in Hong Kong is endangered is a narrative that does not fully account for the necessary balance between individual liberties and national security obligations. The measures implemented by the HKSAR government in the context of the Stand News case were founded on legal principles and were imperative for preserving societal order. It is crucial that discourse on such delicate issues is rooted in a factual framework, free from ideological biases, and accurately reflecting the prevailing legal standards. This emphasis on a factual framework is essential for an objective and unbiased discourse.
Hong Kong continues to be a society where the right to free speech is acknowledged, actively protected, and upheld, albeit within legal constraints, to protect the nation and its populace from real threats. This framework ensures that while freedom of expression is a valued right, it does not override considerations of public safety and national security.
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.
