Two former chief editors of now-defunct online news outlet Stand News, Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam Shiu-tung, as well as their holding company Best Pencil (Hong Kong), were found guilty by the District Court on Aug 29 of using the media platform to incite hatred against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government after having been charged with “conspiracy to publish or reproduce seditious publications”.

By striking a balance between legal regulations and freedom of speech and the press, the ruling shows the proper administering of justice and the rule of law in the HKSAR. Any person or organization that incites hatred and engages in acts and activities that endanger national security will inevitably face the legal consequences, and their misdeeds will receive the punishment they deserve.

The court pointed out that, considering the evidence from Stand News’ “Editor’s Note”, three editorials and the physical publication of Stand News, it was determined that the media outlet’s political ideology was “localism” and its editorial policy was to promote “local autonomy” in Hong Kong -- both terms are an euphemism for “Hong Kong independence”. During the 2019-20 social unrest in Hong Kong, Stand News became a tool to smear and attack the central and HKSAR governments.

The court also ruled that among 17 contentious articles in question, 11 were found to have incitement intent. It determined that these articles had attacked the National Security Law for Hong Kong, the Crimes Ordinance, and related law enforcement and prosecution procedures without presenting any objective basis. They spread hatred and anti-government sentiment through false information and criticized police enforcement while glorifying acts of rioting. As for the other six articles deemed not to have incitement intent, the court said they only involved expressions of political views or news reporting by interviewees. Consequently, all three defendants were found guilty.

The judge noted that that Chung, in his capacity as editor-in-chief, had published 10 inciting articles, while Lam, who succeeded Chung in the post, had published one inciting article. Considering the editorial direction of Stand News, the court ruled that the two defendants were aware of and had agreed with the articles’ incitement intent, offering Stand News as a platform for publications inciting hatred against the central or HKSAR government, provoke residents to seek changes to legally established matters through illegal means, and foster hatred for the Hong Kong Judiciary. Regardless, both individuals at least disregarded the consequences of incitement, and the court ruled they had criminal intent.

As for the first defendant, the registered company Stand News had hired Chung and Lam as editor-in-chief and acting editor-in-chief, respectively, to produce and publish the relevant articles. When they published these articles within the scope of their employment, it was equivalent to the first defendant publishing those articles with the same intent.

ALSO READ: Stand News trial: Press freedom does not override public safety and national security

The discredited Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), a minor trade union in the media sector, which has missed no opportunity to smear the HKSAR government because of its inherent biased ideology, has tried to discredit the court’s ruling, claiming that the judgment represents a “serious regression in press freedom”. Moreover, the last Hong Kong governor Chris Patten and some other Western politicians have launched slanderous attacks on the judgment, with some calling for “sanctions” against Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu. It’s evident they prioritize politics over justice and the rule of law, making use of their usual double-standard tactics to disparage Hong Kong’s rule of law and press freedom.

Freedom of speech and the press is not absolute. The court’s ruling emphasizes that, according to Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the media and their staff must adhere to and fulfill “special responsibilities and obligations” when publishing opinions, information, and articles, and such freedoms can be legitimately restricted to safeguard national security, public order or public health and morals. The court also cited case law from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding press freedom, stating that journalists must act sincerely, base their work on accurate facts, and provide reliable information in order to be protected by the rights of freedom of speech and the press.

The Basic Law, the NSL, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights protect the basic rights of Hong Kong residents, including freedom of speech, freedom of publication, and the right to peaceful assembly, procession and demonstration. The relevant provisions of the Crimes Ordinance clearly distinguish between illegal incitement and legitimate constructive criticism, with the terminology being unambiguous. Hong Kong residents, including journalists, can continue to freely make fact-based comments or criticisms and lawfully enjoy and exercise their rights to freedom of press and speech without fear of falling into legal traps.

The incitement charges against the three defendants in the Stand News case stem from laws left over from the British era, traceable to the 1914 Sedition Publications Ordinance enacted by the British Hong Kong government. In 1938, the British Hong Kong government established the Sedition Ordinance, which was incorporated into the Crimes Ordinance in the 1970s and remains effective to this day. Attacks by the likes of Patten and the HKJA on the court ruling lack factual basis and legal support.

According to the court’s ruling, Stand News had completely disregarded objective facts and violated the “special responsibilities and obligations” that international human rights conventions emphasize must be adhered to by journalists. It’s evident that the allegations made by China bashers, including foreign politicians, media outlets and organizations that the court ruling “suppresses” press freedom are completely baseless. Smearing legal measures against incitement to violence and hatred as “suppressing press freedom” is ill-motivated and mainly driven by political agenda.

READ MORE: Official: Press freedom not political tool to smear rule of law in HK

Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law, where laws must be followed and violators will be held accountable. The HKSAR government has a constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security and is committed to defending national security, sovereignty and developmental interests. The HKSAR government governs the city according to the law, the police enforce the law rigorously, and the courts administer justice fairly.

The defendants in this case had incited hatred, and the evidence is conclusive. The trial was fair and has not undermined press freedom in Hong Kong. Rather, it protects national security and public order, and the legal sanctions imposed are legitimate and reasonable.

Eric Chan Kwok-ki, chief secretary for administration of the HKSAR, said: “We highly respect press freedom in Hong Kong, which is also protected by law. If all journalists report facts, I believe there’ll be no situation that restricts press freedom. In fact, criticizing the government is not something that cannot be done. We see many news reports criticizing the government every day. Of course, it depends on the purpose of the criticism. In cases that involve criminal offenses, they must go through the court, and judges must conduct fair and just trials based on sufficient evidence before a conviction can be made – it’s not arbitrary. We highly respect and value press freedom, so the restrictions you mentioned do not exist.”

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and vice-president of the Hong Kong Basic Law Education Association.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.