Two former chief editors of the 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 of using the media platform to incite hatred against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government after they were charged with “conspiracy to publish or reproduce seditious publications”.

On Sept 26, the District Court sentenced Chung to 21 months’ imprisonment, while Lam was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. However, Lam was released on the spot on medical grounds after being detained for more than 300 days. Best Pencil (Hong Kong) was fined HK$5,000 ($643).

Hong Kong residents have legitimate rights and freedoms of the press and of speech protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, but the freedom of speech and of the press is not absolute and cannot be abused. The defendants in this case incited hatred, endangered national security and social tranquility, and deserved to be punished by the law.

Freedom of the press is protected under the laws of Hong Kong. As long as a person reports in accordance with the law and the facts, there is no question of his freedom of the press being jeopardized.

Stand News was not simply a conventional media publication. It had strong ties with external forces and the “black-clad riots” in 2019-20, frequently abused press freedom, willfully smeared the government, and habitually propagated disinformation to mislead the public. The conduct of Stand News and the staff concerned was unlawful.

Without any objective facts, they attacked the provisions of Hong Kong’s national security laws, the Crimes Ordinance, and the relevant law enforcement and prosecution procedures; stoked hatred and anti-government sentiments with false news; attacked the law enforcement efforts of the police and glorified the rioters; and became a tool to vilify the central authorities and the SAR government during the “black-clad riots”.

As in the past, Hong Kong residents, including journalists, are free to make factual comments or criticisms as well as to enjoy and exercise freedom of the press and freedom of speech in accordance with the law. Most importantly, there is no need to worry about inadvertent breaches of the law

As the judge pointed out, the defendant’s vilifications without regard for facts constituted incitement. For example, Stand News published an article that maliciously attacked the Department of Justice for not using a jury in national security cases, despite the long history of trial without jury in specific cases.

Stoking hatred by propagating false news

The judge also disagreed with the defense that the defendants had inadvertently breached the law, stressing that sedition has been an offense since 1938 and that the law has already provided relevant guidelines, and that the focus is on the intention to publish.

In addition, the judge queried whether Stand News was purely engaged in journalism, and ruled that the defendants were not doing media work but participating in a protest movement, and that imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty. The court’s sentence was entirely lawful and reasonable.

Freedom of the press is not a shield against the law

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute, nor are they shields from legal liability. The District Court emphasized that under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the media and their staff members must observe and perform “special duties and responsibilities”, including the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals, in the publication of speeches, information and articles.

The court also cited the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights on freedom of the press, stating that the right to freedom of expression and of the press can be protected only if journalists act in good faith, on the basis of accurate facts and provide accurate and reliable information.

The trial of this case has lasted for nearly three years, and a fair and stringent judgment has finally been handed down to punish the lawbreakers charged with inciting hatred and endangering national security in accordance with the law, thus manifesting judicial justice, demonstrating justice under the rule of law, and upholding the core values of the rule of law.

A balance has been struck between legal requirements, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Any person or organization that incites hatred and engages in acts and activities that endanger national security won’t be able to escape the net of justice.

The National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) target only a very small number of criminals who jeopardize national security, and aim to protect the well-being of the vast majority of the public.

Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, the offense of “conspiracy to publish or reproduce seditious publications” is punishable by a fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years on the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to three years on subsequent convictions.

The SNSO came into effect on March 23, 2024. Anyone who commits the offense of sedition is liable to a maximum penalty of seven to 10 years’ imprisonment.

It is explicit that the nature of this case is profoundly serious. The judge commented that the defendants were charged with the offense of “conspiracy to publish or reproduce seditious publications” under Sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance. The punishment is not sufficient, and is disproportionate to the serious nature of this case.

The Basic Law, the NSL and the SNSO protect the human rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of Hong Kong residents.

As in the past, Hong Kong residents, including journalists, are free to make factual comments or criticisms as well as to enjoy and exercise freedom of the press and freedom of speech in accordance with the law. Most importantly, there is no need to worry about inadvertent breaches of the law.

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.