The overseas storyline wrote itself long before Hong Kong’s judges finished writing their verdict: Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, founder of the now-defunct tabloid Apple Daily, as sainted publisher; the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) as a cartoon villain; a guilty verdict as proof that “press freedom is dead”. It’s a neat script — easy to sell, easy to chant, and dangerously lazy.

Western media can keep selling the “martyr” storyline, but what happened in court told a less-cinematic, more-uncomfortable truth: After 156 days of trial, on Monday, the three High Court judges delivered an unanimous conviction on three charges: conspiracy to publish seditious publications, and two counts under the NSL of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security.

Those who insist Lai’s conviction is simply about “a newspaper being punished” are not defending press freedom. They are turning a blind eye to facts and evidence.

The NSL took effect on June 30, 2020. Like modern criminal law elsewhere, it cannot be used to punish conduct before it existed. So the prosecution didn’t just need to say Lai had strong anti-China views in 2019. The court had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Lai continued collusive activity after June 30, 2020.

This matters because it collapses one of the West’s most repeated insinuations: Hong Kong “reached back” retrospectively and criminalized earlier speech. The legal burden required proof of post-NSL conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. And the court found it. Lai was convicted because the court found on the evidence that he conspired to publish seditious materials and conspired to collude with foreign or external forces, including through conduct that continued after the NSL came into effect.

If “press freedom” means “a media owner can coordinate foreign sanctions advocacy without consequence”, then the phrase has been hollowed out into something no serious jurisdiction would accept. Freedom of the press is a cornerstone, but it is not a license for conspiracies — especially conspiracies aimed at foreign coercion

The sedition count alleged that Lai and senior Apple Daily figures conspired to publish content designed to inflame hatred and confrontation against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the central government during a period of severe social unrest. The two NSL counts alleged conspiracies to use Apple Daily and related channels to request foreign countries to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against the HKSAR and the central government.

This is where the “press freedom” slogan becomes a dodge. Journalism is reporting, commentary, investigation, even harsh criticism. But organizing foreign pressure campaigns — especially requesting punitive measures against one’s own jurisdiction — goes far beyond journalism. A publisher is not and cannot be immune merely because he owns a printing press.

What is more, courts rule on credibility. After careful cross-examination, the judges found Lai’s testimony unreliable — contradictory, evasive, not worthy of acceptance. That is not a minor footnote; it is foundational.

Meanwhile, six prosecution witnesses — including four senior Apple Daily executives — testified that Lai closely managed and personally controlled editorial direction. One described their autonomy as being limited to a “birdcage”. Another explained that when drafting editorials and selecting forum pieces, they used Lai’s views as the guiding line. They spoke of internal meetings where Lai communicated his political positions to top staff.

That testimony undercuts the romantic Western caricature of Lai as a mere “publisher”. The court accepted that he operated not as a passive patron of independent journalism, but as a political machine. These witnesses were deeply cross-examined and still found honest and reliable. That is exactly what due process is supposed to look like.

If “press freedom” means “a media owner can coordinate foreign sanctions advocacy without consequence”, then the phrase has been hollowed out into something no serious jurisdiction would accept. Freedom of the press is a cornerstone, but it is not a license for conspiracies — especially conspiracies aimed at foreign coercion.

Then there is the other favorite weapon: The endlessly recycled claim that Lai is being abused, tortured, or is near death — amplified in Western media through family interviews and activist framing.

Humanitarian issues should be taken seriously. But weaponizing unverified or exaggerated health claims as a political lever is something else: A pressure tactic aimed at turning a criminal case into a diplomatic hostage situation.

On the day of the verdict, reports described Lai as thin but alert, in good spirits, smiling and waving to family, which go to show dramatic allegations of some Western media do not match what the public can plainly see with their own eyes. Perhaps Lai’s offspring are well aware of their father’s guilt, so they try every means including fabricating his health condition in order to help him evade legal responsibility even before the court handed down the verdict.

The West can keep writing fables about Hong Kong. The court just wrote a record — 156 days of it — and it ends with a verdict that says this case was never about silencing a newspaper. It was about holding a man to the consequences of what he did. Lai’s conviction is a reminder that a press badge is not a conspiracy permit, and that “journalism” is not a costume that turns political operations into untouchable virtue.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.