Case of “Glory to Hong Kong” Song
Decision Date: May 8, 2024
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal allowed the government’s appeal and granted an interim injunction prohibiting the broadcasting, performing, printing, publishing, selling, distributing, displaying, or reproducing of the song 願榮光歸香港 or “Glory to Hong Kong” with the intent to incite secession or sedition. The Court accepted the executive’s assessment that the song posed a national security threat and that an injunction was necessary to prevent unlawful activities related to the song, in addition to criminal prosecutions. The ruling emphasized the Court’s duty to safeguard national security while ensuring the injunction did not unjustifiably interfere with freedom of expression through clarity, proportionality, and adherence to the scope of criminal law. The Court also addressed concerns about the injunction’s “contra mundum” effect, stating that safeguards were in place for affected individuals to challenge or seek variations to the order. 

HKSAR v. Tam Tak Chi
Decision Date: March 7, 2024
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal dismissed the application of Tam Tak-Chi, a pro-democracy activist and radio host, seeking leave to appeal his conviction on sedition and public order charges. Tam Tak-Chi was found guilty by the District Court on 11 out of 14 charges, including uttering seditious words, inciting unauthorized assemblies, and organizing unauthorized assemblies, based on his speeches criticizing the government, the National Security Law, and the Chinese Communist Party between January and July 2020. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s rulings on the constitutionality of the sedition laws, the interpretation of Tam Tak-Chi’s statements like “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” as seditious, and the lack of requirement for an intention to incite violence for sedition charges. It also affirmed the 40-month sentence imposed on Tam Tak-Chi, rejecting arguments about excessive punishment and mitigating factors like freedom of assembly. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding national security while acknowledging restrictions on freedom of expression must meet legal certainty and proportionality criteria. It found the sedition laws constitutional and rationally connected to protecting public order.

HKSAR v. Ma Chun Man 
Decision Date: August 3, 2022
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal upheld a Trial Court’s decision regarding a case of “incitement to secession” under the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Applicant, by organizing events, chanting slogans, and using social media platforms, actively promoted the idea of Hong Kong independence, leading to his conviction. Despite arguments challenging the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sentence, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s classification of the case as “serious” under Article 21 of the NSL. This classification was based on various factors, including the deliberate nature of the Applicant’s actions, the calculated targeting of sensitive dates and locations, and the potential societal impact of his incitement. Although the High Court recognized the relatively low culpability of the Applicant within the “serious nature” category, it determined that a starting point of 5 years and 3 months for sentencing was appropriate, ultimately reducing the sentence imposed by the Trial Court to that duration.

HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit 
Decision Date: July 27, 2021
The Court of First Instance convicted Tong Ying Kit of incitement to secession and terrorist activities under the National Security Law for his actions on July 1, 2020. Tong displayed a flag with the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” while riding a motorcycle, eventually colliding with police officers. The Court found that the slogan was capable of inciting secession, and Tong intended to communicate a separatist message. His actions were deemed a deliberate challenge to law enforcement and societal stability, involving serious violence against persons and endangering public safety. Additionally, it was determined that the Tong’s failure to stop at police check lines and subsequent collision with the police was a deliberate challenge against the police and symbolized a challenge to Hong Kong’s law and order. His actions were deemed acts involving serious violence against persons and dangerous activities that jeopardized public safety and security. The Court concluded that Tong’s conduct was aimed at intimidating the public to pursue a political agenda, leading to grave harm to society. Tong was convicted on all counts.

● More on Hong Kong: First People Are Sentenced Under the Tough New Security Law. A court in Hong Kong sentenced the first two people – both on charges related to sedition – under the new national security law. In June 2024, on the fifth anniversary of a demonstration of thousands against an extradition bill (now withdrawn), Chu Kai-pong wore a shirt with the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”; this September, he was sentenced to 14 months in prison. “Chu Kai-pong is the first person convicted under this legislation, but its vague wording, vast scope and repressive nature leaves Hong Kongers fearing that he will not be the last,” Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s China director, commented on the case. The other man, Chung Man-kit was sentenced to ten months in prison for marking bus seats with pro-independence statements.

● Argentina: Restrictions on Access to Information. In a recent opinion piece published in the Argentine newspaper La Nación, Global Freedom of Expression Expert Eduardo Bertoni critically analyzes Decree 780/2024 issued by the Argentine government, highlighting that it severely restricts public access to information. Bertoni argues that the decree is unconstitutional as it contradicts the 2016 Access to Public Information Law by narrowing the definition of public information and broadening exceptions, thereby undermining the human right to access information. He considers the decree a significant setback for transparency and governance in Argentina. Over sixty human rights organizations have collectively called for the repeal of this decree, asserting that it violates international human rights standards and hampers anti-corruption efforts. Additionally, there are concerns about the decree’s potential to intimidate and silence those who rely on access to public information, including journalists and civil society.  

Human Rights Responsibilities and Challenges for Tech Companies Operating in Authoritarian Countries. In this newly released report, as part of the Engaging Tech for Internet Freedom initiative, ARTICLE 19 focuses on tech companies and their corresponding human rights obligations in authoritarian states – in this issue, China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Zooming in on freedom of expression and privacy, the report unpacks how tech companies have been responding to oppressive legal and political conditions. Case studies show that companies have often referred to domestic laws in explaining their collaboration with the authorities, thus allowing for censorship, propaganda, breach of data privacy, and surveillance. ARTICLE 19 calls on companies to employ a human-rights-centered approach in decision-making and comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The report lists recommendations for the states in the region and tech companies operating within them. Find more relevant ARTICLE 19 publications on China, Myanmar, and Vietnam here.

● Anatomy of a Crackdown: The Hong Kong National Security Law and Restrictions on Civil Society, by Olivia Chow (alias), Eric Yan-ho Lai, and Thomas E. Kellogg. Published by Georgetown’s Center For Asian Law, this report is the first to document how the National Security Law and other legal and non-legal instruments – warnings, threats, blocking of funding, harassment – forced more than 100 NGOs and media outlets to close. The report’s key findings are devastating: “The crackdown wiped out almost all human rights and pro-democracy groups, as well as most independent labor organizations and a number of social and cultural groups.” Section V, titled “Adapting to the New Normal,” explores the remaining possibilities for activism and the role of the international community. Eric Yan-ho Lai, one of the report’s authors, will join our upcoming webinar, “The Power of Song: Repercussions for Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in Hong Kong,” as a speaker. 

● Joy of Shared Truth, Sacred Bond, and Democracies’ Self-Evident Values, by Maria Ressa and Branko Brkic. Ahead of World News Day 2024, observed on September 28, Maria Ressa, CEO of Rappler and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and Branko Brkic, Editor in Chief at Daily Maverick and creator of the #ChooseTruth campaign, published an op-ed, in which they recall the numerous challenges that journalists are facing today. “In moments when systems are crumbling and foundational truths are under pressure,” they write, “we, the news media of the world, must show that we’re made of sterner stuff; the stuff that can withstand disinformation campaigns, sustained attacks, and a flood of falsehoods.” Joining hands with other news organizations, they promise to defend truth: “The battle for Truth is the battle for our common future.”