Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” appeared for the 152nd day of trial on Friday (22nd) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court), where the defense entered the third day of its closing arguments.

The defense argued that Lai merely expressed his opinions on talk shows, and that even if those opinions involved pressing governments or advocating for change, doing so was not unlawful. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping countered that in the United States, some demonstrators have been arrested for expressing views on Palestine, showing that freedom of speech is not absolute and that tolerance varies between countries. She also noted that Lai’s talk shows were broadcast publicly for the world to see, which could not be compared to “two old men chatting over dim sum.”

Addressing allegations that an Apple Daily interview with the so-called “Dragon Slaying Squad” was seditious, the defense maintained that the media has a duty to report diverse views, and that interviews with dangerous or extremist figures can also hold public value. Judge Toh questioned whether the key issue was Apple Daily’s alleged bias toward the “yellow camp.” The defense replied that at the time, the public was deeply concerned with the actions of protesters and police, and Apple Daily reported events from one perspective. As an opposition newspaper, it stood on one end of the spectrum, while pro-Beijing outlets like Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po represented the other, which, the defense argued, was not improper. The trial will continue next Monday.

Judge Questions Whether Lai’s Remarks Were Hostile; Defense: Words Shouldn’t Be Taken Literally

On the third day of defense closing arguments, lawyers focused on Jimmy Lai’s Live Chat program, stressing that Lai merely expressed opinions on air and did not call for sanctions, and that expressing views is legal.

Judge Esther Toh noted that in one episode, Lai said:

“The Cultural Revolution was Mao Zedong’s power struggle to eliminate his enemies. Xi Jinping is not eliminating enemies, he is eliminating Hongkongers. We are not his enemies… he doesn’t want to hear opposing voices, so he must suppress us and eliminate us.”

Toh asked whether such remarks were hostile, suggesting Xi intended to “eliminate Hongkongers.” Senior counsel Robert Pang argued they should not be taken literally, just as “the most common swear word” is not meant literally.

Toh pressed further, asking if Lai’s words spread fear among the public. Pang repeated that the comments were not hostile but an expression of views, made in the context of comparing Hong Kong with the Cultural Revolution. He stressed that Lai had not asked foreign powers to take hostile action against Beijing.

Defense: Advocating for Pressure on Government Is Not Illegal

Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned whether Lai’s remarks implied that Hong Kong’s situation was worse than the Cultural Revolution, potentially causing like-minded people to fear annihilation. The defense replied that when policies are criticized, references to fear are natural—for example, concerns about losing core values.

Lee also noted that Lai seemed to argue that unless the CCP changed, it would change Hong Kong. The defense likened this to U.S. Hollywood movies and music influencing other countries: unless the U.S. itself changed, it would continue shaping others.

The defense reiterated that expressing opinions is lawful. Pressuring a government or advocating change is not a crime, even if expressed in “unfriendly talk,” such as saying “I don’t like the way you do things,” so long as it is not a request for sanctions, blockades, or hostile acts.

Judge: Freedom of Expression Is Not Absolute

Toh reminded the court that free speech is not absolute—even in the U.K. and U.S., protesters have been arrested over their views on Palestine. She stressed that what matters is the degree of expression, noting:

“So it’s good to say, la di da, freedom of expression, it’s not illegal. Well, that’s true, but it’s not absolute.”

The defense agreed that limits exist but insisted courts must remember that these are constitutionally protected freedoms. Toh replied, saying comparing Lai’s broadcast to “an old man chatting at a boring dinner” was misleading: Live Chat was a public, worldwide broadcast, not a private conversation. The defense responded that both were essentially interactive dialogues.

Defense: Inviting Foreign Support Is Not Unlawful

Addressing Lai’s remark that he hoped the Biden administration would link Hong Kong’s freedoms and rule of law to human rights issues in Xinjiang during trade negotiations with China, the defense argued that this was no more than making requests in a contract negotiation—not a call for sanctions or hostile actions.

They added that even if Lai invited foreign governments to provide support, that alone was not illegal: only asking for support in specific coercive forms could be unlawful. Asked by Toh what forms of support would be permissible, the defense answered: “A friendly phone call—or even an unfriendly phone call.” They emphasized that protecting human rights does not conflict with China’s interests, and that human rights are safeguarded in Hong Kong and under the NSL.

On another Live Chat episode, Lai had claimed the police force had grown lawless, arresting anyone they wished with judicial backing. Toh asked if that spread fear; the defense said Lai might have exaggerated, but it was constructive criticism reflecting public concerns about police abuse of power.

Judges Raise Whether Lai Advocated Sino-U.S. War

Lee pointed to a tweet where Lai wrote:

“America is fighting for our freedom, for everyone’s freedom. It doesn’t mind being the grass trampled by the elephant. This is a just and necessary struggle.”

Lee questioned if this was a covert call for war. The defense replied that Lai meant a struggle over values, not military conflict.

Lee then referred to Lai’s column Moral Suffocation Leading to Explosion, which compared COVID-19 to “Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.” He asked if this promoted some form of Sino-U.S. war, not necessarily a “hot war” but another kind of confrontation. The defense insisted Lai was referring to a moral and ethical struggle, not a military one.

Toh noted that in the same column Lai mentioned a total U.S. ban on exports of technology and chips to China, which would harm Chinese research and weaken Beijing’s influence. The defense replied that Lai was merely outlining potential consequences if such a ban were imposed.

Defense: Free Speech and Press Freedom Promote Public Debate

The defense further argued that freedom of speech and the press are vital to democratic societies, fostering public debate. While prosecutors relied on 161 articles to claim Lai and Apple Daily engaged in a conspiracy, the defense said the press has a duty to publish a full range of views:

“It must not only present perspectives favorable to the government, but also carry opposing views.”

Judge Lee questioned whether Lai’s alleged participation in a sanctions conspiracy was truly a press freedom issue. The defense insisted Lai never directly advocated sanctions, and that whether the articles did so must be judged in light of the Basic Law and the NSL, which guarantee freedom of speech and of the press.

Defense: Even Interviews with “Dangerous Figures” Have Value

The defense argued that one of the articles cited by prosecutors concerned Apple Daily’s interview with a group of valiant protesters known as the “Dragon Slaying Squad.” The lawyers said that “even interviews with dangerous figures or terrorists carry value for public discussion in a democratic society.”

Justice Esther Toh countered that the issue was Apple Daily’s alleged clear bias toward the “yellow camp.” She noted that according to testimony from accomplice witness and former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, such bias was a result of Jimmy Lai’s editorial instructions. The defense responded that even if Lai gave editorial directions, they were at “a high level of abstraction” and did not necessarily amount to unlawful conduct.

Citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment in activist Tam Tak-chi’s sedition case, the defense stressed that courts should interpret free expression broadly. They further pointed out that the National Security Law itself contains provisions protecting human rights, arguing that “national security is not a trump card.”

Defense: Sedition Law Clearly Differentiates Between Legal and Illegal Speech

On the Dragon Slaying Squad coverage, the defense explained that at the time, public attention was focused on both protesters and police actions. Apple Daily chose to report events from a certain angle because it was an opposition newspaper, positioned at one end of the political spectrum, with Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po on the other end. This, they argued, was not improper.

They added that under the Tam Tak-chi ruling, sedition law clearly distinguishes “lawful speech” from “unlawful speech”:

“It does not obstruct open and frank dialogue, nor robust and forceful debate, aimed at promoting social development or resolving conflict.”

Judge Alex Lee pressed the defense to provide examples. The defense pointed to Apple Daily editorials such as “Driving Back the Extradition Bill with a Thunderous Roar” and “Tens of Thousands of Police Batons in the Streets, Citizens Can Find No Peace,” as well as an Apple Daily advertisement that read “Violence, Sexual Assault, Arbitrary Arrests? Independent Commission of Inquiry.” But Lee questioned whether these were relevant since Lai did not author them.

Lee also raised the example of former chief editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee’s columns: if those were deemed problematic, and Lai—who chaired Apple Daily and attended editorial “lunchbox meetings”—did not instruct Yeung to stop writing, should that be treated as evidence?The defense disagreed, arguing that as Yeung himself testified, Apple Daily often “pushed the boundaries” but the key point was that the ball remained within bounds. That could not prove any intent to “cross the line.” They stressed that even if one, two, or even 161 articles were judged to have crossed the line, that still could not establish the existence of a conspiracy.

The Witness