In the case of “conspiracy to publish seditious publications” involving Stand News, Judge Kwok Wai-kin ruled that the former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen, acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam Shiu-tung, and Stand News as a company were guilty. Out of the 17 articles involved, 11 were found to have seditious intent.

Johannes Chan Man-mun, a guest professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law, in an interview with “Courtline,” described the verdict as setting a vague boundary for sedition, making it difficult for the media to discern the limits. He also noted that the ruling broadens the scope of sedition to include “reckless disregard of consequences” as evidence of seditious intent, without the need to prove a substantial risk to national security. Johannes Chan Man-mun criticized the judgment for not considering the entirety of Stand News’ content, comparing it to deeming a medical textbook obscene based on one image, suggesting that an objective media outlet could present different views and contents in multiple articles.

Edward Wong, a legal commentator, believes that some of the articles deemed seditious and “lacking factual basis” represent value judgments or journalistic decisions, questioning the appropriateness of the court determining the merits of editorial decisions.

Finally, Albert Chan Hung-yee, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law, during a radio interview, pointed out that whether an article is considered seditious depends on the social context. He added that simply adding disclaimers to potentially seditious commentary is not foolproof, and editors must still demonstrate a lack of seditious intent.

Johannes Chan Man-mun: Vague Boundaries Make It Hard to Grasp Red Lines

Restricting Interviews to Only Moderate Views is Limiting

Out of the 17 articles involved in the case, 11 were found to have seditious intent. Among these, 9 were blog posts, and the other two were interviews with Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam and an alumnus of the Chinese University.

Johannes Chan, a guest professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong, described the verdict in an interview with “The Witness” as drawing a vague boundary for sedition. He cited the example of the interview with Gwyneth Ho being deemed seditious, questioning, “Even if Ho’s political views are relatively radical, does that mean the media cannot publish such interviews?” Chan expressed concern that if faithfully reflecting an interviewee’s political views could be considered seditious, media outlets might in the future only interview those with moderate views, which would be a restriction on press freedom. This is especially troubling for opinion pieces, as it makes it difficult for media organizations or editors to grasp where the red lines are.

Johannes Chan Man-mun: Convicting Based on 17 Articles Lacks Comprehensiveness

Just as a Medical Textbook Cannot Be Deemed Obscene Based on One Picture

During his testimony, Chung Pui-kuen stated that for opinion articles, Stand News aimed to publish all submissions to embody freedom of speech, and the content did not necessarily represent his or Stand News’s viewpoints. The defense estimated that during the charge period, Stand News published at least 20,000 articles; the 17 articles relied upon by the prosecution constituted a very small fraction, questioning whether the prosecution selectively chose articles favorable to their case.

Johannes Chan expressed regret that the court did not consider other content from Stand News. “It’s like taking a picture from a medical textbook and claiming it’s obscene,” he said. He argued that “objectivity” can involve presenting different viewpoints within the same article but more often is reflected across multiple articles containing diverse perspectives. Publishing commentaries—even if Stand News had a political stance—does not mean that editors necessarily agree with the opinions expressed. He believed the judgment failed to adequately explain how it inferred that the editors endorsed seditious views.

Chan also pointed out that the judgment did not emphasize the defendants’ roles as media editors. It appears the court accepted the prosecution’s claim that Stand News was a political platform rather than a typical media outlet. Chan considered this assumption controversial, noting that many foreign media outlets have clear political stances. “Having a political orientation does not equate to being a political platform,” he said.

Regarding seditious intent, Judge Kwok Wai-kin agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tam Tak-chi’s case, stating that inciting violence or disorder is not a necessary element of the sedition offense. Johannes Chan argued that this viewpoint is debatable, and the Court of Final Appeal has already granted leave to appeal on this issue. Ultimately, the final stance will depend on the highest court’s judgment.

Johannes Chan Man-mun: Controversial to Disregard Actual National Security Risks

“Even 0.1% Could Be a Potential Risk”

During the trial, the defense argued that expressing societal discontent serves to voice public opinion, believing that the country is strong and that the articles do not pose an actual risk to national security, thus warranting their publication. However, this argument was not accepted by Judge Kwok Wai-kin.

The judgment stated that the defenses available under Section 9(2) of the Crimes Ordinance, such as the speech being constructive criticism, do not apply to statements “without objective factual basis” and “intended to severely damage the authority of the central or SAR government.” Seditious writings have already potentially undermined national security, thus obviating the need for evidence of an actual risk to national security.

Johannes Chan Man-mun pointed out that not all everyday speech is constructive criticism. Some expressions, such as satire, exaggeration, or even abuse, reflect societal grievances but do not equate to contempt or hatred of the government, nor necessarily impact national security. “Speech comes in many forms, not all are editorials or academic articles”; furthermore, Judge Kwok Wai-kin in this case overturned his own decision in the “Sheep Village case,” asserting that aside from “deliberate incitement,” being “reckless of consequences” and knowingly taking risks could also constitute an offense, effectively broadening the scope of the crime.

Johannes Chan Man-mun believes that “potential” and “actual” are very different concepts, noting that anything could pose a potential risk to national security, “even 0.1% could be a potential risk.” However, for sedition as a national security crime, “shouldn’t there at least be proof that the act itself poses a real, actual risk to national security, rather than a remote risk?”

**Johannes Chan Man-mun: Description of 2019 as ‘Populist’ in Judgment is Overly Subjective**

Johannes Chan Man-mun also noted that Judge Kwok Wai-kin made numerous factual judgments in his verdict, such as judicially recognizing the 2019 district elections as a “public referendum on politics” and describing it as the “era of populism had descended upon Hong Kong.” However, Chan believes these judgments are overly subjective, questioning the infusion of the judge’s personal political judgments in the verdict. The judge also mentioned that there are still crises after the implementation of the National Security Law. Chan Man-mun believes that the public’s distrust of the government is still far from constituting a threat to national security, with many assumptions in the court’s reasoning.

Edward Wong: Not Supporting the Government is a Stretch as a National Threat

Legal commentator Edward Wong, in an interview with “The Witness,” questioned some of the court’s views on articles lacking factual basis, which he believes actually stem from the judge’s disagreement with the authors’ conclusions. “(The judgment) might have slightly confused the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments,” he noted, “for instance, saying the National Security Law is bad is a value judgment, not fake news.” Wong pointed out that in any democratic, civilized society, it is not assumed that citizens must support the government. Assuming that disapproval implies incitement, or that low government approval directly constitutes a national security threat, is “a bit far-fetched.”

Wong noted that under civil law, governments cannot sue for defamation, and if the criminal offense of incitement allows the government to sue based on “statements lacking objective factual basis,” with criminal consequences being more severe than civil ones, “it is fundamentally puzzling.”

Edward Wong: Common Law Accepts Greater Protections for the Media

“Is it a good thing for the courts to judge editorial decisions?”

Edward Wong points out that both the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts recognize that, under common law principles, freedom of the press should be afforded greater protection than general freedom of speech, as the media has a role in monitoring society. He noted that the court in this case did not fully consider these principles. Additionally, he mentioned that some articles were deemed inciting because the court judged whether the editorial decisions, journalistic style, and techniques were appropriate, questioning whether it is beneficial for a judge, who is not a media professional, to make judgments on media reporting directions.

Edward Wong: Failure to Consider Court Rulings in Commentary Articles May Impact Freedom of Commentary

Articles deemed incendiary were sometimes criticized for not considering the positions of the court or government. For example, Allan Au’s blog post “Wearing a Robe and Wig to Perform a Poor Play” was criticized in the verdict because the original court had already clarified in the Tong Ying-kit case that the National Security Law’s bail issues do not assume guilt, and that appointed judges do not affect Hong Kong’s judicial independence.

Judge Kwok Wai-kin noted that Au had “seven months to study the relevant court cases” before publishing the article and, although not a lawyer, he could have sought legal advice or conducted research. Kwok believed that Au criticized the National Security Law on a lacking objective factual basis, with the intent to seriously undermine the authority of the central or special administrative region government and the judiciary of Hong Kong.

Edward Wong argues that equating the author’s questioning of court decisions and presenting opposing views as lacking factual basis is problematic, noting, “the courts are not necessarily correct.” He also mentioned that there have been no successful defenses under section 9(2) of the ordinance based on exceptions.

Albert Chan Hung-yee: Similar Principles to Media Publishing Defamatory Statements, Disclaimers Not Infallible

Professor Albert Chan Hung-yee, Chair Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview with RTHK on Friday (30th), discussed whether articles are seditious based on the content and the intentions behind them, considering both aspects.

Chan noted that Judge Kwok Wai-kin referenced the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Tam Tak-chi case, suggesting that even the same article might be seen differently in varying social contexts. Kwok detailed the societal circumstances at the time, including the recent enactment of the National Security Law, which still left society unsettled, thus leading to the determination that 11 articles were seditious. The social context at the time of the incident must be assessed by the court, involving a degree of subjective judgment.

Chan further argued that if an article is deemed seditious, the publishing media also bear responsibility, similar to how newspapers and authors are civilly liable if they publish defamatory statements. He added that merely including a disclaimer is not foolproof; if it is known or should be known that an article is seditious and it is published regardless of the consequences, the platform or editor must demonstrate why it is not intended to incite.

Albert Chan Hung-yee: District Court Ruling Not Binding, But Future Cases May Refer to This One

Albert Chan Hung-yee noted that the sedition charge involved in the Stand News case falls under the “old sedition crimes” of the Crimes Ordinance, which were repealed in March of this year, replaced by the “new sedition crimes” under the National Security Law, commonly referred to as “Article 23”. Although the current District Court ruling is not binding, Chan believes that if other media are charged with sedition in the future, they can still refer to the judgment of this case and the ultimate appeal of the Tam Tak-chi case heard by the Court of Final Appeal in January.

The Witness