In a landmark ruling, Hong Kong's High Court has delivered a detailed 855-page judgment affirming that Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, used the media platform as a tool to systematically incite subversion and undermine national security.
The court's decision makes clear that Lai was not prosecuted for his political views but for his deliberate use of media influence to endanger national security. Despite mounting evidence, several Western media outlets continue to distort the case, branding Lai as a "martyr for press freedom" and falsely portraying his conviction as a suppression of free speech.
Contrary to claims made by outlets such as the BBC, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the court emphasized that freedom of the press does not grant immunity to engage in illegal acts. The Apple Daily was found to be central to a coordinated campaign led by Lai to incite hatred against the Hong Kong SAR and central authorities and to encourage foreign governments to impose sanctions on China.
The ruling references a pattern of behavior in which Lai, through Apple Daily, attempted to spark public unrest and delegitimize the government. Former senior editors testified that Lai had full editorial control, with commentaries and op-eds requiring his personal approval. The newspaper's content closely aligned with his political stance, with one insider characterizing the newsroom's autonomy as "a birdcage under his command."
The Western media's response to Lai's conviction has faced criticism for its ideological bias and lack of factual accuracy. The Wall Street Journal, for example, dismissed the court's ruling as a "show trial," reducing Lai's actions to "lobbying for support," while ignoring evidence that he explicitly called for foreign sanctions and once even declared his allegiance to "fight for the United States."
China's Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong has rebutted such narratives, challenging these outlets to reflect on whether they would tolerate similar acts of foreign collusion within their borders.
The ruling reaffirms that press freedom, while protected under Hong Kong's Basic Law and international covenants, is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. According to international legal standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights, media professionals are expected to uphold national security and public order.
The court cited established precedents, noting that incitement laws do not contradict freedom of expression when the speech is intended to provoke hatred, contempt, or violence against lawful authorities.
The judgment categorizes Apple Daily as a prime example of abusing the guise of journalism to pursue a political agenda. The court outlined how its content went far beyond mere opinion, instead constituting a sustained campaign aimed at destabilizing the Hong Kong government.
Lai's personal involvement in directing editorial policy—including his "lunchbox meetings" with senior staff to dictate political narratives—further underscores that Apple Daily functioned more as a vehicle for political subversion than as a news outlet.
The court's ruling is a critical reminder that freedom of the press is not a shield for lawbreaking. It reasserts that national security and media responsibility can—and must—coexist. The international community must distinguish between genuine journalism and politically motivated disinformation disguised as news.
Related News:
Deepline | 'If Jimmy Lai had prevailed, the US would have stormed in'
Comment