Do press deserve ‘extra’ freedom of expression?

Jimmy Lai’s lawyer argues that a newspaper should have greater freedom to publish information and opinions. Greater than whom? He doesn’t say, but he can only mean everyone else, as the judges assume….

The court on Monday continued to hear closing arguments from the defence. Lai’s lawyer, Robert Pang, sought to convince the judges that press freedom was established as an individual right alongside freedom of expression because the media should be given greater freedom to publish diverse information and viewpoints.

If “a publisher, or reporter, or journalist, is so concerned [with prosecution], there will not be the ability to provide for the information that the public has the right to know,” Pang told the three judges presiding over the trial: Alex Lee, Esther Toh, and Susana D’Almada Remedios.

In response, Judge Lee questioned whether press freedom could be used as a defence with the rise of the internet, saying that ordinary people could reach as large an audience as the news media do online. “Everyone can say they are engaging in some forms of journalism,” he said.

The judge also said the charges against Lai concern an alleged request for foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong, and that may fall outside of the legitimate boundaries of journalism.

Pang responded that the press should be given greater freedom because of “the constraints” that were placed on professional news media. Apple Daily “is fairly and squarely a newspaper,” he said.

He added the court must consider the protection of press freedom when deciding whether Lai’s past remarks amounted to a request for sanctions, given that no evidence of him directly making such an appeal had been presented.

Obviously, the defence has to use whatever arguments they think might work. But it does seem odd to suggest that anyone not working for a newspaper is somehow less entitled to freedom of expression.

Taiwan News looks at ‘one country, two systems’…

The imposition of the National Security Law, mass arrests, and the silencing of civil society [in Hong Kong] made clear that one country, two systems had in fact become “one country, one system.”

These developments not only shattered Beijing’s credibility in Hong Kong but also sent a chilling message to Taiwan: the “one country, two systems” is a promise in name only.

…A poll released by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council in April found that 84.4% of Taiwanese respondents oppose the “one country, two systems” formula proposed by Beijing.

Polls show that Taiwan’s distrust toward the Chinese government has deepened in recent years, in no small part due to events in Hong Kong. The erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, from press liberty to judicial independence, has confirmed that unification on Beijing’s terms means the end of Taiwan’s democracy.

…Hong Kong has shown that “one country, two systems” is not a guarantee but a conditional offer: it survives only as long as citizens do not challenge Beijing’s authority. When they do, “two systems” collapse into one. Macao shows the other side of the coin: if there is no challenge, autonomy quietly erodes into irrelevance.

Back in the 80s and 90s, people talking up Hong Kong’s post-1997 prospects liked to point out that 1C2S was originally intended as a structure for Taiwan, and Beijing would respect Hong Kong’s ‘high degree of autonomy’ in order to avoid alienating the Taiwanese. No more.