It’s not illegal to criticize the government. Except when it is. Justice Secretary Paul Lam says it’s OK if you’re suggesting improvement…
“If you’re expressing views with the intent of wishing the government to do better, or making so-called criticism with good intentions, the law states in black and white that these do not amount to [the crime of] seditious intention.”
Lam said according to the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, it is also legal to suggest improvement to the legal or political system as well as the constitutional order, so long as there’s no intent to incite hatred or contempt.
But…
He also said the law does not require proof of intention to incite violence, when it comes to the offence of seditious intention.
Lam noted there had been instances where some comments “could harm the public’s views towards the government”, causing hatred or enmity, even if they don’t specifically ask people to take up arms to confront the SAR government.
Who decides whether words ‘incite contempt’? How can you tell if they do so? How can you prove a commenter ‘intended’ it? What if the government’s own policies ‘incite hatred’ against itself?
And what if the criticism that incites contempt of the government is produced by AI? An excuse to pass on David Gerard on a study showing that ChatGPT makes you stupid – at least when you write essays with it.
More word games in a totalitarian state aborning. Waste of energy. If they want you, they’ll have you. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is a fool.
Sour Face Lam’s take on right to criticize the government is as reassuring as Sec for Sec’s recent statements on the right to peaceful protest.