HONG KONG – A Hong Kong judge on Wednesday granted bail to pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy La, but imposed sweeping bans on his use of social media, interviews or leaving his home, raising concerns about free speech under national security. Law.
Mr Lai, prominent, one of Hong Kong’s most prominent anti-government voices, was charged this month under an elaborate new law imposed by the central Chinese government in June to quell months of protests. Police accused him of engaging with foreign forces, including blaming foreign governments for imposing sanctions on China’s translucent region of Hong Kong. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.
Mr Lai’s release was an unexpected relief to the pro-democracy movement, which has fallen under the weight of security legislation and the constant steps taken by Beijing to undermine its support. Mr Lane has already been denied bail twice: on charges of unrelated fraud earlier this month, and again a week later on national security charges. But his lawyers appealed, and the appellate judge, Alex Lee, agreed to release him.
The Hong Kong government made an immediate request to appeal the decision, but it was rejected.
Many protesters also celebrated Mr Laini’s release, condemning his terms. The businessman’s bail was set at HK 10 10 million, about 1. 1.3 million, and he was ordered to be kept in custody without informing the police three times a week.
In addition, the judge did not order Mr. Line not to use social media, to meet with foreign officials, or to print or publish any article online. Mr. Lai was previously Active on Twitter, Condemning the Chinese Communist Party, and the newspaper he founded, Apple Pal Daily, is one of the most pro-democracy publications in the rest of Hong Kong. Mr. Law also traveled to the United States to meet with leading U.S. officials, but that visit preceded the enactment of the Security Act, which is not considered in writing.
Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.
Philip Dias, chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, said: “The only thing the court should worry about is the statements that can record the crime.”
But the sharp nature of the sanctions may, in part, have been born out of the broader nature of security legislation, said Senia Ng, a lawyer and member of the pro-democracy Democratic Party. The law does not clearly define many of the crimes specified, but instead uses common terms such as terrorism, denigration, or affiliation.
“The problem here is that the offense under the National Security Act is so widely called, that it can lead to any kind of activity – and especially speech,” Ms. N.G. wrote in an email. “This basically gives the court the power to impose very broad and far-reaching bail conditions.”
Mr Laina’s lawyers proposed several restrictions, including a ban on the use of social media. But Ms. N.G. That said, ultimately, the judges were responsible for making sure that the conditions imposed were consistent with the circumstances.
“Quite frankly, the terms of bail are tantamount to serious and direct attacks on Mr Lai’s right to free speech.”
Mr La is due to return to court in April.
