Singers: Sing Tao Daily
Sing Tao Society
The High Court refused to return to Hong Kong to approve the temporary ban on the "Hong Kong Independence" song. Lin Dingguo, the director of the Department of Justice, decided yesterday to appeal the relevant verdict.The official appeal is not surprising. Because the incident involves the dignity of maintaining national security and ensuring the national anthem, it is necessary to clarify the point of view, so that the appellation court to judge the judgment of the original court court can not only show the fairness of the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also pass on the "Hong Kong Hong Kong."The information of zero tolerance, fulfilling constitutional responsibility to maintain national security.
Freedom of speech has a bottom line and cannot be crossed
The judge of the High Court has previously considers the effectiveness of the prohibition, no specific defendant, and it is difficult to enforce the law; the forced implementation of the ban will conflict with relevant criminal laws, and the prohibition may cause the "cold cicada effect" and other factors such asReject the application for the temporary ban of the Department of Justice.After the verdict was issued, it caused social uproar, saying that the court's judgment only focused on the technical issues of law enforcement, but ignored the demand for maintaining national security.
Because Hong Kong pursues the normal law, the court will only hear the case and legal point of view when hearing the case, and will not consider any political factors.Legal level of maintenance.In order to maintain the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong and the general law system, Lin Dingguo only followed the legal procedure and through the appeal process, and refuted some unremitting legal views in the High Court's judgment one by one, seeking the court's own correction.
In the past few days, the society has continued to speak up and put forward some different opinions on the high court's decision.First of all, the court believes that the behavior of the ban on the system itself is criminal crimes. The Hong Kong National Security Law can be covered, and the punishment of the Hong Kong National Security Law is far heavier than the penalty of the ban.The court is even more worried that the procedure for the prohibition may conflict with the Hong Kong National Security Law on the prosecution procedures that endanger national security crimes, causing "one crime and two trials."
Since the formulation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, it has played the role of the sea god needle, while the National Security Law only targets the four most serious crimes such as splitting national power, subverting national power, terrorist activities, and collusion with overseas forces.Crime can be handled through other laws or legal instruments, and which laws to choose to use are the responsibility of the prosecution. It is not necessary to cause judges to cause "one crime and two trials."Therefore, the legal tools that maintain national security are more complete, the social security order in Hong Kong is more stable, and the national security law and the ban should not conflict with each other, but can complement each other.
As for the difficulty of law enforcement, it is the reason for becoming a rejection of the ban order.Because of the difficulty of law enforcement, it is also necessary to seek court cooperation and conduct in the form of a prohibition. The effect is more effective.Just as the Law Department entered the court to apply for a ban on that day, in order to avoid touching the legal risks of Hong Kong, various network platforms then then brought their wishes to Hong Kong to remove the shelves, reflecting that it was difficult for law enforcement to take it for granted.
In addition, the court is worried that the ban may have a "cold cicada effect", which makes people who have a clear motivation may be afraid of the serious consequences brought by the prohibited order.It is also difficult to understand.The judge agrees that Rongguang returns to Hong Kong to effectively use it to incite others to split the country or have a diagram of incitement. The song advocates "Hong Kong independence". It is obvious to touch the Red Line of the National Security Law."Activity" is easy to make people misunderstandings, thinking that it is normal songs, downloading and reposting online, and eventually fell into the French Open by mistake.The song appeared on the YouTube platform on the YouTube platform, which led foreigners to search online, and mistaken the song as the national anthem and frequently played in international sports events.
Clarifying the court's self -correction ruling
In fact, freedom of speech is not bottomless.Taking Germany as an example, there are laws that ban the songs of the Nazi party and show the Nazi emblem. Germany's move has not attracted criticism of freedom of speech.The third party caused "Yunyun.
Since the willingness to return to Hong Kong is an independent song, which is related to national security interests, the Department of Justice must appeal to the view that the court is required to correct itself and release a clear message to the society.Let the public understand that downloading, dissemination, distribution, and performances all constitute criminal crimes, and the consequences are serious. Do not try it by body.
