7 ms·

CNN is still here. Apple Daily can fight in court and change jurisprudence. Let's see how they explain their trumpist ties, because Im not naive enough to beli

by xwolfi 5y ago

CNN is still here. Apple Daily can fight in court and change jurisprudence. Let's see how they explain their trumpist ties, because Im not naive enough to believe Apple Daily did all their insane drum up without a bit of encouragement from elsewhere. It s easy now to speak like a freedom fighter, but in 2019 Apple Daily was insane. They d encourage you to attack, I havent forgotten.

null0pointer 5y ago
> They d encourage you to attack Got a citation for that? An internet archive link perhaps?
MattGaiser 5y ago
> Let's see how they explain their trumpist ties The fact that they would need to explain such ties, even if they existed, before a court is part of the problem.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Is it? Turn it around, if a newspaper in the US was asked to explain ties to Xi Jinping or Putin before a court would that be of note? Because things like that do happen in US courts, and it would be very easy to go to jail if you had such associations and did things that would normally be protected, such as leaking national secrets or knowingly publishing false information, that would then be seen as national security infractions. You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK. In pretty much all of the world coordinating with geopolitical enemies puts you in hot water. Actually, coordinating with some Russian or Chinese officials is literally illegal in the US because of sanctions and may put you in jail, since it seems money was involved.
  - Cyberdog 5y ago
    > Because things like that do happen in US courts [citation needed]
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Sure. The US has previously, by court order, inquired in the foreign status of press and required them to sign into the foreign entity list and then comply with restrictions : https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-required-to-register/ https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-require... As a matter of law they are forced to disclose these associations and subject to penalty if they do not. That can include criminal charges to individuals and has, during the Cold War, to people who "didn't disclose". I thought this was common knowledge?
      - hkmaxpro 5y ago
        HK has a NSL court tightly controlled by the CCP. Not comparable to the US legal system. And NSL has immediate seizure of all assets, forcing Apple Daily to close immediately. Anything like that in the US?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        FARA would allow the US government to arrest every single reporter, so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval. The US legal system in this case uses extreme selective enforcement. There is no need for it to be corrupted, the executive holds all of the power because it decides who to ignore and who to punish, and indeed it wields this power very selectively. So the end result is the same as if the judicial system was corrupt.
        hkmaxpro 5y ago
        > so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval Has any company in the past decade been forced out of business by FARA before trial? Any case from among this list? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases Not apples to apples.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    >such as leaking national secrets or knowingly publishing false information, that would then be seen as national security infractions. Not really. News agencies publish leaked classified national secrets all the time and freely publish false information without penalty. News cannot steal the information, i.e. hacking into the Pentagon would be off limits (which is why Julian Assange is wanted), but if someone else steals it, they can publish it. Publishing stuff in Wikileaks documents is not illegal. Foreign journalists freely operate in the USA. RT certainly has an anti-American agenda. It gets to criticize and claim and publish false information and yes, even report leaked national secrets.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      This is not exactly true. RT does not freely operate in the US, it was forced in a court of law to register as a foreign agent. Legally the US government would have been able to arrest every single RT journalist beforehand and send them to jail for five years. So yes, in court, it was decided whether or not RT was an agent of the Russian government, which is exactly the question at had in the post I was replying to. This is not actually applied since the end of the Cold War, but legally per the Foreign Agents Registration Act if you don't register as a foreign agent despite being one, even without being notified you should, you are committing a crime can be convicted. So, for example, being in contact with Xi Jinping or his lackeys and engaging in political action without registering as a foreign is actually a crime. And yes, people were prosecuted for that. But that's beyond even the point that I was stating, as a matter of FARA a court can and does inquire about that. RT is not right now being pursued for it, but people in the US can be pursued for doing things such as lying or leaking national secrets, ie things that would normally be protected under the first amendment, if they are doing so in furtherance of the goals of a foreign government without registering officially beforehand. For a recent case, see the case of Elliot Brodly which was found guilty for engaging in lobbying for a foreign government. These laws in the US are very, very selectively enforced. The lack of prosecution of a certain entity doesn't mean anything. BBC reporters in the US are technically committing a federal offense by not registering as foreign agents, but the government will never prosecute them for that. RT, on the other hand, was forced to register, and WEB Dubois was prosecuted for even less on the same laws.
73gfg 5y ago
Which bank account would you like your ¥0.50 sent to?
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I don't think it's fair or productive to call someone a wumao, especially xwolfi. They're clearly not a paid shill.
  - scruffyherder 5y ago
    I think it’s fair
- dang 5y ago
  You can't do this here and we've banned the account. Please read the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - and please don't create accounts to break them with.
blfr 5y ago
CNN is still here. That's the worst of both worlds: you lose free local press but you still get CNN.
daxuak 5y ago
wolf right in the ID huh?
skissane 5y ago
> Apple Daily can fight in court and change jurisprudence A fight Apple Daily is unlikely to win. Even supposing the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) came down on Apple Daily's side, the Hong Kong government would just appeal to the NPCSC in Beijing saying the CFA is misinterpreting the Basic Law, and zero doubt the NPCSC will make a binding interpretation of the Basic Law overturning the CFA's decision. The Hong Kong judiciary has zero power against Beijing. The best thing would be if all the foreign judges (British, Australian and Canadian) resigned from the Hong Kong judiciary, to stop contributing to its false appearance of independence. I think if any of them refuse to resign, the governments of their home states should give serious consideration to compelling them to do so.
- schoen 5y ago
  How come there are foreign judges serving on the Hong Kong judiciary today? What role do they have?
  - pkaye 5y ago
    Looks like its from when Hong Kong used to be a British Territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Ko...
    - hnfong 5y ago
      The Court of Final Appeal is a new court established after the handover to replace the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is stipulated in the Sino British Joint Declaration and established by the Basic Law of HKSAR.
  - hnfong 5y ago
    Back in early 1980s, there was a huge confidence crisis when it was announced that Hong Kong was going to be handed over to China. It was feared that the Chinese Communists was going to practice socialism in the city. Apparently, back then, the Chinese Communists thought that Hong Kong was more useful as a place to experiment with capitalism and market economy (which they did adopt to some extent in the mainland, compare today's China with China in the 1970s, a lot of Hong Kong businessmen were consulted on how to build a market economy in China) Anyway it was under this historical context that China proposed to invite foreign judges to sit in Hong Kong courts to boost the confidence of skeptics in the future of the region. Fast forward to now, this is still a tool for the Hong Kong government, to silence critics that the judiciary is being pressured by Beijing in trying political cases. At least, if judges your country are involved in deciding appeal cases there, your government can't really say with a straight face that they're systematically persecuting political dissidents. The UK has been trying to pull out their judges but from news reports I've read they're (the UK govt and judges) having a hard time agreeing to a coherent plan... PS: the actual role they have is similar to a judge in a supreme court. They get a "vote" (out of usual 5) how on how to decide the case if invited to sit for a particular case.
6f8986c3 5y ago
> CNN is still here. The denizens of Hong Kong already have a wide selection of CCP-owned media to choose from.
baybal2 5y ago
> It s easy now to speak like a freedom fighter, but in 2019 Apple Daily was insane. They d encourage you to attack, I havent forgotten. And they did a very good thing doing so. And now you are in such a rut because you failed to heed this call.

by xwolfi 5y ago

null0pointer 5y ago

> They d encourage you to attack Got a citation for that? An internet archive link perhaps?

MattGaiser 5y ago

> Let's see how they explain their trumpist ties The fact that they would need to explain such ties, even if they existed, before a court is part of the problem.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Is it? Turn it around, if a newspaper in the US was asked to explain ties to Xi Jinping or Putin before a court would that be of note? Because things like that do happen in US courts, and it would be very easy to go to jail if you had such associations and did things that would normally be protected, such as leaking national secrets or knowingly publishing false information, that would then be seen as national security infractions. You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK. In pretty much all of the world coordinating with geopolitical enemies puts you in hot water. Actually, coordinating with some Russian or Chinese officials is literally illegal in the US because of sanctions and may put you in jail, since it seems money was involved.
- Cyberdog 5y ago
  > Because things like that do happen in US courts [citation needed]
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Sure. The US has previously, by court order, inquired in the foreign status of press and required them to sign into the foreign entity list and then comply with restrictions : https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-required-to-register/ https://cpj.org/2019/07/several-foreign-news-outlets-require... As a matter of law they are forced to disclose these associations and subject to penalty if they do not. That can include criminal charges to individuals and has, during the Cold War, to people who "didn't disclose". I thought this was common knowledge?
    - hkmaxpro 5y ago
      HK has a NSL court tightly controlled by the CCP. Not comparable to the US legal system. And NSL has immediate seizure of all assets, forcing Apple Daily to close immediately. Anything like that in the US?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        FARA would allow the US government to arrest every single reporter, so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval. The US legal system in this case uses extreme selective enforcement. There is no need for it to be corrupted, the executive holds all of the power because it decides who to ignore and who to punish, and indeed it wields this power very selectively. So the end result is the same as if the judicial system was corrupt.
        hkmaxpro 5y ago
        > so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval Has any company in the past decade been forced out of business by FARA before trial? Any case from among this list? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases Not apples to apples.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  >such as leaking national secrets or knowingly publishing false information, that would then be seen as national security infractions. Not really. News agencies publish leaked classified national secrets all the time and freely publish false information without penalty. News cannot steal the information, i.e. hacking into the Pentagon would be off limits (which is why Julian Assange is wanted), but if someone else steals it, they can publish it. Publishing stuff in Wikileaks documents is not illegal. Foreign journalists freely operate in the USA. RT certainly has an anti-American agenda. It gets to criticize and claim and publish false information and yes, even report leaked national secrets.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    This is not exactly true. RT does not freely operate in the US, it was forced in a court of law to register as a foreign agent. Legally the US government would have been able to arrest every single RT journalist beforehand and send them to jail for five years. So yes, in court, it was decided whether or not RT was an agent of the Russian government, which is exactly the question at had in the post I was replying to. This is not actually applied since the end of the Cold War, but legally per the Foreign Agents Registration Act if you don't register as a foreign agent despite being one, even without being notified you should, you are committing a crime can be convicted. So, for example, being in contact with Xi Jinping or his lackeys and engaging in political action without registering as a foreign is actually a crime. And yes, people were prosecuted for that. But that's beyond even the point that I was stating, as a matter of FARA a court can and does inquire about that. RT is not right now being pursued for it, but people in the US can be pursued for doing things such as lying or leaking national secrets, ie things that would normally be protected under the first amendment, if they are doing so in furtherance of the goals of a foreign government without registering officially beforehand. For a recent case, see the case of Elliot Brodly which was found guilty for engaging in lobbying for a foreign government. These laws in the US are very, very selectively enforced. The lack of prosecution of a certain entity doesn't mean anything. BBC reporters in the US are technically committing a federal offense by not registering as foreign agents, but the government will never prosecute them for that. RT, on the other hand, was forced to register, and WEB Dubois was prosecuted for even less on the same laws.

73gfg 5y ago

Which bank account would you like your ¥0.50 sent to?

AussieWog93 5y ago
I don't think it's fair or productive to call someone a wumao, especially xwolfi. They're clearly not a paid shill.
- scruffyherder 5y ago
  I think it’s fair
dang 5y ago
You can't do this here and we've banned the account. Please read the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - and please don't create accounts to break them with.

blfr 5y ago

CNN is still here. That's the worst of both worlds: you lose free local press but you still get CNN.

daxuak 5y ago

wolf right in the ID huh?

skissane 5y ago

> Apple Daily can fight in court and change jurisprudence A fight Apple Daily is unlikely to win. Even supposing the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) came down on Apple Daily's side, the Hong Kong government would just appeal to the NPCSC in Beijing saying the CFA is misinterpreting the Basic Law, and zero doubt the NPCSC will make a binding interpretation of the Basic Law overturning the CFA's decision. The Hong Kong judiciary has zero power against Beijing. The best thing would be if all the foreign judges (British, Australian and Canadian) resigned from the Hong Kong judiciary, to stop contributing to its false appearance of independence. I think if any of them refuse to resign, the governments of their home states should give serious consideration to compelling them to do so.

schoen 5y ago
How come there are foreign judges serving on the Hong Kong judiciary today? What role do they have?
- pkaye 5y ago
  Looks like its from when Hong Kong used to be a British Territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Ko...
  - hnfong 5y ago
    The Court of Final Appeal is a new court established after the handover to replace the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is stipulated in the Sino British Joint Declaration and established by the Basic Law of HKSAR.
- hnfong 5y ago
  Back in early 1980s, there was a huge confidence crisis when it was announced that Hong Kong was going to be handed over to China. It was feared that the Chinese Communists was going to practice socialism in the city. Apparently, back then, the Chinese Communists thought that Hong Kong was more useful as a place to experiment with capitalism and market economy (which they did adopt to some extent in the mainland, compare today's China with China in the 1970s, a lot of Hong Kong businessmen were consulted on how to build a market economy in China) Anyway it was under this historical context that China proposed to invite foreign judges to sit in Hong Kong courts to boost the confidence of skeptics in the future of the region. Fast forward to now, this is still a tool for the Hong Kong government, to silence critics that the judiciary is being pressured by Beijing in trying political cases. At least, if judges your country are involved in deciding appeal cases there, your government can't really say with a straight face that they're systematically persecuting political dissidents. The UK has been trying to pull out their judges but from news reports I've read they're (the UK govt and judges) having a hard time agreeing to a coherent plan... PS: the actual role they have is similar to a judge in a supreme court. They get a "vote" (out of usual 5) how on how to decide the case if invited to sit for a particular case.

6f8986c3 5y ago

> CNN is still here. The denizens of Hong Kong already have a wide selection of CCP-owned media to choose from.

baybal2 5y ago

> It s easy now to speak like a freedom fighter, but in 2019 Apple Daily was insane. They d encourage you to attack, I havent forgotten. And they did a very good thing doing so. And now you are in such a rut because you failed to heed this call.