6 ms·

Honest question: Can you point me to the law about foreign agents (that RT is subject to)? I want to read more about it. Update: I found it https://www.justice

Honest question: Can you point me to the law about foreign agents (that RT is subject to)? I want to read more about it. Update: I found it https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/legal-authority https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/legal-authority But FARA is for from the National Security Law in HK. No immediate seizure of all assets as in the case of HK Apple Daily. And US has a robust legal system for disputes, unlike the NSL court in HK that is tightly controlled by the CCP. You cannot discuss just the specific law without discussing the legal system as a whole.

sudosysgen 5y ago
FARA in the US would allow for unlimited fines and a five year jail term. So yes, they could completely financially deprive the organization. The US may have a robust legal system, but in the case of FARA this is completely undermined by the executive branch. What the US gains in judicial independence, it loses in sélective enforcement. The end result is that the US government can selectively shut down foreign agents and jail them, just like the Chinese government. There's no need to compromise the judiciary when the law is there black on white, by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand, you can go to jail for years. It's just that it's so selectively enforced that you could arrest a random BBC journalist for the exact same reasons.
- hkmaxpro 5y ago
  > when the law is there black on white [citation needed] Many people still don’t know the exact reason why Apple Daily was charged a few days ago under the NSL. https://theinitium.com/article/20210618-opinion-hk-what-does-normal-journalist-means/ https://theinitium.com/article/20210618-opinion-hk-what-does... > 但「串謀」計劃到底是什麼計劃？「串謀」和「正常新聞工作」之間的界線到底是什麼？有哪些具體的文章能成為證據？是評論文章還是報導中引用的受訪者的話？證據如果還未蒐集到位為何就能實施拘捕？⋯⋯對此局方一概沒有交代，畢竟，案件還處在「調查階段」，而永遠是說不清也不能說清楚的「國家安全」超然凌駕所有程序。 https://beta.thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%89%E6%8B%98%E8%98%8B%E6%9E%9C%E9%AB%98%E5%B1%A4-%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF-%E8%BF%91%E7%99%BE%E7%AF%87%E6%B6%89%E6%A1%88%E6%96%87%E7%AB%A0%E5%8C%85%E6%8B%AC%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93-%E8%A9%95%E8%AB%96-%E8%AD%A6%E5%B0%87%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82-%E8%98%8B%E6%9E%9C-%E5%88%AA%E9%99%A4 https://beta.thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%89%E6... > 保安局局長李家超及國安處高級警司李桂華會見傳媒時，均沒有交代涉案數十篇呼籲制裁中國及香港的文章題目、具體內容為何 Can you elaborate, according to the NSL and the official statements, why Apple Daily was charged this time? In fact, the official statements from a few days ago didn’t mention Jimmy Lai at all, contrary to your claim (by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand).
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    When I said that the law was black on white, I was talking about the US. I don't know about the Chinese NSL
    - hkmaxpro 5y ago
      I thought you were arguing how HK’s NSL is similar to US’s FARA, in the case of Apple Daily’s closure. [0] 11 hours ago you argued in another thread [1] as if you knew a lot about Apple Daily and HK law. But apparently not so anymore. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27587603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27587603 > 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? […] You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27588235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27588235 > If Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai had no contact at all with foreign agents, it would have applied unambiguously.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        I was commenting about the Sino British Joint declaration, which is a treaty in English that I have read, not the NSL that I cannot interpret faithfully. Please carefully read the context in [1] I argued that courts caring about foreign affiliations of media is not unique to Hong Kong. And indeed it isn't, it happened in the US just a few months ago and apparently no one cared. If you're not disputing that FARA gives the US government the ability to oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive, I don't understand our disagreement.
        hkmaxpro 5y ago
        Nobody cared because everybody knew news/media organizations won’t dissolve easily by the FARA, contrary to your claim (“they could completely financially deprive the organization”). Because of the first amendment (that you completely missed). CGTN and RT are alive and kicking in the US, despite the FARA. Did they dissolve like the Apple Daily? Didn’t Tiktok survive Trump’s ban a year ago? (That’s an executive order, not FARA, but that doesn’t matter when we are talking about executive power and the legal system.) Numerous argued against it on the grounds of free speech. [1][2] “oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive”? Are you sure? [1] https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/09/trumps-ban-tiktok-violates-first-amendment-eliminating-unique-platform-political https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/09/trumps-ban-tik... [2] https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-bans-tiktok-wechat-app-first-amendment-1234774871/ https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-bans-tiktok-wech...

sudosysgen 5y ago

FARA in the US would allow for unlimited fines and a five year jail term. So yes, they could completely financially deprive the organization. The US may have a robust legal system, but in the case of FARA this is completely undermined by the executive branch. What the US gains in judicial independence, it loses in sélective enforcement. The end result is that the US government can selectively shut down foreign agents and jail them, just like the Chinese government. There's no need to compromise the judiciary when the law is there black on white, by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand, you can go to jail for years. It's just that it's so selectively enforced that you could arrest a random BBC journalist for the exact same reasons.

hkmaxpro 5y ago
> when the law is there black on white [citation needed] Many people still don’t know the exact reason why Apple Daily was charged a few days ago under the NSL. https://theinitium.com/article/20210618-opinion-hk-what-does-normal-journalist-means/ https://theinitium.com/article/20210618-opinion-hk-what-does... > 但「串謀」計劃到底是什麼計劃？「串謀」和「正常新聞工作」之間的界線到底是什麼？有哪些具體的文章能成為證據？是評論文章還是報導中引用的受訪者的話？證據如果還未蒐集到位為何就能實施拘捕？⋯⋯對此局方一概沒有交代，畢竟，案件還處在「調查階段」，而永遠是說不清也不能說清楚的「國家安全」超然凌駕所有程序。 https://beta.thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%89%E6%8B%98%E8%98%8B%E6%9E%9C%E9%AB%98%E5%B1%A4-%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF-%E8%BF%91%E7%99%BE%E7%AF%87%E6%B6%89%E6%A1%88%E6%96%87%E7%AB%A0%E5%8C%85%E6%8B%AC%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93-%E8%A9%95%E8%AB%96-%E8%AD%A6%E5%B0%87%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82-%E8%98%8B%E6%9E%9C-%E5%88%AA%E9%99%A4 https://beta.thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%89%E6... > 保安局局長李家超及國安處高級警司李桂華會見傳媒時，均沒有交代涉案數十篇呼籲制裁中國及香港的文章題目、具體內容為何 Can you elaborate, according to the NSL and the official statements, why Apple Daily was charged this time? In fact, the official statements from a few days ago didn’t mention Jimmy Lai at all, contrary to your claim (by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  When I said that the law was black on white, I was talking about the US. I don't know about the Chinese NSL
  - hkmaxpro 5y ago
    I thought you were arguing how HK’s NSL is similar to US’s FARA, in the case of Apple Daily’s closure. [0] 11 hours ago you argued in another thread [1] as if you knew a lot about Apple Daily and HK law. But apparently not so anymore. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27587603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27587603 > 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? […] You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27588235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27588235 > If Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai had no contact at all with foreign agents, it would have applied unambiguously.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I was commenting about the Sino British Joint declaration, which is a treaty in English that I have read, not the NSL that I cannot interpret faithfully. Please carefully read the context in [1] I argued that courts caring about foreign affiliations of media is not unique to Hong Kong. And indeed it isn't, it happened in the US just a few months ago and apparently no one cared. If you're not disputing that FARA gives the US government the ability to oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive, I don't understand our disagreement.
      - hkmaxpro 5y ago
        Nobody cared because everybody knew news/media organizations won’t dissolve easily by the FARA, contrary to your claim (“they could completely financially deprive the organization”). Because of the first amendment (that you completely missed). CGTN and RT are alive and kicking in the US, despite the FARA. Did they dissolve like the Apple Daily? Didn’t Tiktok survive Trump’s ban a year ago? (That’s an executive order, not FARA, but that doesn’t matter when we are talking about executive power and the legal system.) Numerous argued against it on the grounds of free speech. [1][2] “oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive”? Are you sure? [1] https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/09/trumps-ban-tiktok-violates-first-amendment-eliminating-unique-platform-political https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/09/trumps-ban-tik... [2] https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-bans-tiktok-wechat-app-first-amendment-1234774871/ https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-bans-tiktok-wech...