3 ms·

> 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 NS

> 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

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...