【明報專訊】YESTERDAY (29 AUGUST) the District Court ruled on the case of Stand News, which had been accused of "conspiracy to publish seditious publication". Designated National Security Law judge Kwok Wai-kin, who heard the case, has found all the three defendants, namely the parent company of Stand News, former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and the then acting editor-in-chief Lam Shiu-tung, guilty. Chung and Lam are allowed to remain on bail pending sentencing to be handed down on 26 September.
The trial of the Stand News case began in October 2022 and took 57 days to complete. The ruling, which was originally scheduled for October 2023, was delayed three times until yesterday. The charge of "conspiracy to publish seditious publication" has also been levelled against Apple Daily, whose case also involves provisions of the National Security Law.
The crime of sedition was originally included in the Crimes Ordinance and can be traced back to the Seditious Publications Ordinance promulgated by the British Hong Kong government in 1914. In 1938, the British Hong Kong government enacted the Sedition Ordinance, which was incorporated into the Crimes Ordinance in the 1970s. In the past, the legislation was used to prosecute left-wing media. Since the 1967 Riots, however, no media in Hong Kong has been charged with sedition.
In the Stand News case, the prosecution's evidence mainly comes from 17 articles published by Stand News between July 2020 and December 2021. These articles cover six major topics, namely the primaries of the pan-democratic camp, individuals who have fled Hong Kong, foreign forces' advocacy of international sanctions, law enforcement actions related to the National Security Law, riots at the CUHK, and attacks on the central government and the regime.
The defence has argued that the prosecution has failed to explain why the 17 so-called "seditious articles" are untruthful and how they pose actual risks to national security. During the trial, Chung admitted that 15 of the articles in question were signed off by him and he knew the contents and messages of the articles. In his mitigation letter, Lam said that "journalists fail to exercise their responsibility if they deliberately avoid coverage of a matter that the public has the right to know about" and that "the only way for journalists to defend press freedom is reporting".
In the court's final judgment, the six articles that have not been found to have "seditious intent" include one report and five interviews. The 11 articles that have been found so include two interviews and nine reviews.
In the judgement, it is said that if certain comments are judged to have seditious intent, the relevant actual circumstances must have already been considered. Furthermore, if something is regarded to pose potential damage to national security, it must be stopped. Steve Li Kwai-wah, chief superintendent of the national security department of the police force, also argues that the ruling has clearly laid down the line that demarcates illegality. According to Li, a news organisation breaks the law if it uses the incident as a vehicle to spread seditious information. This is not a restriction on the media's reporting of certain topics and cases, he says.
However, judging merely from the 11 articles that have been assessed as having "seditious intent" in the Stand News case, it is still somewhat difficult to grasp the red lines correctly. This will inevitably increase the risks of media work, especially for administrators of media organisations.
明報社評2024.08.30：罔顧煽動後果亦罪成 立場案判辭劃定紅線
區域法院昨日就《立場新聞》被控「串謀發布煽動刊物」一案作出裁決，負責審案的國安法指定法官郭偉健裁定，《立場新聞》母公司、前總編輯鍾沛權、時任署理總編輯林紹桐3被告均罪成，案件押後9月26日判刑，鍾、林兩人獲准保釋候判。
「立場案」於2022年10月開審，審訊歷時57日，原定去年10月裁決，經三度押後至昨日方判。目前另一宗正在審訊的「《蘋果日報》案」，除引用國安法條款外，亦有控以「串謀發布煽動刊物」罪名。
煽動罪原屬於《刑事罪行條例》下罪行，最早可追溯至1914年港英政府頒布的《煽動刊物條例》，1938年港英訂立《煽動條例》，於1970年代納入《刑事罪行條例》。過去該條法例曾被用於控告左派傳媒，六七暴動以後，本港再沒有傳媒因煽動罪遭控告。
今次《立場新聞》案中，控方的舉證，主要列舉《立場》於2020年7月至2021年12月發表的17篇文章，內容涵蓋民主派初選案、潛逃海外者、境外勢力倡議國際制裁、國安法相關執法行動和司法程序、中大暴動案、攻擊中央和政權等六大範疇。
辯方指，控方未能指出涉案17篇所謂「煽動文章」內容失實，或對國家安全構成何種實際風險；鍾沛權在受審時承認，其中15篇文章由他審發，他亦知悉文章的內容及想表達什麼；林紹桐則在求情信中表示，「若明知公眾有知情權，但刻意迴避不報道亦是失責」，「新聞工作者捍衛新聞自由的唯一方式是報道」。
在法庭最後的判決中，未被裁定「具煽動意圖」的6篇文章中，包括1篇報道與5篇專訪，而被裁定「具煽動意圖」的11篇文章，則包括兩篇專訪與9篇評論。
判辭指出，當言論被評定為具煽動意圖，必然已經考慮相關的實際情况。視為對國家安全造成潛在破壞，須要制止。警方國安處總警司李桂華亦聲稱，判辭清晰交代違法界線，指出若新聞機構利用事件為載體散播煽動信息就屬違法，並非限制傳媒報道特定題目或案件。
不過，僅從「立場案」中被裁定「具煽動意圖」的11篇文章看，紅線還是有點難以準確拿揑，難免會增加傳媒工作，特別是傳媒管理人的風險。
■ Glossary 生字 /
advocacy : the giving of public support to an idea, a course of action or a belief
mitigation : a reduction in how unpleasant, serious, etc. sth is
demarcate : to mark or establish the limits of sth