Hong Kong Court Says No to Protest Song, Calls it a “Weapon”

 

Hong Kong’s higher court has made a controversial ruling against freedom of expression by prohibiting the protest song “Glory to Hong Kong.” This overturned an earlier decision, allowing the government to restrict the song on the basis that it could incite secession and sedition. Critics see this as part of an ongoing erosion of legal protections and individual liberties in Hong Kong under growing pressure from Beijing to curb dissent.

In a highly contested judgment, Hong Kong’s appeals court permitted the government’s ban on the protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong.” This goes against a previous court that blocked the ban due to free speech concerns. The judges argued the song’s creator intended it to stir anti-government sentiment.

The ruling carries major implications for internet freedom and companies like online platforms and tech giants such as Google. The judges wrote an order was needed to pressure internet firms into removing problematic videos containing the song. While the companies didn’t participate, they said they would comply with a court directive. Google is reviewing the ruling after previously refusing to alter search results about China’s anthem.

Critics argue banning “Glory to Hong Kong” constitutes the latest blow to Hong Kong’s reputation as a city that once proudly safeguarded an independent judiciary and the free exchange of information and ideas. The US State Department expressed rights concerns, saying the prohibition damages Hong Kong’s standing as a defender of sharing information, concepts, and goods freely.

The former British territory reverted to China in 1997 with the agreement its freedoms would continue under a “one country, two systems” framework. However, critics maintain Beijing has increasingly tightened control over Hong Kong. The protest song emerged in 2019 during major pro-democracy demonstrations and served as an unofficial national anthem, rather than China’s official one. The government appealed last July’s lower court decision that refused a ban, citing potential curbs to free expression.