
The Guardian reported on Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai’s National Security Law trial on August 20, 2025. Defense lawyer Robert Pang emphasized that supporting freedom of speech and human rights is not wrong and argued that attempting to persuade the government to change policies is also legal. However, Judge Esther Toh noted that criticizing the government through improper means could constitute a violation. The prosecution accused Lai of repeatedly using his founded newspaper Apple Daily and international contacts to actively seek foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong, claiming his reporting aimed to incite foreign interference.
Lai denied any intention to incite foreign sanctions, stressing that his reporting was meant to criticize government policies, not directly call for foreign action. He stated he never asked foreign governments to take specific measures against China or Hong Kong. The prosecution, however, noted that Lai’s contacts with international political figures and his media coverage could be seen as indirectly calling for foreign interference. The trial has lasted over 140 days, with a verdict expected later this year after closing arguments.
It is noteworthy that South China Morning Post (SCMP) presents a markedly different perspective. SCMP emphasizes that Lai “used a false portrayal of Beijing to urge the West to act,” highlighting the potential threat to national security and reflecting a perspective more aligned with official views. In contrast, The Guardian focuses on the defense’s arguments, highlighting freedom of speech and human rights, reflecting international concern.
The case, particularly regarding its impact on Hong Kong’s freedom of speech and press, has drawn international attention. Supporters view it as a significant challenge to Hong Kong’s democratic values, emphasizing the need to respect basic rights to free expression and press freedom. The Hong Kong government insists that Lai’s actions constitute a threat to national security and emphasizes that they are handling the case in accordance with the law.