Publication on Trial: Which Articles Brought Down Apple Daily?
News, commentary, entertainment, sedition?
When six Apple Daily editors were arrested in June 2021 under Hong Kong’s national security law, Hong Kong police asserted that articles in the newspaper were suspected of containing appeals for sanctions targeting Hong Kong and China, a claim that left observers speculating on which pieces of content would be used as evidence in the case to follow. On November 22, 2022, the six defendants pleaded guilty to a foreign collusion charge under the national security law, with sentencing due to take place after Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai’s national security trial comes to a conclusion.
The summary of facts in the case of the six editors sheds more light on a question that was left unclear at the time of their arrests: which newspaper articles were used to charge them with national security offences? Coming on the heels of the trial of two former Stand News editors several weeks ago, the summary offers another window into how the national security law is being applied to media organizations. In an annex to the summary, prosecutors list approximately 160 pieces of content that was published by Apple Daily between 1 April, 2019, and 24 June, 2021, the latter date being remembered as the newspaper’s final day of publication.
The national security law came into effect on 30 June, 2020, without retroactive effect, but prosecutors have often referenced events that took place before its enactment when attempting to demonstrate a pattern of behavior leading up to the alleged crimes.
In fact, the summary asserts that Apple Daily was used as a platform for publishing seditious content beginning in 2014. “Since at least the Occupy Central Movement which took place in 2014, Lai became a public and vocal figure who frequently advocated his political position and views to the public, including with the use of Apple Daily as [a] platform,” the document reads. The summary goes on to say that Lai’s political position was a matter of public record which was clearly known to the six editors at the heart of this case, who continued to conspire with Lai regardless of this knowledge.
It is at this stage that the document’s timeline skips ahead to April 2019, where the list of offending articles finds its starting point. It will be helpful to summarise some fast facts. Among the approximately 160 pieces of content listed:
• 76 were published before the enactment of the national security law on June 30, 2020, while 85 were published after the law’s enactment.
• 110 were published in Chinese, 23 were published in English and 28 were published in both languages.
• 63 were presented as news articles, 61 were presented as commentaries or columns and 20 were published in the editorial section of the newspaper.
• Nine pieces of content were videos, eight of which were interviews with or statements made by Jimmy Lai.
• Seven pieces of content were advertisements or graphics.
In the sixty-odd instances where a news article is listed as evidence, a recurring pattern can be observed. After listing the title and the date of publication, prosecutors use the phrase “despite its appearance as a news article,” before going on to describe how the content deviates from news reporting. In many examples, the document asserts that the offending content actually served as an appeal to the public to take part in a particular protest, served to incite hatred against the Hong Kong police or against the Chinese central government, or served to praise acts of violence during the 2019 social unrest.
As the timeline enters 2020 and the unrest subsides, the focus shifts. In reference to an article dated 11 August, 2020, the day after the first police operation at Apple Daily headquarters, the offending words are described as follows: “The content expressly appealed for the unlawful activities of Apple Daily to be continued.”
On February 2, 2021, as Jimmy Lai’s eligibility for bail was being considered by Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, Apple Daily’s news article on the proceedings was singled out for including details about his “personal circumstances, including alleged tooth pain and high blood pressure of Lai whilst he was in custody. The content purported to engage public support and sympathy for Lai.”
The pattern of calling into question whether Apple Daily’s news coverage was truly news continues throughout the document, until the final offending article is listed. This article, published on Apple Daily’s final day of operations on June 24, 2021, is described thus:
“Despite its appearance as a news article, the content purported to justify the unlawful activities of Apple Daily by recognizing the public support for Apple Daily. The content also reported that persons attended the Apple Daily premises to say farewell to Apple Daily, and quoted various groups or entities alleging that the cessation of operations of Apple Daily would not stop dissident voices against the regime.”
In many examples, the fact that Jimmy Lai promoted a certain piece of content on Twitter is also used to support the assertion that a particular article, despite being described as news, actually had another purpose. “Further,” the summary reads, “Lai’s Twitter account contained English content with tagging or interaction with external elements, including various political figures, representatives, agents of and/or persons affiliated with the US, UK, Japan, the Taiwan region, etc.”
Like the summary of facts in Andy Li’s case, this summary actually devotes just as much, if not more attention, to Jimmy Lai himself, with the six editors being portrayed as supporting characters in a criminal conspiracy. Apart from providing illustrative detail on the articles which proved to be Apple Daily’s undoing, this case also paints a clearer picture of the accusations that can be expected to be leveled against Jimmy Lai when his national security trial gets underway on 1 December. With only days to go until then, the court battle over Lai’s hiring of an overseas lawyer to represent him in the case is not yet over. The Court of Final Appeal is scheduled to hear arguments over that dispute on 25 November. Readers are advised to pay close attention.