Donald Trump’s low regard for the First Amendment’s freedom of the press and freedom of speech doesn’t mean the end of democracy, but without those guaranteed protections, a government’s desire to stifle dissent becomes real censorship and much worse.
Look at Hong Kong, the former British crown colony returned to China in 1997 with the solemn pledge that the new Communist Party masters in Beijing would, for 50 years, until July 1, 2047, leave the boisterous city alone: “Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law.”
Sounds pretty close to the another pledge, written 208 years earlier, in 1789: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While our rights still hold strong, the once-free people of Hong Kong have lost theirs, as the 50-year promise has been trashed decades early.
Jimmy Lai began publishing his Apple Daily newspaper in Hong Kong in 1995 under British rule and continued it when China took over in 1997. Having enough of his pro-democracy stands and criticism of the government, Lai was arrested in 2020 on phony charges and the Apple Daily paper and its website were closed down in 2021.
Lai is entering his fifth year in jail and is being tried for bogus allegations of colluding with foreigners to endanger national security and of conspiring with others to publish seditious materials. The 77-year-old diabetic is facing life imprisonment.
His testimony concluded this month and the prosecution and defense will be making their closing statements in August.
Last week, Lai’s final appeal to the court system to add a British lawyer, Tim Owen, to his defense was denied. Owen had initially been approved over the objection of the Hong Kong government. So the government went to the big bosses in Beijing, who decreed that, in fact, the Hong Kong government could forbid the lawyer. Easy enough to change the rules when needed. That settled that.
This was all reported in the London-based The Guardian and the response came from Hong Kong’s security minister, attacking The Guardian for “smearing remarks.”
So the free press (The Guardian) reporting on the subjection of the formerly free press (Lai) isn’t allowed in Hong Kong, which is supposed to be free until at least 2047.
Last October, candidate Donald Trump said he would help Lai: “But I’ll tell you, you say Jimmy Lai. That’s going to be so easy. I’ll get him out. There’s no reason for him being there right now except that [Chinese leader Xi Jinping] doesn’t respect Biden and Kamala.”
That would be great if Trump could make a phone call to free Lai. It would save the life of one man, but it wouldn’t bring back freedom to 7 million other people in Hong Kong. That will have to wait until all of China is free.
