A Hong Kong man, Pun Tak-shu, has been found guilty of inciting violence against former city leader Carrie Lam through a social media post. The District Court ruled that Pun’s remarks on Facebook in February 2020 could not be considered a joke, despite his claims that he did not think anyone would take them seriously.
The judge, Stanley Chan, highlighted the politically charged atmosphere in Hong Kong in 2020, following the protests over the extradition bill and the passing of the national security legislation. He emphasized that Pun’s post could have had a “multiplier effect” once shared by his audience, which included people from outside Hong Kong.
Pun’s defense argued that he did not intend to incite violence and that his comments were meant to stimulate discussion rather than promote actual harm. However, the judge rejected this argument, stating that Pun had downplayed his intentions and had two years to clarify the nature of his post before his arrest in April 2022.
The prosecution presented evidence that Pun’s post received 43 comments, 16 likes, and restricted access for some individuals. Pun also replied to comments suggesting the use of firearms to harm the former leader. The judge concluded that Pun’s actions, regardless of whether they actually incited violence, constituted an offense under the law.
Carrie Lam’s governance in 2020 was a point of contention for Pun, who believed that his dissatisfaction was shared by many Hongkongers. The judge noted that Pun’s desire for harm against the chief executive, whether through injury or illness, was genuine and not to be taken lightly.
As Pun awaits sentencing next Monday, the case highlights the complex nature of freedom of expression in a politically charged environment. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries that individuals must adhere to when expressing dissent or criticism, particularly in the age of social media where words can have far-reaching consequences. It also underscores the ongoing tensions in Hong Kong between pro-democracy activists and the authorities, as well as the impact of national security legislation on civil liberties in the city.
