> Let's see how they explain their trumpist ties
The fact that they would need to explain such ties, even if they existed, before a court is part of the problem.
The fact that they would need to explain such ties, even if they existed, before a court is part of the problem.
Because things like that do happen in US courts, and it would be very easy to go to jail if you had such associations and did things that would normally be protected, such as leaking national secrets or knowingly publishing false information, that would then be seen as national security infractions.
You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK. In pretty much all of the world coordinating with geopolitical enemies puts you in hot water.
Actually, coordinating with some Russian or Chinese officials is literally illegal in the US because of sanctions and may put you in jail, since it seems money was involved.
[citation needed]
As a matter of law they are forced to disclose these associations and subject to penalty if they do not. That can include criminal charges to individuals and has, during the Cold War, to people who "didn't disclose".
I thought this was common knowledge?
And NSL has immediate seizure of all assets, forcing Apple Daily to close immediately. Anything like that in the US?
The US legal system in this case uses extreme selective enforcement. There is no need for it to be corrupted, the executive holds all of the power because it decides who to ignore and who to punish, and indeed it wields this power very selectively. So the end result is the same as if the judicial system was corrupt.
Has any company in the past decade been forced out of business by FARA before trial? Any case from among this list? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases
Not apples to apples.
None of the prominent cases (during cold war or not) has forced any company out of business [0]. Some companies/individuals were required to register, and a few were fined, but nothing as drastic as you claimed. (“they could completely financially deprive the organization”)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...
And China Global Television Network was forced to register as a foreign agent in 2018 due to FARA. The fact that it is still running today in the US, without having all its assets seized, speaks a lot about how HK’s NSL is much harsher than US’s FARA.
Your comparison doesn’t hold at all.
The Peace Information Center was dissolved as a result of a FARA lawsuit. Individuals were eventually found not guilty, but not before 8 years of being banned from travel.
Wikipedia doesn't mention the dissolution of the PIC, which is an example of why you should not treat Wikipedia articles as exhaustive. If they state something, it's likely true, but the converse is incorrect. There is even a warning to this extent somewhere on Wikipedia.
It’s incorrect to blame the travel ban on FARA (and executive power), since the passing of the McCarran-Walter Act had Senate’s support after Du Bois was arrested.
Peace Information Center didn’t dissolve due to financial issues. (BTW, your earlier claim “FARA in the US would allow for unlimited fines” is also incorrect. Hefty, but far from unlimited, and easily covered by HK protesters [2], although financing Apple Daily is now banned by the HK NSL, which is another difference to FARA). That’s quite a bit different from the Apple Daily case, which dissolves because its assets were fully seized.
Was PIC dissolve due to the lawsuit? Probably. If Apple Daily (or CGTN or RT) were hit by FARA today like PIC did, would Apple Daily dissolve? Unlikely.
Equating US FARA to HK NSL would be wrong. HK NSL is way harsher. It’s like equating the freedom of press in the US and in China. Huge difference, even if the laws on their own look similar on paper.
[1] https://www.aaihs.org/surveillance-state-power-and-the-activ...
[2] https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/579210/612%E5%9F%BA%...
It was only mere 2 years ago when Hong Kong courts decided against the government when they tried to implement emergency measures against wearing masks to quell the uprisings. (This almost led to disaster due to almost-overreaction from NPCSC... which is one of the reasons why judges are less willing to challenge the government now...)
You can argue that NSL courts have judges specifically appointed for the role by the Hong Kong government, but it's still rather comparable to most other legal systems where head of state or the government appoints judges. The US president appoints judges. This in itself doesn't make those judges "tightly controlled"...
If the HK courts give an unfavorable verdict, the CCP can always transfer the case to the courts of mainland China, per Article 55 of the NSL.
(People’s Daily made such a threat a few months ago when the high court granted Jimmy Lai bail, which was later overturned by the final court. [0])
It’s like saying that I will flip a fair coin, but I will keep flipping and only accept the last outcome when it turns up head. Not biased at all!
Now tell me again it’s not tightly controlled.
[0] https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-struggle-over-jimmy-lais...
Not really. News agencies publish leaked classified national secrets all the time and freely publish false information without penalty.
News cannot steal the information, i.e. hacking into the Pentagon would be off limits (which is why Julian Assange is wanted), but if someone else steals it, they can publish it. Publishing stuff in Wikileaks documents is not illegal.
Foreign journalists freely operate in the USA. RT certainly has an anti-American agenda. It gets to criticize and claim and publish false information and yes, even report leaked national secrets.
So yes, in court, it was decided whether or not RT was an agent of the Russian government, which is exactly the question at had in the post I was replying to.
This is not actually applied since the end of the Cold War, but legally per the Foreign Agents Registration Act if you don't register as a foreign agent despite being one, even without being notified you should, you are committing a crime can be convicted.
So, for example, being in contact with Xi Jinping or his lackeys and engaging in political action without registering as a foreign is actually a crime. And yes, people were prosecuted for that. But that's beyond even the point that I was stating, as a matter of FARA a court can and does inquire about that.
RT is not right now being pursued for it, but people in the US can be pursued for doing things such as lying or leaking national secrets, ie things that would normally be protected under the first amendment, if they are doing so in furtherance of the goals of a foreign government without registering officially beforehand.
For a recent case, see the case of Elliot Brodly which was found guilty for engaging in lobbying for a foreign government.
These laws in the US are very, very selectively enforced. The lack of prosecution of a certain entity doesn't mean anything. BBC reporters in the US are technically committing a federal offense by not registering as foreign agents, but the government will never prosecute them for that. RT, on the other hand, was forced to register, and WEB Dubois was prosecuted for even less on the same laws.
Update: I found it https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/legal-authority
But FARA is for from the National Security Law in HK. No immediate seizure of all assets as in the case of HK Apple Daily. And US has a robust legal system for disputes, unlike the NSL court in HK that is tightly controlled by the CCP. You cannot discuss just the specific law without discussing the legal system as a whole.
The US may have a robust legal system, but in the case of FARA this is completely undermined by the executive branch. What the US gains in judicial independence, it loses in sélective enforcement. The end result is that the US government can selectively shut down foreign agents and jail them, just like the Chinese government.
There's no need to compromise the judiciary when the law is there black on white, by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand, you can go to jail for years. It's just that it's so selectively enforced that you could arrest a random BBC journalist for the exact same reasons.
[citation needed]
Many people still don’t know the exact reason why Apple Daily was charged a few days ago under the NSL.
https://theinitium.com/article/20210618-opinion-hk-what-does...
> 但「串謀」計劃到底是什麼計劃？「串謀」和「正常新聞工作」之間的界線到底是什麼？有哪些具體的文章能成為證據？是評論文章還是報導中引用的受訪者的話？證據如果還未蒐集到位為何就能實施拘捕？⋯⋯對此局方一概沒有交代，畢竟，案件還處在「調查階段」，而永遠是說不清也不能說清楚的「國家安全」超然凌駕所有程序。
https://beta.thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%89%E6...
> 保安局局長李家超及國安處高級警司李桂華會見傳媒時，均沒有交代涉案數十篇呼籲制裁中國及香港的文章題目、具體內容為何
Can you elaborate, according to the NSL and the official statements, why Apple Daily was charged this time?
In fact, the official statements from a few days ago didn’t mention Jimmy Lai at all, contrary to your claim (by doing what Jimmy Lai allegedly did in the US without disclosing it beforehand).
11 hours ago you argued in another thread [1] as if you knew a lot about Apple Daily and HK law. But apparently not so anymore.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27587603
> Turn it around, if a newspaper in the US was asked to explain ties to Xi Jinping or Putin before a court would that be of note? […] You can argue that it's a bad thing, but this isn't something unieq to HK.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27588235
> If Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai had no contact at all with foreign agents, it would have applied unambiguously.
I argued that courts caring about foreign affiliations of media is not unique to Hong Kong. And indeed it isn't, it happened in the US just a few months ago and apparently no one cared.
If you're not disputing that FARA gives the US government the ability to oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive, I don't understand our disagreement.
Because of the first amendment (that you completely missed).
CGTN and RT are alive and kicking in the US, despite the FARA. Did they dissolve like the Apple Daily?
Didn’t Tiktok survive Trump’s ban a year ago? (That’s an executive order, not FARA, but that doesn’t matter when we are talking about executive power and the legal system.) Numerous argued against it on the grounds of free speech. [1][2]
“oust or imprison foreign news organizations at the total discretion of the executive”? Are you sure?
[1] https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2020/09/trumps-ban-tik...
[2] https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-bans-tiktok-wech...