Nice strawman. Where's your nuance?
You think he wasn't condemned because he expressed pro-democracy view and this is not a speech issue?
I would like to read it rather than vague call for nuance.
The charge of colluding with foreign governments is blowing his actions way out of proportion so as to artificially inflate the severity of his "crime" for political reasons. We can argue that?
We could also argue that the reason the CPC is doing this is to suppress any Hong Kong self-determinist agitation?
Is anything I've said disagreeable on the premise of them being strawmen?
I don't think anything you said is a strawman though. You can of course argue whether that's right or wrong or how it fits into the greater whole. That's showing nuance. You can come to it with your own opinions and feelings but it's another thing to approach with a predetermined idea of what happened that is nothing like what happened.
I mean, originally you only complained about the hyperbole and lack of nuances, there wasn't even anything that implied you agreed with the conviction, let alone the rationale.
Like the charges themselves seem hyperbolic to me.