ARTICLE 19 condemns Hong Kong’s targeting of pro-democracy activist Chow Kim-ho, and the recent court decision to hand down a prison sentence in retaliation for his online expression.
On 8 April 2025, a court in Hong Kong convicted Chow Kim-ho, 57, a former member of the pro-democracy group League of Social Democrats, to one year in prison on sedition charges as punishment for his comments on social media. Chow Kim-Ho pleaded guilty to the single count of ‘knowingly publishing publications that had a seditious intention’, a charge under section 24 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, enacted last year. National security laws in Hong Kong have increasingly been weaponised to criminalise free expression. Chow Kim-ho should be immediately and unconditionally released.
ARTICLE 19’s Head of Global China Programme Michael Caster, commented:
‘Once again Hong Kong authorities have shown that these laws have nothing to do with the protection of national security but are merely tools in an ever-expanding arsenal to silence and intimidate free expression. In this climate of censorship, taking to social media to express your opinion and criticism of the government is an act of courage, whereas authorities’ imposition of criminal charges and sentences is nothing but base cowardice.’
The charge stems from 145 comments Chow Kim-ho posted across Facebook, Threads, and Instagram, in which he accused Beijing of being a ‘terrorist state’ and ‘evil axis power’, called Hong Kong authorities a ‘murderous and authoritarian regime,’ among other comments. He was arrested on 12 November 2024.
The crime of sedition in Hong Kong traces back to the colonial era, but Hong Kong authorities have increasingly used existing laws to imprison Hong Kongers for their expression. For example, in 2022, they sentenced Tam Tak-chi to 40 months in prison for ‘uttering seditious words’ and, in 2023, convicted Mika Yuen, 23, for Facebook and Instagram posts she made while based in Japan. However, the inclusion of sedition offences with far harsher sentencing under the 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance has raised serious concerns among advocates for free expression around the globe.
Enacted in 2024, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance introduced charges for treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets, and espionage, with charges carrying maximum penalties of life imprisonment. It permits a court to deny defendants access to a lawyer in national security cases. Furthermore, it builds on the 2020 National Security Law (NSL), which introduced broad and vaguely defined prohibitions on secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, also carrying maximum penalties of life imprisonment.
Article 43 of the NSL grants authorities the power to, among other things, search and seize electronic devices, conduct surveillance, and order the deletion of information. An Implementation Rule for Article 43 clarifies censorship powers where online content is deemed a potential violation of the NSL, stating that police may order the deletion of content or block the publisher of the content, the platform service provider, hosting service provider and/or network service provider from having access to the content. Hong Kong authorities have used these powers to target and intimidate internet intermediaries, such as with the Glory to Hong Kong injunction in May 2024, in which the High Court ordered YouTube to block several versions of the pro-democracy protest anthem.
‘One question hanging over internet freedom in Hong Kong is how far the authorities will go in waging this spurious charge against so-called seditious content online. Will they go after internet intermediaries next? Certainly, if it comes to that, we expect a unified message from social media platforms that they will not cave in to arbitrary content takedown requests. With each fresh assault on the freedom of expression, platforms have a responsibility to renew their human rights due diligence. We are way beyond business as usual,’ said Michael.
ARTICLE 19 calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Chow Kim-ho, and for Hong Kong authorities to uphold freedom of expression in line with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
For more information:
Michael Caster, Head of Global China Programme, [email protected]