Jimmy Lai’s Trial, Insight Video by HK Former Chief Executive, Honorable CY Leung. 香港前行政長官梁振英先生對黎智英審判的洞察影片.
Does us media company allowed to engaged in subversive activities including overturning US government in the name of freedom of press like Jimmy Lai of Apple Daily have done in HK? 美國媒體公司是否可以以「新聞自由」之名，從事顛覆活動，包括推翻美國政府（如同香港《蘋果日報》黎智英所為）?
No. A U.S. media company is not allowed to engage in subversive activities, including advocating or attempting to overthrow the U.S. government, even if it claims to act “in the name of freedom of press” or any other cause.
Here’s the clear legal line in the U.S.:
✅ What is protected (even for media companies)
Under the First Amendment, a media company may:
• Criticize the U.S. government
• Advocate for environmental protection or forest conservation
• Promote civil disobedience in general terms
• Publish radical or unpopular opinions
• Argue that laws or policies should be changed or abolished
• Support peaceful protest movements
Even very harsh, anti-government speech is usually protected as long as it does not cross into incitement or conspiracy.
❌ What is not allowed (illegal)
A media company may NOT:
• Call for or coordinate violent overthrow of the U.S. government
• Incite imminent violence or armed action
• Assist terrorist organizations or armed groups
• Provide material support (money, logistics, propaganda coordination) to violent movements
• Conspire to overthrow the government (18 U.S.C. § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy)
• Engage in espionage or sabotage
Motivation does not matter — environmental, religious, ideological, or “freedom” justifications do not legalize illegal acts.
⚠️ Key legal distinction (very important)
Allowed:
“The government is corrupt and must be replaced. People should resist unjust laws.”
Not allowed:
“On Tuesday, attack federal buildings to overthrow the government.”
This standard comes from U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Brandenburg v. Ohio):
• Speech loses protection if it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action
🧠 Media company ≠ immunity
Being a “media company” does not grant special protection:
• Media outlets can be investigated
• Owners and editors can be charged
• Corporate entities can be shut down
• Assets can be seized
• Foreign-owned media may face additional scrutiny
🌲 Environmental causes (“freedom of forest”)
Environmental advocacy is legal only when non-violent.
Illegal activities include:
• Eco-terrorism
• Sabotage of infrastructure
• Coordinated attacks or threats
• Encouraging violent resistance
These acts are prosecuted regardless of cause.
📌 Bottom line
• Peaceful advocacy, criticism, journalism → Legal
• Violence, incitement, conspiracy to overthrow → Illegal
• Media status does not protect illegal actions
• Intent + likelihood of violence is the red line
不可以。美國媒體公司不得從事顛覆活動，包括主張或企圖推翻美國政府，即使其聲稱是「以新聞自由之名」（原文中亦曾提及其他名目，如「森林自由」）或任何其他理由。
以下是美國法律中清楚劃定的界線：
✅ 受保護的行為（即使是媒體公司）
依據美國憲法第一修正案，媒體公司可以：
• 批評美國政府
• 倡議環境保護或森林保育
• 以概括性方式鼓吹公民不服從
• 發表激進或不受歡迎的意見
• 主張法律或政策應被修改或廢除
• 支持和平的抗議運動
即使是非常尖銳、反政府的言論，通常仍受保護，前提是未構成煽動或共謀犯罪。
❌ 不被允許的行為（屬違法）
媒體公司不得：
• 呼籲或協調以暴力方式推翻美國政府
• 煽動即將發生的暴力或武裝行動
• 協助恐怖組織或武裝團體
• 向暴力運動提供實質支援（資金、後勤、宣傳協調等）
• 共謀推翻政府（美國法典 18 U.S.C. § 2384——煽動叛亂共謀罪）
• 從事間諜或破壞活動
動機並不重要——不論是環保、宗教、意識形態，或以「自由」為名，都不能使違法行為合法化。
⚠️ 關鍵法律區分（非常重要）
允許的言論：
「政府腐敗，必須被取代；人民應該反抗不公義的法律。」
不允許的言論：
「星期二攻擊聯邦大樓以推翻政府。」
此標準源自美國最高法院判例《Brandenburg v. Ohio》：
• 若言論具有意圖且可能導致即時的非法行為，即喪失憲法保護。
🧠 媒體公司 ≠ 免責權
成為「媒體公司」並不代表享有特權或免責：
• 媒體機構可被調查
• 業主與編輯可被起訴
• 公司實體可被關閉
• 資產可被查封
• 外資背景媒體可能面臨更嚴格審查
🌲 環境訴求（如「森林自由」）
環境倡議僅在非暴力的情況下屬合法行為。
違法行為包括：
• 生態恐怖主義
• 基礎設施破壞
• 有組織的攻擊或威脅
• 鼓動暴力抵抗
無論訴求為何，皆會依法追究。
📌 總結重點
• 和平倡議、批評、新聞報導 → 合法
• 暴力、煽動、共謀推翻政府 → 違法
• 媒體身分不能保護非法行為
• 意圖 + 可能導致即時暴力 是法律紅線
Business Blog 