HONG KONG - Hong Kong banned a protest song popular during massive pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019 on May 8 after a court judged Glory To Hong Kong was used as a “weapon” to incite violent protests.

The song grew popular during the protests, and was secretly recorded by an anonymous orchestra. Its defiant lyrics incorporate the key protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”.

Glory To Hong Kong is the first song to be banned in the former British colony since it was handed over to China in 1997.

The Hong Kong government’s first attempt to get an official injunction was refused by the High Court in 2023 in a surprise ruling, which said a ban could have a “chilling effect” on innocent third parties.

Angering the city’s government, the song has in recent years been played at several international sporting events, with event organisers mistaking it for the Chinese territory’s anthem.

Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous territory with no anthem of its own, and uses China’s March of the Volunteers.

The May 8 ban comes after a campaign by the city’s authorities against the song, which has seen them demand that it be removed from internet search results and content-sharing platforms – a request that has been largely rebuffed.

Reversing a lower court’s decision in 2023, appeal judge Jeremy Poon wrote in a judgment that the composer of the song had “intended it to be a ‘weapon’ and so it had become”.

“It had been used as an impetus to propel the violent protests plaguing Hong Kong since 2019. It is powerful in arousing emotions among certain fractions of the society,” he said.

The order would also stop a range of acts including broadcasting and performing the song “with criminal intent”.

The song can also no longer be disseminated or reproduced in any way on internet-based platforms, though the injunction contained exceptions for “academic activity and news activity” – a tweak the government made after earlier questioning by judges.

The judgment said an injunction order was “necessary” because internet platform operators “indicated that they are ready to accede to the government’s request if there is a court order”.

Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam insisted the ban did not hurt the city’s free speech.

“Free flow of information is of crucial importance to Hong Kong,” he said, adding “we are concerned with very specific unlawful behaviours”.

Mr Lam said the government “will communicate with relevant internet service providers, request or demand them to remove relevant content in accordance with the injunction order”.

The Asia Internet Coalition – an industry group that includes tech giants like Google, Apple, Spotify, and X – said it was assessing the implications of the decision “to determine its impact on businesses”.

“We believe that a free and open internet is fundamental to the city’s ambitions to become an international technology and innovation hub,” said the group’s managing director Jeff Paine.

Soon after the judgment was handed down, the Beijing authorities said the ban was a “necessary measure”.

“Stopping anyone from employing or disseminating the relevant song... is a legitimate and necessary measure by (Hong Kong) to fulfil its responsibility of safeguarding national security,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on May 8 during a regular briefing.

The case has been closely watched for how it would affect tech firms and internet platform operators – a concern that has been raised internationally over the free flow of information in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong-based cyber-security expert Anthony Lai explained that if a platform was to comply with the ban, it would have to make sure the song does not have a Hong Kong IP address or Hong Kong users cannot access the song.

But both ways would be as difficult as “pulling a cow to climb up a tree”, he said.

“I understand the government’s need to defend national security, but I worry it would take up too much of their resources to police the whole internet,” Mr Lai told AFP.

After the ban was announced, a couple of YouTube links of the song – listed in May 8’s judgment document – appeared to be inaccessible, though many others remained up.

“This video isn’t available anymore,” said one link.

In 2020, after the protests were quashed and Beijing’s national security law enacted, public dissent has largely been absent, and the bulk of pro-democracy activists and opposition politicians have either been arrested, silenced, or fled Hong Kong.

The Liberate Hong Kong slogan – embedded in the song – was deemed secessionist by the city’s courts in 2021, and since then the authorities have targeted musicians who performed it.

The city enacted a second national security law in 2024 – targeting major crimes including treason and insurrection – which foreign governments like the United States and Britain say would further undermine rights and freedoms. AFP