文 / MingSir
在2020年6月30日《香港国安法》正式实施之后，香港社会的政治气候骤然改变。就在这部法律生效仅数小时内，首批抗议者被逮捕，紧接着，香港最具代表性的民主派媒体人之一、壹传媒创办人黎智英被拘捕、起诉，并最终长时间被囚。
人们不禁要问：如果没有这部法律，黎智英是否依然会被判刑？
一、国安法之前，香港司法有“界限”
黎智英并非一个“突然冒出”的反对派人物。从90年代起，他就以壹周刊、苹果日报为平台，不断批评中共政权，呼吁民主普选，支持六四平反。
在过去，尽管香港社会政治争议不断，但黎智英从未因其言论而被长期监禁。最多是因游行未经批准而被短暂起诉；他的报纸可以合法刊登批评中共的社论；他的企业虽然备受打压，但不至于被“冻结资产”。
这正是香港法治的传统底线：表达不同政见不等于犯罪。
二、国安法的真正功能是“制度性清除异见”
黎智英如今被定罪的核心罪名，是“勾结外国势力”、“危害国家安全”，这些是《国安法》专属的政治性罪名。
没有这部法律，香港普通刑事法根本无法容纳这种“因思想而判刑”的框架。旧法律如“非法集结”、“煽动他人游行”等，顶多是罚款或短期监禁。不会有“冻结资金、查封报社、断绝传媒平台”这类全面剥夺政治声音的做法。
国安法所带来的，不只是对黎智英的打击，更是一种“寒蝉效应”的示范。
三、如果没有国安法……
黎智英也许会因抗争活动被起诉
他可能因为参加未经批准的游行或言论被短暂羁押，但最终不会面临多年刑期。
苹果日报也许仍在运作
即便受到商业压力与政府敌意，苹果日报依然可能凭借市场和舆论支撑存在。
而不是像2021年那样被突然查封、员工集体被捕、新闻资料全数扣押。
更重要的，是“批评政府的权利”不会如此快速消失
一部法律，改变了一个城市的气质——从“不一定同意你，但会保护你说话的权利”，变成“只要你说话不对，就怀疑你通敌”。
四、黎智英的审判，是言论自由的“受难叙事”
黎智英也许并不完美，他有商人的强硬，也有媒体人的情绪；但无论人们对他看法如何，都必须承认：
他是因为“敢于发声”而被迫噤声，
是因为“试图坚持旧香港价值”而被当作“新体制的反面教材”。
在一个仍然可以讲道理的社会里，这样的人不应成为“阶下囚”，而应该被看作——制度底线的提醒者。
五、我们该记住的，不只是黎智英的名字
在黎智英之后，还有更多无名者因为举起横幅、在Telegram发文、印制传单而入狱。他们没有报纸，没有国际关注，甚至没有人记得他们曾为这个城市做过什么。
如果没有国安法，也许他们现在还在街头奔跑，还在做梦。
我们不能让这样的梦，彻底被一纸法律终结。
What If the National Security Law Had Never Existed?
By MingSir
On June 30, 2020, the National Security Law (NSL) for Hong Kong came into effect. Within hours, the first protesters were arrested. Shortly after, Jimmy Lai, founder of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, was detained and later sentenced.
This leads us to an important question: Would Jimmy Lai still be imprisoned if the NSL had never existed?
1. Before the NSL, Hong Kong Had Boundaries
Jimmy Lai wasn’t an overnight dissident. Since the 1990s, he had openly criticized the Chinese Communist regime, advocated for universal suffrage, and supported the remembrance of the Tiananmen Square massacre through his media outlets like Apple Daily and Next Magazine.
Even though political tensions had long existed in Hong Kong, Lai was never imprisoned for his opinions. He might have been fined or briefly detained for participating in unauthorized demonstrations, but never long-term imprisonment. His newspapers operated legally, even as they faced government pressure.
That’s because freedom of expression was a protected line in Hong Kong’s legal system—until it was erased.
2. The NSL as a Tool for Silencing Dissent
The charges now placed upon Jimmy Lai—such as “colluding with foreign forces” and “endangering national security”—were made possible only by the NSL.
Without this law, there was no legal framework to criminalize such forms of expression. Existing Hong Kong laws could perhaps charge him with “unauthorized assembly” or minor violations, but they lacked the weight and ambiguity that the NSL introduced.
The NSL’s true function is to legitimize political repression in legal disguise.
3. If the NSL Didn’t Exist…
Jimmy Lai might still face minor legal challenges
He could have been prosecuted for protest-related incidents but would likely not face years in prison.
Apple Daily might still be publishing
Despite mounting pressures, the paper might have survived through market and public support—rather than being shut down overnight, with staff arrested and assets frozen.
Most importantly: the right to criticize the government would not have disappeared overnight
The shift from “I may disagree with you, but I’ll defend your right to speak” to “You will be silenced if you speak wrongly” has happened under the cover of law.
4. Jimmy Lai’s Trial: A Narrative of Punishing Speech
Jimmy Lai was not imprisoned for violence, theft, or corruption. He was punished for insisting on speaking and believing that Hong Kong’s core values should not be negotiated away.
Regardless of how one views his personality or business practices, it is undeniable:
He was imprisoned not for what he did, but for what he represented.
5. Remembering More Than Just a Name
Lai is not the only one. Countless unnamed individuals have been imprisoned for posting messages in chat groups, printing flyers, or raising banners. They had no newspapers, no international spotlight, and no protection.
If the National Security Law had never existed, perhaps they would still be marching, still dreaming.
We must not let those dreams be extinguished by legislation.
请填写您的邮箱，免费订阅作者最新文章。
发表回复