The key distinction between this motion and former makes an attempt to take away content material is that it is a civil injunction, not a legal prosecution—which means it’s, at the least legally talking, nearer to a copyright takedown request. A platform may arguably be much less more likely to take a reputational hit if it removes the content material upon request.
Kwong believes this can certainly make platforms extra more likely to cooperate, and there have already been fairly clear indicators to that impact. In one listening to in December, the federal government was requested by the court docket to seek the advice of on-line platforms as to the feasibility of the injunction. The closing judgment this week says that whereas the platforms “have not taken part in these proceedings, they have indicated that they are ready to accede to the Government’s request if there is a court order.”
“The actual targets in this case, mainly the tech giants, may have less hesitation to comply with a civil court order than a national security order because if it’s the latter, they may also face backfire from the US,” says Eric Yan-Ho Lai, a analysis fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law.
Lai additionally says now that the injunction is granted, will probably be simpler to prosecute a person primarily based on violation of a civil injunction somewhat than prosecuting somebody for legal offenses, because the authorities gained’t have to show legal intent.
The chilling impact
Immediately after the injunction, human rights advocates known as on tech corporations to stay dedicated to their values. “Companies like Google and Apple have repeatedly claimed that they stand by the universal right to freedom of expression. They should put their ideals into practice,” says Freedom House’s Wang. “Google and other tech companies should thoroughly document government demands, and publish detailed transparency reports on content takedowns, both for those initiated by the authorities and those done by the companies themselves.”
Without making their plans clear, it’s too early to know simply how tech corporations will react. But proper after the injunction was granted, the music largely remained accessible for Hong Kong customers on most platforms, together with YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify, based on the South China Morning Post. On iTunes, the music even returned to the highest of the obtain rankings just a few hours after the injunction.
One key issue that will nonetheless decide company cooperation is how far the content material removing requests go. There will certainly be extra movies of the music which might be uploaded to YouTube, to not point out impartial web sites internet hosting the movies and music for extra individuals to entry. Will the federal government go after every of them too?
The Hong Kong authorities has beforehand mentioned in court docket hearings that it seeks solely native restriction of the web content material, which means content material shall be inaccessible solely to customers bodily within the metropolis. Large platforms like YouTube can try this with out issue.