Retired Hong Kong Man Sentenced for Inciting Violence Against Former Chief Executive

Recently, a sentence was handed down in a case of incitement to cause bodily harm. Mr. PUN TAK SHU, a 63-year-old retired man, was sentenced to 16 months in prison after being found guilty of inciting others with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This charge stemmed from inflammatory comments he posted on Facebook in 2020, targeting the then Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam. The core of this case lies in the incendiary nature of Mr. PUN's posts and their potential harm to society. Evidence provided by the prosecution showed that Mr. PUN's statements were not merely expressions of opinion, but dangerous speech with clear inciting intent. His posts used extremely provocative language, directly or indirectly calling for violence against Carrie Lam. The inciting nature of these comments is undeniable. Even without directly calling for specific actions, such speech is sufficient to exacerbate social tensions, cause public unrest, and potentially trigger actual violent incidents.

Mr. PUN's defense lawyer attempted to rationalize his statements as jokes or personal emotional venting, downplaying their social impact. However, in reviewing the case, the court carefully examined the content of Mr. PUN's posts, the timing of their publication, the social context, and their potential influence. In the judgment, the judge explicitly stated that the inciting nature of Mr. PUN's speech was the key factor in his conviction. The judge analyzed the words used by Mr. PUN and their potential implications in the social atmosphere at the time, concluding that his statements were sufficient to incite others to take violent action against Carrie Lam. The judge did not simply judge based on literal meanings but considered the inciting effects of these statements in the specific context of the social and political environment at the time.

In the verdict, the judge emphasized that freedom of speech is not absolute, and inciting violence is a clear criminal act. Even if no actual violent incidents occurred, the act of incitement itself constitutes a crime. Regardless of Mr. PUN's intentions, his statements posed a threat to social security and must therefore be subject to legal sanctions. The court's decision explicitly rejected the defense lawyer's arguments, pointing out that the inciting nature of his speech objectively existed and was not subjective speculation. The judge's ruling also emphasized the importance of maintaining social order and public safety while protecting freedom of speech.

The verdict in this case serves as an important warning, clearly pointing out the serious consequences of inciting speech. Such speech causes social unrest, exacerbates social conflicts, and can even lead to violent confrontations, endangering public safety. The court's decision emphasizes that while protecting freedom of speech, we must resolutely combat actions that incite violence, hatred, and disrupt social order.