⸺兼论现代普世⼈权与威权治理逻辑的根本冲突

作者：Cooper Guan/《在野党》采访部记者
编辑：李晶 翻译：彭小梅

⼀､ ⼀场被重新定义的“新闻审判”

黎智英案并⾮普通的刑事案件 它更像是⼀场具有象征意义的政治审判｡

案件的核⼼争议，不仅是个⼈⾏为是否触法，⽽是新闻活动本身是否被定义为国家安全威胁｡在现代法治国家，新闻⾃由是权⼒监督的重要机制，⽽在威权政治结构中信息控制则被用作维持统治合法性的核⼼⼯具｡

黎智英的审判实际上反映了⼀个问题：当权⼒将自由⾔论视为⻛险时，法律是否仍然是法律，还是仅成为政治⼯具。

⼆､ 新闻⾃由的国际法基准与现实背离

国际社会对于新闻⾃由与表达⾃由有明确规范：

世界⼈权宣⾔ 第19条，明确保障思想､ 良⼼与表达⾃由 包括传播信息的权利｡

公⺠权利和政治权利国际公约 ICCPR，将新闻与⾔论⾃由列为核⼼基本权利｡

联合国⼈权理事会多次强调，国家安全不得成为压制媒体的模糊性理由｡

黎智英案所引发的争议，恰恰集中在以下⼏点：

首先，国家安全概念的⽆限扩张。新闻评论､ 国际交流被纳⼊“危害国家安全”的范畴｡

其次，法律的模糊性与追溯性适⽤，使⾏为⼈在事前难以判断合法边界｡

第三，本案程序公正的国际质疑。包括陪审制度变化､ 审理透明度下降等｡

当法律不再提供清晰预期时，新闻⼯作者⾯对的将不再是法律⻛险，⽽是制度性危险｡

三､ 威权信息治理，从内容管理到思想控制

黎智英案并不是孤⽴事件 ⽽是更⼤信息管控体系的⼀部分｡这⼀体系具有典型特征：

特征一，从“内容审查”升级为“意图审查”

不再仅关注具体信息真假 ⽽是追究观点⽴场与其产生的潜在影响｡

特征二，从“违规处罚”转向“刑事化表达”

⾏政监管逐步升级为刑事指控 形成寒蝉效应｡

特征三，从“媒体管理”延伸⾄个⼈表达

普通公⺠的社交媒体⾔论也被纳⼊管控范围｡

这种模式的结果是： 新闻机构趋于⾃我审查；公共讨论空间急剧收缩；社会共识形成机制被削弱。最终，社会失去真实信息与理性讨论能⼒｡

四､ 新闻伦理的悖论，当追求真相成为⻛险

新闻职业伦理要求：独⽴调查、权⼒监督、公开讨论。但在被⾼度控制的信息环境中，这些职业要求反⽽可能成为⻛险来源｡

这产生⼀种结构性悖论，越专业､ 越独⽴的新闻⾏为，越可能被视为威胁｡⻓期来看，这影响将从传媒行业扩张至整个社会。使学术研究受限，创作表达萎缩，让公共政策失去反馈机制，最终损害国家治理本身的理性基础｡

五､ 法治的核⼼不是法律⽂本，⽽是权⼒边界

真正的法治，不取决于律的数量，⽽是看法律是否限制权⼒，法律是否保障少数派与异⻅者，法律是否具有可预期性。如果法律主要⽤于规范⾔论、定义思想、惩罚批评，那么它更接近“统治技术” ，⽽⾮现代意义上的法治｡

黎智英案引发的国际关注，本质上并⾮针对个案，⽽是对法律⼯具化趋势的系统性担忧｡

六､ 社会舆论的⻓远影响：信任结构的瓦解

新闻⾃由不仅是媒体⼈的权利 更是社会的公共资产｡

当公众意识到媒体⽆法独⽴报道、信息存在系统性过滤、表达可能带来⻛险，社会将出现三种长期不良后果：一是信任断裂，官⽅信息与⺠间认知脱节｡二是谣⾔⽣态化，真实信息缺失反⽽滋⽣谣⾔｡三是公共讨论极端化，中间理性空间消失｡这对任何社会的稳定与发展都是⻓期隐患｡

七､ 新闻⾃由不是特权，⽽是⽂明社会的基础设施

黎智英案，不仅关乎⼀个⼈的命运。当新闻成为罪名，社会失去的不只是记者，⽽是对现实的共同理解能⼒｡

现代社会的稳定，不来⾃沉默，⽽来⾃开放的信息流通、多元的意⻅表达、独⽴的监督机制。真正的强⼤，不是没有批评，⽽是能够容纳批评｡

新闻⾃由､ ⾔论⾃由与法治原则，并⾮⻄⽅或东⽅的专属价值，⽽是现代⽂明运⾏的基本条件｡当这些原则被侵蚀时，受损的不仅是媒体行业，更是整个社会的未来｡

When Journalism Becomes a Crime

The Systemic Collapse of Press Freedom and Rule of Law under Authoritarianism — Reflections from the Jimmy Lai Case

And the Fundamental Conflict Between Universal Human Rights and Authoritarian Governance

Author: Cooper Guan, Reporter, Interview Department, The Opposition PartyEditor: Li Jing Translator: Peng Xiaomei

I. A “Journalistic Trial” That Has Been Redefined

The Jimmy Lai case is not an ordinary criminal case. It more closely resembles a political trial with symbolic significance.

The central controversy of the case is not simply whether an individual’s actions violated the law. Rather, it concerns whether journalistic activity itself is being defined as a national security threat.

In modern rule-of-law societies, press freedom functions as an essential mechanism for checking power. In authoritarian political structures, however, information control becomes a core tool for maintaining the legitimacy of rule.

The trial of Jimmy Lai ultimately raises a deeper question:When those in power regard freedom of speech as a risk, does the law still remain law—or does it become merely a political instrument?

II. International Legal Standards on Press Freedom and Their Divergence from Reality

The international community has established clear norms regarding press freedom and freedom of expression.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and expression, including the right to disseminate information.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) identifies press and speech freedoms as fundamental rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Council has repeatedly emphasized that national security must not become a vague justification for suppressing the media.

The controversies surrounding the Jimmy Lai case focus on several key issues:

First, the unlimited expansion of the concept of national security.Journalistic commentary and international communication have been placed within the category of “endangering national security.”

Second, the ambiguity and retroactive application of legal provisions, making it difficult for individuals to determine the legal boundaries of their actions in advance.

Third, international concerns regarding procedural fairness, including changes to the jury system and reduced transparency in court proceedings.

When the law no longer provides clear expectations, journalists face not merely legal risk, but systemic institutional danger.

III. Authoritarian Information Governance: From Content Management to Thought Control

The Jimmy Lai case is not an isolated incident. It forms part of a broader system of information control.This system exhibits several defining characteristics:

Feature One: From “content censorship” to “intent censorship.”Authorities are no longer concerned only with whether information is true or false; they now scrutinize viewpoints and the potential influence of those viewpoints.

Feature Two: From “administrative penalties” to the criminalization of expression.Regulatory measures gradually escalate into criminal charges, producing a powerful chilling effect.

Feature Three: From “media regulation” to the control of individual expression.Even ordinary citizens’ speech on social media becomes subject to oversight.

The consequences of this model are profound:News organizations increasingly engage in self-censorship；Spaces for public discussion shrink rapidly；The mechanisms through which social consensus forms gradually weaken. Ultimately, society loses the ability to access reliable information and to conduct rational debate.

IV. The Ethical Paradox of Journalism: When Seeking Truth Becomes Risky

Professional journalistic ethics demand independent investigation, oversight of power, and open public discussion.Yet in a highly controlled information environment, these professional standards themselves may become sources of risk.

This creates a structural paradox: the more professional and independent journalistic activity becomes, the more likely it is to be perceived as a threat.Over time, the consequences extend beyond the media industry and spread across society as a whole.Academic research becomes constrained.Creative expression diminishes.Public policymaking loses its feedback mechanisms.Ultimately, this erodes the rational foundations of governance itself.

V. The Core of Rule of Law Is Not Legal Texts but the Limits of Power

True rule of law is not determined by the number of laws on the books. Instead, it depends on several fundamental questions:Do laws limit power?Do laws protect minorities and dissenters?Do laws provide predictability and clarity?If laws are primarily used to regulate speech, define thought, and punish criticism, then they resemble techniques of rule, rather than rule of law in the modern sense.The international concern surrounding the Jimmy Lai case is therefore not merely about a single individual. It reflects a broader anxiety about the systematic instrumentalization of law.

VI. The Long-Term Social Consequences: The Collapse of Trust Structures

Press freedom is not only the right of journalists—it is a public asset of society.When people realize that the media cannot report independently, that information is systematically filtered, and that expression itself may carry risks, several long-term consequences emerge:First, a breakdown of trust. Official narratives diverge sharply from public perceptions.Second, the ecology of rumors. When reliable information is scarce, misinformation spreads more easily.Third, the polarization of public debate. The space for rational, moderate discussion gradually disappears.All of these outcomes represent long-term threats to the stability and development of any society.

VII. Press Freedom Is Not a Privilege but the Infrastructure of Civilized Society

The Jimmy Lai case is not only about the fate of one individual.When journalism itself becomes a crime, society loses not only journalists but also its shared capacity to understand reality.

The stability of modern societies does not arise from silence. It arises from open flows of information, pluralistic expression of opinions, and independent oversight mechanisms.True strength does not mean the absence of criticism. It means the ability to tolerate criticism.

Press freedom, freedom of speech, and the rule of law are not values belonging exclusively to the West or the East. They are the basic conditions for the functioning of modern civilization. When these principles erode, the damage is not limited to the media industry—it affects the future of society as a whole.