The , song , can no longer get broadast or performed” with legal intent”, or disseminated or reproduced on , online- based , platforms, though the lawsuit contained exceptions for “academic action and news activity”– a adapt the government made after earlier questioning by judges.
The assessment said an injunction purchase was “necessary” because , internet , system operators “indicated that they are willing to adhere to the Government’s demand if there is a courtroom order”.  ,  ,
Business class Asia , Internet , Coalition, representing it gians such as Google and Spotify, said it was assessing the implications of the choice” to ascertain its impact on businesses”.  ,
” We believe that a complimentary and open , internet , is essential to the state’s ambitions to become an international technology and innovation hub”, said the team’s managing director Jeff Paine.
Shortly after the decision was handed down, Beijing officials said the restrictions was a “necessary” for” supporting national protection”.
TOO MANY Solutions TO POLICE WHOLE Online
Hong , Kong- based security expert Anthony Lai explained that if a platform was to agree with the ban, they would have to maintain the , song , may include a , Hong , Kong , IP address or , Hong , Kong , users cannot access the , song.
” 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”, Lai told AFP.  ,
After the ban was announced, a few YouTube links of the , song ,– listed in Wednesday’s judgement document– appeared to be inaccessible, though many others remained up.
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”.
Amnesty International’s director for China, Sarah Brooks, decried the ban as , “ludicrous” and “dangerous”, representing” a senseless attack on Hongkongers ‘ freedom of expression” which “violates international human rights law”.  ,
The ban was also criticized by the United States, with State Department spokesman Matthew Miller claiming it was” the most recent blow to a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas, and goods.”
Since 2020, after the protests were quashed and Beijing’s national security law enacted, public dissent has largely been absent. The bulk of pro- democracy activists and opposition politicians have either been arrested, silenced, or fled , Hong , Kong.  ,