The Prince's station was arrested 48 hours after the show: The Tang Wing case pushed the "live story" into Hong Kong's sedition border.

A journalist was standing outside the Hong Kong Iron Prince station, and there were people with flowers and yellow umbrellas. A month later, the live report became part of the ANP operation.

On the morning of 30 September, Tang Chun-Yung, founder of the independent online media, was arrested by the State Security Service of Hong Kong. The police alleged that the case involved “incitement with the intent to commit an act of incitement” and linked the investigation to the memorial service outside the Prince's station on 31 August. He was arrested at the same time as activist Lee Yingzhi. Don was granted bail after being detained for nearly 48 hours.

The legal significance of this case is more than one short arrest: according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, this was the first case of a known journalist arrested for inciting charges following the enactment of the National Security Ordinance of 2024.

The police are tracking a memorial with flowers, umbrellas and live footage

31 August marks the seventh anniversary of the Prince's station police operation in

1. During the anti-regime campaign, riot police entered the Hong Kong train and used batons and pepper spray uniforms and arrested many people. Since then, every year, civilians have been gravitating around the station to hold the police responsible for the use of force that night.

On 31 August this year, the Prince was again accompanied by flowers, yellow umbrellas and political slogans. Boom News made live reports. The police subsequently arrested the persons in three rounds, and as of 1 October eight persons had been arrested in this group.

The police stated that the so-called “831 incident” was used to disseminate false information, attack the Government and discredit the police force, and that the act in question could constitute incitement. HRW noted that the live images of the year showed police using batons and pepper sprays after entering the station and the car, while Hong Kong has not yet conducted an independent investigation into the use of force by the police during the protests of 2019.

The key question of Tang Yong-won: Does a journalist record people talking and become his own criminal act

The Hong Kong political and social news is mainly covered by the Tang Wing-Yong Boom News, which is based on social platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. His presentation was based on live broadcasts rather than on edited articles in traditional newspapers.

This raises a direct press law question: if the view of the government is expressed on the ground that the government has identified as incitement, and journalists point the camera at the scene and disseminate it in real time, will the police regard “record” as the same thing as “dissemination of incitement”?

After Tang was arrested, the Hong Kong Journalists Association requested the police to publicly state the specific alleged violations and to clarify whether the arrest was directly related to journalism. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists, in its turn, stressed that “reporting is not incitement”, and called for the cessation of criminal investigations to intimidate journalists.

The police have not yet published enough details of which sentence, which live action or which editorial decision of Don constitutes a crime. Thus, the chilling effect of the case has already been pre-dated by the court decision: the next time a journalist encounters a sensitive slogan in the street, the first consideration is not just the value of the news, but whether the camera will bring himself into the national security investigation.

The danger of a new incitement is not to demand violence

The Protection of National Security Ordinance, passed in 2024, expands the sedition system. Under the current law, the offence is punishable by up to seven years ' imprisonment. Human rights organizations noted that the crime of incitement did not require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to create violence, but could be conducted around expressions of Government that were accused of “incitement, contempt or defection”.

This makes the press particularly vulnerable. The profession of journalist would have included recording people, slogans and events that the Government did not like. If the law considers the dissemination of these elements as a potential incitement in itself, the boundary between “press value” and “criminal risk” is no longer determined by professional editors but by the law enforcement agencies of the State security.

Hong Kong has already experienced the closure of Apple Daily and Position News, and Le Chi Ying and many journalists have been imprisoned for long periods. The Tang Chun case further shifts risk from large media outlets to individualized small online media: even without large offices, printers or large editorial offices, an independent journalist who works on mobile phones and social platforms can also enter the security enforcement of the State.

Bail isn't over

The release on bail of Tang Wing meant that he was temporarily released from custody, but the investigation was not terminated. Others who had been arrested for the same Prince's Day commemoration were released on bail.

What is really needed is the next step of the police prosecution and, if so, how the prosecution will define the legal distinction between journalists and participants on the ground. If the political expression of others is ultimately “inciting” to live, film and report, the remaining independent journalists in Hong Kong will face a red line that is almost impossible to prejudge.

The Prince Station incident of 2019 was originally about the use of force and accountability of the police. Seven years later, the focus of public discussion became who could give flowers, who could tell memories and who could point the camera at the scene. If a Government that is unwilling to accept an independent investigation into the conduct of the police is using national security laws to track down those who preserve memory and record the scene, then the law is protected not first and foremost by the facts, but by the official power to interpret them.