Image created by Oiwan Lam. Derived from image by Flickr user The People Speak. Used under a CC BY-NC 2.0 licence. Hong Kong's High Court adjourned to July 21 an injunction hearing on the government’s request to ban the distribution of the protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong.” Judge Wilson Chan Ka-shun asked the Department of Justice (DoJ) to clarify the definition of the defendant in a hearing of the government's injunction application on June 12. While the DoJ stressed in the court that the injunctions did not intend to target “the world at large,” the scope of the prohibition application is extensive and vague. In the DoJ’s writ, the defendant is written as “persons conducting themselves in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph 1(a), (b), (c) or (d) of the indorsement of claim.” The indorsement of claim cites the National Security Law (NSL), Sedition Law and National Anthem Ordinance as the legal base for the injunctions, which seek to restrain anyone from broadcasting, performing, printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, disseminating, displaying, or reproducing the protest song in any media form, including on the internet (a) with inciting secession or sedition intentions; and (b) to mislead others into taking the song as Hong Kong’s national anthem or to insult the national anthem. Moreover, the claim also covers acts that (c) assist, cause, procure, incite, aid, abet others, or (d) knowingly authorise, permit or allow others to commit the prohibited acts are also covered by the injunction order. Since the injunctions sought to restrain everyone in Hong Kong, the judge was concerned about how the DoJ could deliver the legal document to the defendant, thereby postponing the hearing so that the public could prepare for the defence. The Hong Kong government made a similar injunction attempt during the 2019 protests to prohibit anyone from posting and re-posting any information that promotes violence on online platforms, including LIHKG and Telegram. It also targeted any party who “aids” or “abets” others to commit unlawful acts. Back then, the Hong Kong Internet Society crowdfunded a judicial review because the injunction would undermine the city’s free flow of information as it anticipated that the government might use the injunction to force online platforms and ISPs to censor and restrict access to websites and applications or request private information of online users who are aiding the dissemination of the content. In the current case, the high court judge has given more time for the public to prepare for the defence; yet, after years of crackdowns on NGOs and crowdfunding activities, it is unlikely that any remaining civic group can stand up to defend the anthem in the court's hearing. The question regarding who the defendants are has lingered among concerned citizens since the DoJ filed the injunction. As stated in the government press release, the motivation for the injunction application is related to the recent national anthem mix-up and chaos in international events: …the Song has also been mistakenly presented as the “national anthem of Hong Kong” (instead of the correct one “March of the Volunteers”) repeatedly. This has not only insulted the national anthem but also caused serious damage to the country and the HKSAR. Both the Hong Kong government and pro-Beijing politicians have blamed Google, the major search engine, for “misleading” search results and causing confusion after the tech giant refused to manipulate the search result. Hence, many believe that the injunction is targeting Google. In 2022, the Hong Kong government requested Google remove 330 content items, among which 57 were related to national security. The company complied with about half of the requests. Although the lyrics of the protest song “Glory to Hong Kong” contain the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our time,” which was interpreted as inciting secession given the context of the protest in a court trial, the song is not illegal. The injunctions, once granted, may be cited as legal grounds for content removal requests. In the writ, the DoJ attached a list of 32 YouTube videos, which are different versions of the protest song.