The lyrics of the song call for Hongkongers to fight for freedom and include the slogan “liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”. The slogan was later deemed by authorities to carry a secessionist meaning in the city’s first national security trial in 2021.

Secession is an offence under the Beijing-imposed national security law, and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2. What triggered the legal battle?

“Glory to Hong Kong” once topped search results for the query “Hong Kong national anthem” on Google.

Public officials subsequently met with Google to ensure the Chinese national anthem appeared as a top search result for certain keywords, but those talks were unsuccessful.

Authorities launched legal proceedings in June 2023, asking the city’s High Court to prevent those harbouring criminal intent from “broadcasting, performing, printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, disseminating, displaying or reproducing in any way” the anti-government song.

The injunction also targeted anyone that incited others to separate Hong Kong from mainland China, commit a seditious act or insult “March of the Volunteers”.

The court document listed YouTube videos of 32 versions of the protest song that could be found in breach of the intended injunction, including instrumental covers, as well as those sung in Mandarin, English, German, Dutch, Japanese and Korean.

3. What did the court say before and now?

In July last year, the Court of First Instance banned the government’s application after Mr Justice Anthony Chan Kin-keung found the intended ban would run counter to established criminal justice procedures and would not compel Google, based in the United States, to censor the song as the government wanted.

But the Court of Appeal said on Wednesday that it did not agree with his findings and reasoning on the utility of the injunction, the compatibility with the criminal law and its contra-mundum effect, or it applying to anyone.

The three judges concluded in the latest judgment that the composer of the song had indeed intended it to be a “weapon”.

“It has the effect of justifying and even romanticising and glorifying the unlawful and violent acts inflicted on Hong Kong in the past few years, arousing and rekindling strong emotions and the desire to violent confrontations,” the judgment read.

The judges added that the song, in the hands of those with the intention to incite secession, could arouse anti-establishment sentiment and belief in the separation of the city from the People’s Republic of China.

4. What exactly was banned?

The Court of Appeal judges said the injunction did not ban “Glory to Hong Kong” completely but only the criminal acts specified in the injunction.

The injunction bans “broadcasting, performing, printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, disseminating, displaying or reproducing in any way” the song with the intention to incite others to separate Hong Kong from the rest of the country, commit a seditious act or insult “March of the Volunteers”.

It also prohibits anyone from playing the song in a manner likely to cause it “to be mistaken as the national anthem insofar as the [Hong Kong Special Administrative Region] is concerned” or suggest the city “is an independent state and has a national anthem of her own”.

However, the order does not prohibit any “lawful acts” in connection with the song, such as its use in academia and journalism.

Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, a legal expert at the University of Hong Kong, said he found the court’s order to be clearly written, with sufficient detail to inform the public on what could and could not be done.

He added that breaching the order constituted a contempt of court and could be punished by a fine or imprisonment, either for a fixed term or until the breach ended.