Editor's note: Kong Qingjiang, a special commentator for CGTN, is the vice dean of the School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On the morning of February 9, 2026, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) sentenced Jimmy Lai, a businessman and media owner who has been instigating anti-China riots in the SAR, to 20 years' imprisonment for offenses including violations of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

Lai's trial for charges of violating national security and other laws opened in the SAR last December. The High Court found him guilty on two counts of conspiracy to publish seditious materials.

Lai has committed numerous seditious acts. In July 2019, at a forum hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a U.S. think tank, he publicly urged the United States to use nuclear weapons against China, his own country. Even the American moderator had to interrupt his statement due to its extreme nature.

Openly inciting the U.S. to launch a nuclear strike against China goes beyond treason. From the perspective of international law, it constitutes a crime against humanity, given Lai's utter disregard for the catastrophic annihilation a nuclear war would cause.

Unfortunately, certain foreign media outlets and foreign countries have hyped up the trial, falsely claiming it was a "political trial" with "unprofessional judges" who gave Lai an "unfair treatment," ignoring the legal consequence of Lai's act.

For them, freedom of speech can be conveniently used to defame the Jimmy Lai verdict and sanctify the convicted. But from the domestic law's point of view, calling a foreign country to launch a nuclear attack does not come under the ambit of freedom of speech. It is instead an actionable offense.

The sovereignty of a country means its legislative, political and judicial action is free from external interference. Those who ignore this and view things through a biased lens should consider this: What would happen to someone who sought the same attack on their own country as Lai did in Hong Kong?

Many countries have laws that criminalize citizens who publicly call on foreign countries to attack their own.

Russia's Criminal Code clearly mandates the state organs to prosecute citizens for a wide range of interactions with foreign entities. Article 275 of the Russian Criminal Code punishes citizens for confidential cooperation with a foreign state. Publicly calling for foreign countries to attack Russia could be interpreted as providing "assistance" to a foreign state against Russian security.

Even in the United States, the Logan Act makes it illegal for any U.S. citizen, without government authority, to "directly or indirectly commence or carry on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government ... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government ... in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."

The law, which is broadly worded to cover correspondence intended to "defeat the measures of the United States," can theoretically be used against a citizen who privately urges a foreign government to take punitive actions (like sanctions) against the U.S. during a dispute.

In light of these examples, it is fair to assert that a citizen calling on a foreign country to use nuclear weapons against their own country is no longer an issue of free speech. Perhaps those questioning the legitimacy of the verdict in the Jimmy Lai case will ponder the laws in other countries.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)