Which law? He is assuming a use—and that assumption is unwarranted—and then claiming this use would make it in violation of Hong Kong law. That’s not a lawful obligation. That’s a string of assumptions that he’s using to make a decision. There is no court order. No law cited.
-
-
When substantial claims are this far off base, we need a law cited or a legal process invoked before that benefit of the doubt can be summoned. “Let’s see what they have to say” would make sense if one could even imagine a plausible legal scenario.
-
Right and this is why I'm asking what
@sfmnemonic would consider acceptable for those concerned to say, now. It's both because, as you say, the claim is (per your reporting of police statements) baseless, and because there's urgency here. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.