Blink, and you might miss it. A flicker of freedom broke out behind Communist China’s Iron Curtain of tyranny the other day, as a judge defied an order from Beijing to ban a song associated with pro-democracy protesters. Hong Kong’s government, now a puppet of Beijing, had sought a court order to bar the song from being played on the internet, expecting the judge to rubber stamp its demand, as would be the case on the mainland. Not so fast.

“Freedom of expression is not absolute in nature,” Judge Anthony Chan wrote in his denial of the proposed ban, “but it is nonetheless a highly important right.” It “cannot be lawfully restricted,” he added, “without the requirements of legal certainty and proportionality being met.” We can only imagine how the communist mandarins at Beijing, accustomed to subservience from judges, will respond to this defense of civil liberties.

The ruling is most likely to prompt a scramble to clamp down on the Hong Kong judiciary’s independence, a legacy of its days as a British colony. When Hong Kong was handed over to the Communists in 1997, Beijing vowed to follow a “one country, two systems” policy. It was meant to allow the territory to retain freedoms like the rights to speech and assembly, independent courts, and other rights now forbidden on the mainland.

Under President Xi, who views dissent as intolerable, those freedoms were curbed in 2020 by the National Security Law, imposed by Beijing’s decree. The law’s provisions, which were kept secret until it went into effect, criminalize, in the BBC’s telling, “subversion,” defined as “undermining the power or authority of the central government,” or even talk of “secession,” meaning re-establishing Hong Kong’s free status.

The protests that erupted in response to Mr. Xi’s crackdown on liberty adopted as an anthem “Glory to Hong Kong” — the very tune the authorities are trying to banish from the ears of their subjects. The Beijing regime, the Times reports, sees the song as “an insult to China’s national anthem.” It is banned in schools and draws “angry rebukes” from authorities when played at sports events. Hong Kongers are arrested for playing it.

The communists want to ban the song on the internet, too. To Google’s credit, it has refused to remove the song from its search results. Judge Chan notes the “chilling effect” the ban would have for free speech. So far, Hong Kong’s justice department has only noted that it is reviewing the ruling. A communist propaganda paper, China Daily, published an opinion column by an apparatchik observing that Judge Chan had “made an error.”

Take that as an early warning sign that the knives are out for the judge. The column itself offers a chilling insight into the totalitarian mindset. It argues that the law is needed to help expedite oppression. Without the ban, the column argues, the “process” of getting someone who “broadcasts or sings the song” arrested, charged, and put on trial “could take months, if not years.”

Allowing the ban on “Glory to Hong Kong” to go into effect, the China Daily’s column argues, means “any person committing the offense would be swiftly dealt with.” That is to say “detained, brought before a court for contempt, and immediately sent to prison for breaching the injunction.” With the ban in place, “Justice comes swiftly, and any criminal act would be dealt with more efficiently,” the column cheerfully notes.

The column urges a higher court to overrule Judge Chan. That would no doubt dismay the prophet of democracy in China, Sun Yat-sen. He was the first president of the Chinese Republic — and a New York Sun correspondent — and urged “government by the people, of the people and for the people,” adding that “I believe in this since I believe in the Chinese people.” These words are echoed today in Judge Chan’s ruling.