From The New York Times, I'm Michael Babaro. This is Daily.

Today, a new security law is bringing China's harsh approach to free speech to Hong Kong

in an attempt to stamp out protests there.

My colleague Austin Ramsey on the follow.

It's Monday, July 13th.

Austin, when did you first start to hear about this new security law in Hong Kong?

I first heard about it in mid-May. I was going to work one morning. I was outside the subway station

and the neighborhood where I live on Hong Kong Island called One Chai. It's a really crowded part of town.

And as I was passing into the station, I noticed a petition booth. And they were collecting

signatures for something called Article 23, which was a security law that the Hong Kong government

had tried and failed to pass 17 years ago. And when you say security law, what do you mean?

It was a law that outlawed things like secession and subversion. But people worried that it was so broad

that it could outlaw all sorts of behavior in Hong Kong. And so people took to the streets and

there was a mass protest on July 1st, 2003. And shortly after that, the government back down

and has never picked up the law since. So when you see this idea re-emerge of a security law on your

way into the subway, what are you thinking? It was a sense of disbelief really. I mean, it's

something that's sort of part of the political environment. It sort of comes up from time to time.

But everyone sort of says, no, it's not possible that there's no way that government can push this

through. And certainly not now, after a year of the most intense protest, Hong Kong has ever seen

things were dying down a little bit. And with the coronavirus and police sort of being more aggressive,

it seemed like the government sort of had the protesters on the back foot. And so the idea that

they would do something that would encourage people to come out again in mass numbers, it just seemed

...