“We are disappointed by the court’s decision but are complying with its removal order by blocking access to the listed videos for viewers in Hong Kong,” a YouTube spokesman said. “We’ll continue to consider our options for an appeal, to promote access to information.”

The company said 32 video links were identified as prohibited publications under the government-sought injunction banning the distribution of the song, with the videos blocked for viewers from Hong Kong. Google’s search engine also no longer displays these clips in the city.

The Court of Appeal earlier ruled in favour of the government and granted an interim injunction authorities sought last year over the song, which has sometimes been mistaken overseas for the national anthem.

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

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

“The composer of the song has intended it to be a ‘weapon’ and so it had become,” the injunction read.

YouTube said the process to take down the song could take time, as its systems would need to recrawl the web.

It also highlighted the company’s mission was to give everyone a voice and added that it shared the concerns of human rights organisations that the ban would have a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression around the world.

A YouTube search using the term “Glory to Hong Kong” returned several results for the protest anthem on Wednesday. But not all the video clips listed could be played.

Since the ruling on the injunction, at least 20 new clips of the song have been uploaded on the site, with some labelled as “backup” or “re-uploaded”.

While some videos had turned off the counter for the number of views, others had garnered as many as 11,000 one day after being uploaded.

A playlist of the song in various versions, such as Cantonese, English and as an instrumental, was also available.

The song was also available on Apple Music, Spotify and Kkbox.

A search of Instagram reels using the anthem’s Chinese title as the hashtag returned more than 71,400 results, with some of the newer videos attracting more than 2,500 reactions within two days.

The hashtag #GloryToHongKong also showed more than 10,400 results.

The Post has contacted Apple, Meta, Spotify and Kkbox for comment.

A government spokesman said conduct prohibited by the court included “broadcasting or publishing the song with relevant criminal intent”.

“Everyone should ensure the injunction is fully complied with,” he said.

“In granting the injunction, the Court of Appeal has taken into account that freedom of expression was engaged, and was satisfied that the restrictions imposed are constitutionally justified and would not cause any unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression.”

Lawmaker Doreen Kong Yuk-foon said the injunction did not just cover the 32 clips and instead they were only examples for reference.

She said the judgment specified the two conditions under which a person would violate the injunction, namely having a seditious intention or attempting to misrepresent the song as the national anthem.

She advised residents to act prudently and minimise the risk of falling foul of the ruling.

“I cannot determine what your intention is,” she said. “I can only say to everyone that you can go and read the judgment, and it has clearly stated what you cannot do.”

Kong also warned that breaching the injunction could lead to contempt of court, punishable by a maximum of two years in jail, as well as violation of the Article 23 domestic national security law.

Lawyer Eric Chan Pak-ho, who runs CPH Legal, said the scope of injunctions was usually confined as courts would ensure a lack of ambiguity due to the prohibitive nature of the order.

But Chan cautioned that distributing versions of the song that were still publicly available online would violate the law, while social media and streaming platforms that keep the song available would also run the same risk.

“Even if streaming platforms, for example Instagram and Spotify, do not intend to incite others to commit secession, by allowing anyone in the world to play and hence further broadcast to a wide audience, the song arguably can be a circumstance that is capable of inciting others to commit the offence,” he said.

The solicitor added that the Department of Justice would likely send warning letters to online platforms to remove the song, taking three to six weeks in the process before starting contempt of court proceedings.

Users who click on some YouTube videos will be greeted with a black screen covering the clip and a statement telling viewers it is unavailable because of a court order.

Some clips featuring the song, however, can still be played.