From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The 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 Ramzy, on the fallout.

It’s Monday, July 13.

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 in the neighborhood where I live on Hong Kong Island called Wan 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 is 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 1, 2003. And shortly after that, the government backed down and has never picked up the law since.

So when you see this idea reemerge 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 that sort of comes up from time to time. But everyone sort of says no, it’s not possible, that there’s no way the government can push this through. And certainly not now, after a year of the most intense protests Hong Kong has ever seen. Things were dying down a little bit 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 inconceivable to me.

Mhm. OK, so what ends up happening next?

So a few weeks later —

China’s Congress meets in Beijing.

A friend and I were discussing going out for drinks on the night that the Congress starts. And my friend, who’s a former China correspondent, said, are you sure you won’t be busy on the start of the National People’s Congress? And I said, oh, of course. There’s nothing that’s going to affect Hong Kong.

And then it emerged that the National People’s Congress planned to pass a security law for Hong Kong.

It’s a shock to everyone in the city. It really emerges out of nowhere.

So a security law, it sounds like very much like what you saw a petition for in your neighborhood a few weeks before.

Exactly, very much like the security law that the Hong Kong government had tried to pass for 17 years and never succeeded.

Austin, how exactly can China do that, pass a law that regulates Hong Kong, that from what you’re saying Hong Kong does not want for itself — it’s rejected it. Because my sense is that Hong Kong has its own legislature and retains a fair bit of independence from China.

That’s right. So Hong Kong is a former British colony, returned to Chinese control in 1997. And under what’s called “one country, two systems,” it is supposed to operate with a high degree of autonomy for 50 years after that. And so by China’s legislature passing a law like this in 2020, it’s acting way ahead of schedule and doing something that it’s not really supposed to do until 2047.

So this is not how this is supposed to work, China crafting laws that directly govern Hong Kong’s freedoms?

No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work.

And Austin, what does this law actually do? What does it actually say?

Well, nobody knows exactly, because at that point, the law has not been written. It’s a brief outline, sort of authorizing the Chinese government to write this law. And so it targets secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with foreign powers. But we’re all left to wonder what exactly those words mean, what exactly the Chinese government has in store for Hong Kong.

Mm-hmm. And I’m curious, what is the government and the leadership in Hong Kong saying after Beijing says it’s going to be writing this law? Are they filling in the gaps here? Are they just as confused as you are?

Well, the first thing they say is that this is very welcome. This is exactly what Hong Kong needs. This will help with all the problems we’ve been facing, the unrest and the violence on the streets. But when pressed on what exactly the law will say, they have to acknowledge that they don’t know.

So at one point, Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, the top official here, has asked about this.

So even Carrie Lam, someone who is seen as a very pro-Beijing figure, she is sort of caught like a deer in the headlights and trying to defend the law, at the same time acknowledging that she doesn’t know exactly what it is.

So I have to imagine that the citizens of Hong Kong are deeply skeptical and worried about this law and not following their leaders’ advice to blindly support it.

That’s right. People are very worried about the law. At the same time, that lack of clarity paralyzes people, because this law is something that targets dissent. And people grow very worried that anything they do or say could be made a crime under this law. And so you begin to see people deleting social media accounts and becoming very worried about things they might say that could later come back to haunt them under this new law.

That makes me wonder if China understood that the ambiguity of this all — authorizing a law but not necessarily explaining what would be in it, using words like sedition and terrorism but not defining them — if that was deliberate?

Yes, definitely. In fact, there were some officials who make this clear, that this ambiguity is by design. And it’s basically meant to intimidate people.

And one of them, a man named Zhang Xioaming gives a press conference on the law. And he gives a stern warning that it’s not something you want to mess with.

And then he said something really striking to me.

He says that the law is like the Sword of Damocles hanging over Hong Kong.

And remind me of that parable.

The Sword of Damocles is a mythological tale about a man who wants to be king. And the king agrees to allow him to sit on the throne. But as part of the agreement, there’s a sword that’s hanging above him from a single horse’s hair. And the man is so frightened that the sword will fall on him that he begs to no longer be on the throne.

Right, because at any moment, that horse hair can break and the sword will fall. Which is no way to be king.

Right, the idea is that it’s such a miserable experience that no one would want to tap into them.

Mm-hmm. So as this parable applies to Hong Kong, if I have this correct, Damocles is the people of Hong Kong. The king is China. And the sword is this ambiguous security law that makes everything feel precarious and has everyone living in a certain amount of fear.

That’s right. There’s this sense of fear that in this place that’s known for its free speech, suddenly anything you say could potentially be used against you. And you could potentially end up in prison. And that is what’s hanging over Hong Kong so precariously.

We’ll be right back.

So Austin, when does it finally become clear precisely what this national security law actually says and does?

Well, the language of the national security law only becomes clear when it’s released. Nobody knows exactly when it’s going to come out. People are looking at the government website, waiting, waiting, checking. And then finally at about 11:00 p.m. the night of June 30, it lands.

And when it lands — and I assume you’re one of those people checking the website over and over again — what does it actually say? What’s the wording?

Well, it’s quite long. It’s 66 articles and six sections. And as it starts out, it describes the law as something that’s meant to uphold one country, two systems. But as I read through it, it becomes clear that the law undermines that.

Because in these 66 articles, it begins to define the words that have been hanging over Hong Kong for weeks — secession, subversion, terrorism, collusion with foreign powers. All things that are being criminalized under this new law. So let me just read one of these definitions — subversion. Subversion, it says, is, quote, “A person who undermines the basic system of the People’s Republic of China, overthrowing the central power of the People’s Republic of China or the body of power in Hong Kong.” It goes on to define subversion as, quote, “Seriously interfering in, disrupting or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the People’s Republic of China or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

Those words — interfering, disrupting, undermining — that feels pretty broad. It feels like a lot of activities could be construed as falling onto those words.

That’s right. And many of the activities that took place — the protests over the past year — could fall under those words.

And so once this law goes into effect, and scary words like “subversion” are now being defined — and defined in ways that, if I lived in Hong Kong, would make me think that any challenge to authority might suddenly be illegal — what ends up happening on the streets?

So the law goes into effect at 11:00 p.m. on June 30. And then an hour later, it’s July 1. And that’s astonishing timing, because July 1 is a national holiday. It’s a very important day in Hong Kong. It’s the day that Hong Kong was handed back from Britain to China. It’s also become a day of protest. In fact, the original protest that led to the first security law being blocked happened on July 1, 2003. And every year since then, there have been protests on this day.

Huh. So this law that could make protesting far more dangerous has been released the night before this day of protest.

That’s right.

And is that a coincidence?

No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. By dropping this at the eleventh hour, it’s intended to create uncertainty. People are waking up on July 1, deciding whether they want to go protest. They know this law is in effect. And it creates a great sense of risk for people going out on the street.

So on the morning of July 1, what do you do and what do you see?

So I got up early. I went out to catch a cab by the waterfront. And I noticed this barge with these huge characters — 20 feet high, yellow on red — that said, celebrate the national security law. And this barge was towed through Victoria Harbour in the middle of Hong Kong. And you could see it from either side, these huge characters welcoming the new security law. And this is something that is a style that is very much reminiscent of Chinese propaganda. Now it’s in the middle of Hong Kong.

And then I arrived at this neighborhood, Causeway Bay, where every year the protest march on July 1 usually begins. And right away, I could see there was a large crowd.

It was sort of hard to tell who was who, because it’s a shopping neighborhood. It’s a holiday. There’s lots of people out. But it becomes quickly clear that there are protesters out everywhere on the streets.

I can see police who are trying to block off parts of the streets in Causeway Bay.

You can hear people shouting at police.

And you can see police officers raising a purple banner that tells people that they are in violation of the new security law.

What is the purple banner saying?

It’s quite lengthy. And it’s like a fine print banner. It says, “This is a police warning. You are displaying flags or banners, or chanting slogans, or conducting yourself with an intent, such as secession or subversion, which may constitute offenses under the Hong Kong national security law.” It’s basically showing that the police will now be out policing words, policing language.

So what happens next?

Police begin closing in on these protesters.

They pepper spray some people. And they begin making the first arrests under this new law.

They announce that the first arrest has been made under the national security law. They say that they stopped and searched a man, and in his bag they found a Hong Kong independence flag. And he hadn’t even displayed the flag. He had just had it in his bag. And police found it when they searched him.

That very much does feel like the thought police, because a flag unfurled is a thought unexpressed. And it’s almost as if this law now says that even thinking something, not even saying it, can be a violation of the law.

That’s right. And in Hong Kong, a city that had some of the most robust protections for free speech in Asia, to suddenly have this happen — people are being arrested for words in their possession — it’s a real shock to people here.

So how does July 1 come to an end?

So protests continue throughout the afternoon. By the end of the day, the police have arrested 370 people, including 10 under the new national security laws. One of them is a 15-year-old girl, who like that man had a Hong Kong independence flag that she was waving.

So basically they arrest a child.

A child.

Does it feel to you that this law is accomplishing what it very much seems its goal is, which is to repress free speech and keep dissent against China contained in Hong Kong?

Yes. You can already see the effects of this law. Throughout the city, there are a number of restaurants and cafes that support the protest movement that are normally covered in signs and banners and stuff. And many of them have taken those down. And the walls are now bare. Sources have contacted me and asked that I delete a messaging history with them. And now sometimes, when you ask people for comments or interview, people who would normally be very willing to talk say not right now, that they’re worried about the law and they just can’t talk.

So people actually worry that their communications with you may violate these laws?

That’s right. That’s right. They’re worried either that — not just that they might say something on the record that could get them in trouble, but that some sort of private message that we shared some point in the past could incriminate them. And so they’re trying to delete all of that.

I’m reminded of what you said at the beginning of our conversation, that the people of Hong Kong felt that they had time, that they had decades until this kind of a change was going to come from mainland China. And so I wonder if it’s starting to feel like people are being robbed of a big chunk of time to be what they have been, and what they think they’re supposed to be allowed to be in Hong Kong.

Yes. I think in Hong Kong there’s always this sense that what makes the city unique is always under threat, and has always been gradually disappearing, but that it would have been a slow process. And year by year, Hong Kong would lose a little bit to the point where by 2047, you couldn’t tell the difference from the rest of the country. But now it feels like that process has accelerated wildly. And so in a matter of a couple weeks, we have lost decades.

Which I guess leads to the inevitable question: Do people feel like it’s time to leave Hong Kong if they don’t have decades left?

Yes, many people have thought about it, discuss it. I hear it from everyone I know. But, of course, not everyone can just pick up and leave. And people love this city. People don’t want to try to recreate their life here in Vancouver or New York or London. They want Hong Kong to be the place that they love. But for many of them, it feels like that that’s rapidly disappearing.

Austin, thank you very much. And stay safe there.

Thank you, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Sunday, Florida reported more than 15,000 new cases of the coronavirus, marking the highest single-day total in any state since the start of the pandemic. The surge was driven by record infection rates in and around Florida’s biggest cities, including Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and Pensacola. In Miami-Dade County, at least six hospitals have reached full capacity. And over the weekend congressional Democrats, including Representative Adam Schiff on ABC, reacted with fury to President Trump’s decision to commute the prison sentence of his friend and former adviser Roger Stone.

Stone, who was scheduled to report to prison within days, had been convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign and possible ties to Russia.

Two Republican senators, Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, joined Democrats in condemning the commutation, with Romney calling it an act of, quote, “unprecedented historic corruption.”

That’s it for “The Daily.” For the rest of the week we’re revisiting people we met in the early weeks of the pandemic and hearing what’s happened to them since our original episodes first ran. I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.