“All business corporations have to walk the talk. We are eagerly expecting their response,” Lam said on a radio show.

“I believe all of us are quite impatient and hope to see it take action as quickly as possible.”

He added the company was required to ensure content on its platform aligned with the city’s laws.

Google, which also owns YouTube, where renditions of the song are available, earlier said it was reviewing the court judgment.

The move banned 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 prohibited anyone from playing the song in a manner likely to cause it “to be mistaken as the national anthem insofar as [the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region] is concerned” or suggest the city “is an independent state and has a national anthem of her own”.

Lam on Sunday revealed the government had contacted online platforms, including Google, which he said had attracted the most attention, to tell them of the new rules.

He said that although Google might need some time to get legal advice given the court only handed down the ruling in recent days, he believed the tech giant already had established policies regarding the removal of content containing hate speech, seditious material or which violated laws.

“I do not see any reason the company [Google] would not comply with its in-house policies, or a formal court order,” Lam said.

The Post has contacted Google for comment.

In the written judgment, three judges said the song had become a weapon with the effect of “justifying and even romanticising and glorifying the unlawful and violent acts inflicted on Hong Kong in the past few years”.

They added the song could arouse and rekindle strong emotions and the desire for violent confrontations.

By granting the injunction, the court saw a “compelling need” to aid the criminal law for safeguarding national security, provided that the song was still freely available on the internet and remained prevalent.

Lam said that with the court accepting his legal arguments, the injunction would “draw out the clear red line” to help tell the public about situations where the song could or could not be used.

He said he expected the ban would have a “deterrent effect”.

Exemptions were made for academic and journalistic purposes, the court said. But it added that the injunction was “necessary” to persuade internet platform operators to remove problematic videos in connection with the song.

“I, alongside all Hong Kong residents and people from mainland China, are all looking forward to knowing the company’s official response,” Lam said.

While Lam noted the injunction did impose a certain degree of restraint on freedom of speech, he said the limitations were within reason under the premise of ensuring national security.

“When the song was used as a tool to serve an illegal purpose, which is to support the ideology of Hong Kong independence … this is practically in breach of the law,” he said.

“So in a broader view, even [though the injunction] has set restrictions on certain things, [freedom of speech] is limited with rationality.”

Barrister and Executive Council member Ronny Tong Ka-wah said Google had been embroiled in the dispute for nearly a year and should have a deep understanding of what was going on.

“So it barely makes sense when they said they need more time to consult the lawyers,” Tong added. “They have only got two choices really: obey or disobey.”

He added that Google should formulate a response within a week, otherwise it could possibly be prosecuted for contempt of court.

Professor Lau Siu-kai, a consultant for semi-official think tank the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, noted Google had the chance to join the hearing as an interested party, but chose not to do so.

“Google might have initially resisted and did not want to be seen as easily succumbing to political demands,” Lau said.

“Its attitude might change now that it is facing a legal injunction.”

Lau said he believed Google, a US corporation, would be able to “find a way to avoid the court order” and offend Hong Kong public opinion, but whether it would get its government involved was a separate issue.

“The question is whether the United States government will enter the fray and pressure Google not to follow the court order,” he said.

However, he added that neither would be prepared to defy the Hong Kong court, so a statement condemning loss of freedom of speech would be the best Google could do.