Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Government Calls Out Sina Blogs for "Distorting Party History"

On January 7, 2017, the the Cyberspace Administration of China published a notice on its website entitled "Sina, Global Times, China.com, and Other Websites Post Harmful Information in Violation of Rules, Get Reported by China's Internet Users" (新浪网、环球网、中华网等网站违规刊载有害信息 受到网民集中举报). Some excerpts:
In 2016, the the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Center (hereinafter "Reporting Center") received almost 1,000,000 reports from the public. These included reports that Sina, Global Times, Netease, China.com, Voice of China, Shangdu, Tom.com, and Chongqing Online were publishing harmful information in violation of rules, or were providing a platform for the publication of harmful information. There was a strong negative public reaction.
. . . .
Based on user reports and a selective examination by the Reporting Center, various channels on Sina included vulgar and revealing photos, text and information, and there was a relatively large quantity of posts on Sina blogs that distorted Party and national history, spread evil cults and promoted pornographic videos. 
Netease's "Headline Party" problem was particularly acute, and in an attempt to attract eyeballs it would maliciously distort headlines, publish articles selectively, exaggerate facts, and mislead the public. 
Some of the articles on the Global Times used vulgar and exotic language to attract readers, and had a harmful orientation. There was a lack of effective moderation of comments, and some comments were extremist and spread rumors.  
2016年,国家互联网信息办公室违法和不良信息举报中心(以下简称“举报中心”)共受理公众举报近百万件次,其中,新浪网、环球网、网易网、中华网、华声在线、商都网、TOM网、重庆热线8家网站违规刊载有害信息,或为有害信息传播提供平台,网民举报集中,社会反应强烈。
. . . .
根据公众举报及举报中心抽查,新浪个别频道存在低俗暴露图文信息,新浪博客中存在较多歪曲党史国史、宣扬邪教及推介色情AV的帖文。网易“标题党”问题突出,为博人眼球,恶意篡改标题、选择性报道,夸大事实,误导公众。环球网一些文章用低俗、猎奇字眼吸引读者,导向不良;跟帖评论缺乏有效管理,一些跟帖言论偏激、传播谣言。

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

CAC Announces Rules to Regulate the Content of News Headlines

On January 13, 2017, the Cyberspace Administration of China published a notice on its website entitled “CAC Deepens Its Rectification of the ‘Headline Party’ Problem” (国家网信办深入整治“标题党”问题). Some excerpts:
In order to further purify the online public opinion environment and to attack the chaos of altering headlines, distorting the original meaning of news and other behaviors of the "headline party," the CAC in coordination with relevant agencies recently launched a one month rectification campaign and imposed sanctions on five websites with outstanding problems: Sina, Sohu, Netease, Phoenix, and Focus, and formulated specific rules for Internet news headlines.
. . . .
In order to strengthen long-term controls over the "Headline Party" problem, the CAC formulated and promulgated the "(Interim) Rules on the Administration of Internet News Headline Norms" (hereinafter the "Rules") which clearly require all websites to maintain a correct public opinion orientation that runs through through all aspects of Internet news collection, drafting, editing, and publishing. When reporting on all kind of significant news, but especially news that touches upon important political current events and major public disturbances, they must ensure that the content of all headlines transmit a position, standpoint, and attitude with a correct orientation, scrupulously abide by journalistic ethics, and strictly prohibit malicious distorted headlines that stir up trouble or deliberately create public opinion "hotspots."
. . . .
It is strictly prohibited to "Breaking Online," "Spreading Online," or other indeterminate vocabulary in headlines for compiled reports or to describe the essential elements of news. It is strictly prohibited to employ any "Headline Party" techniques such as using content that is exaggerated, outrageous, or unconventional.
. . . .
In order to make it convenient for Internet users to participate in overseeing and reporting, the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Center has established an official website specifically for reporting websites with "Headline Party" problems (www.12377.cn), and at the same time has demanded that the six major commercial websites Sina, Sohu, Netease, Tencent, Baidu, and Phoenix establish clearly visible reporting links on their home pages and arrange for personnel to accept Internet user reports 24 hours a day. 
为进一步净化网络舆论环境,打击乱改标题、歪曲新闻原意等“标题党”行为,国家网信办联合相关部门日前开展了为期1个月的专项整治行动,依法处罚了新浪、搜狐、网易、凤凰、焦点等存在突出问题的5家网站,并对互联网新闻信息标题制作制定了专门规范。
. . . .
为了加强“标题党”问题的长效治理,国家网信办还制定印发了《互联网新闻信息标题规范管理规定(暂行)》(以下简称《规定》),明确要求各网站把坚持正确舆论导向贯穿互联网新闻采集、撰写、编排、发布等各个环节。在报道各类新闻,尤其是涉及重大时政新闻和重大突发事件等重要信息时,要通过标题内容传达正确的立场、观点、态度,确保导向正确,恪守新闻伦理,严禁恶意篡改标题炒作或蓄意制造舆论“热点”。
. . . .
严禁在标题中使用“网曝”“网传”等不确定性词汇组织报道或者表述新闻基本要素。严禁各类夸张、猎奇、不合常理的内容表现手法等“标题党”行为。
. . . .
为了发动更多网民参与监督举报,国家网信办违法和不良信息举报中心还在官方网站建立了网站“标题党”问题举报专区(www.12377.cn),同时要求新浪、搜狐、网易、腾讯、百度、凤凰等6家主要商业网站在其首页显著位置设置举报链接入口,安排专人24小时受理网民举报。

Monday, January 16, 2017

CAC Announces New Registration Requirements for Mobile App Stores

On January 13, 2017, the Cyberspace Administration of China published a notice on its website entitled “CAC Launches Registration of Internet App Stores” (国家网信办启动互联网应用商店备案工作). Some excerpts: 
In order to further promote the healthy and orderly development of the Internet app store industry and regulate mobile Internet application program the (APP) information services, the Cyberspace Administration of China recently issued the "Notice Regarding the Launching of an Internet App Store Registration Campaign" in accordance with the "Rules on the Administration of Mobile Internet Application Program Information Services" requiring that starting from January 16 Internet Information Offices in every province, autonomous region, and independent municipality shall officially commence work on registering Internet application stores.
. . . .
A CAC spokesperson explained that, Internet application store registration is aimed at overseeing and promoting app stores' taking responsibility, strengthening screening of apps that go up, promoting the healthy and orderly development of the mobile Internet, and will focus on "three applications": first, the operators of app store businesses must submit a registration application; second, when an app store's registered information changes it must apply to change its registration; third, when an app store ceases service it must apply to cancel its registration. 
为进一步促进互联网应用商店行业健康有序发展,规范移动互联网应用程序(APP)信息服务,依据《移动互联网应用程序信息服务管理规定》,国家互联网信息办公室日前下发《关于开展互联网应用商店备案工作的通知》,要求各省、自治区、直辖市互联网信息办公室于1月16日起,正式启动互联网应用商店备案工作。
. . . .
国家网信办有关发言人介绍,互联网应用商店备案工作旨在督促应用商店落实主体责任,加强APP上架审核,促进移动互联网健康有序发展,将突出“三个申请”:一是应用商店业务运营需申请备案;二是应用商店备案事项变更需申请变更备案;三是应用商店停止服务需申请注销备案。

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Supreme People's Court Model Case: Joking About Dead Heroes Is Defamation

According to the China.org.cn website (which is operated under the auspices of China’s State Council Information Office):
In March 1951 [Qiu Shaoyun] (邱少云) joined the Chinese People's Volunteers Army to fight against U.S. in Korea. Part of a squad sent to ambush enemy forces near Kimhwa, on October 11, 1952, Qiu Shaoyun edged close to the enemy defenses using grass and twigs as camouflage. At noon the enemy threw a fire bomb that set fire to the grass near Qiu's position. Realizing that any sound or movement would give away the position of his comrades, Qiu endured the agonizing pain in silence and was burnt to death.

Thanks to his sacrifice, his squad won the ensuing battle.
Source: http://www.china.org.cn/china/60th_anniversary_people/2009-09/17/content_18547200.htm

According to the same website:
On March 13, 1988, a major forest fire broke out in Shimian County and [Lai Ning] (赖宁) and his classmates went to help with the fire-fighting efforts. The students were passing a still-smoldering area of forest on the way home that evening when a gust of wind rekindled the flames. Lai, who was at the back of the group was caught in the blaze and died.
Source: http://www.china.org.cn/china/60th_anniversary_people/2009-09/17/content_18547259.htm


On May 22, 2013, Sun Jie (孙杰) posted the following on his "Exercise Book" (Zuoyeben - 作业本) Sina Weibo account :
Because Qiu Shaoyun lay on a bonfire without moving, in the end the restaurant customers refused to pay the bill for something only cooked on one side. They all said that Lai Ning's barbecue was better.
由于邱少云趴在火堆里一动不动最终食客们拒绝为半面熟买单,他们纷纷表示还是赖宁的烤肉较好
Sun was well known blogger on Sina Weibo (known in Chinese parlance as a “Big V,” and at the time of the post he had over 6,030,000 followers. Before being deleted the following day, Sun’s post was reposted 662 times, liked 78 times, and commented on 884 times.

In April, 2015, beverage maker Jia Duo Bao (加多宝) was holding an "appreciation" event at its "Jia Duo Bao Cold Tea 2014 Sales Team Awards" it posted over 300 "Thank You" posters on the "Jia Duo Bao Campaign" weibo, thanking others including the news media, commercial partners, consumers, and certain famous figures, including Sun. Jia Duo Bao’s “Thank You” to Sun was posted on April 16 and read as follows:
Many thanks @ExerciseBook, congratulations on the popularity of your barbecue. As makers of cold tea, we support you becoming the CEO of a barbecue stand, 100,000 bottles to open shop, walk the talk ^_^#ManyThanksCampaign#.
多谢@作业本,恭喜你与烧烤齐名。作为凉茶,我们力挺你成为烧烤摊CEO,开店十万罐,说到做到^_^#多谢行动#
That same day Sun posted a public response on his "Exercise Book" account:
Many thanks for the 100,000 bottles, I will certainly open the barbecue shop, only I haven't fixed which day. But regardless, everyone who leaves a message here will get a free drink when they enter the store!!!
多谢你这十万罐,我一定会开烧烤店,只是没定哪天,反正在此留言者,进店就是免费喝!!!
According to the state sponsored Global Times, Jia Duo Bao posted an apology on April 17 and Sun posted an apology on his “Exercise Book” account on April 25.

In June 2015, Qiu Shaoyun’s brother Qiu Shaohua (邱少华) filed separate lawsuits against Sun and Jia Duo Bao in the Beijing Daxing District People's Court claiming that Sun’s post insulted and defamed Qiu Shaoyun, and that Jia Duo Bao “violated social ethics in debasing the image of martyr by in a vulgar marketing campaign, thereby having an extremely malicious impact on society.” He asked that the two defendants be ordered to immediately cease and desist, eliminate all impact, formally apologize, and pay 1 yuan in mental suffering.

On October 19, 2016, China's Supreme People's Court published a piece on its website entitled "People's Courts Come to the Defense of the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain' and Other Model Cases Involving the Right of Human Dignity of Heroic Figures" (人民法院依法保护“狼牙山五壮士”等英雄人物人格权益典型案例). The Supreme People’s Court summarized the outcome of the lawsuits as follows:
In the first instance judgment the Beijing Daxing District People's Court held that, according to the provisions of Article 2 of the "Tort Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 69 of the "Supreme People's Court Explanation Regarding Applying the 'Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China'," and Article 3 of the "Supreme People's Court Explanation Regarding Certain Issues  Relating to the Determining Compensation Responsibility for Mental Suffering in Civil Infringement," the interest in personal dignity that the martyr Qiu Shaoyun accrued during his life will continue to receive legal protection. As a close relative of Qiu Shaoyun, Que Shaohua had the right to file a lawsuit. the statements published by Sun Jie equated "the martyr Qiu Shaoyun bravely sacrificing his life on the fire" to "barbecue only cooked on one side," and this derogated and insulted the personal dignity of the martyr Qiu Shaoyun. This constituted an intentional tort, and as the statements were rapidly spread through a public Internet platform, it created a severe social impact, simultaneously damaging the public's nationalist and historical sentiments and harming the public interest. It also caused emotional harm to the relatives of the martyr Qiu Shaoyun.

Although the infringing statements published by Sun Jie in the original weibo text have already been deleted and Sun Jie apologized through a weibo, nevertheless the infringing statements had already been widely reposted through weibo, and had spread broadly online, creating a severe social impact. Therefore, he should make a formal public apology in a national media publication to eliminate the harmful social influence caused by the infringing statements.

Jia Duo Bao’s statements issue in this case were objectively made in relation to the infringing statements made by Sun Jie and were spread rapidly, causing a relatively significant negative impact. Subjectively, Jia Duo Bao had a duty of care to be cautious in planning their commercial campaign, and should have, but failed to, screened out Sun Jie's somewhat influential and inappropriate statements. In this they were at fault and therefore should bear responsibility in tort.

However, because Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao proactively deleted the original statements, and therefore could only eliminate the impact of the consequences caused by their infringement by formally apologizing and eliminating the influence. It was held: Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao shall publicly issue a notice of formal apology within three days of the judgment becoming effective, said notice to be published for five days. Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao shall bear joint liability to compensate Qiu Shaohua for one yuan for emotional suffering. After the first instance judgment neither party appealed. 
北京市大兴区人民法院一审认为,根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第三条、《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》第六十九条以及《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》第三条之规定,邱少云烈士生前的人格利益仍受法律保护,邱少华作为邱少云的近亲属,有权提起本案诉讼。孙杰发表的言论将“邱少云烈士在烈火中英勇献身”比作“半边熟的烤肉”,是对邱少云烈士的人格贬损和侮辱,属于故意的侵权行为,且该言论通过公众网络平台快速传播,已经造成了严重的社会影响,伤害了社会公众的民族和历史感情,同时损害了公共利益,也给邱少云烈士的亲属带来了精神伤害。虽然孙杰发表的侵权言论的原始微博文章已经删除且孙杰通过微博予以致歉,但侵权言论通过微博已经被大量转载,在网络上广泛流传,已经造成了严重的社会影响,因此,应在全国性媒体刊物上予以正式公开道歉,消除侵权言论造成的不良社会影响。加多宝公司发表的案涉言论在客观方面系与孙杰的侵权言论相互呼应且传播迅速,产生较大负面影响;主观上,加多宝公司在其策划的商业活动中应尽到审慎的注意义务,加多宝公司应当对孙杰发表的影响较大的不当言论进行审查而未审查,存有过错,因此,亦应承担侵权责任。但是,由于孙杰和加多宝公司已经主动删除原始侵权言论,因此只能通过赔礼道歉、消除影响的方式消除侵权所造成的后果,判决:孙杰、加多宝公司于判决生效后三日内公开发布赔礼道歉公告,公告须连续刊登五日;孙杰、加多宝公司连带赔偿邱少华精神损害抚慰金1元。一审判决后,双方当事人均未上诉。
The Supreme People’s Court website went on to explain why this was a “Model Case”:
This is a model case of malicious defamation and insult of a national hero and revolutionary martyr and harming their interests in personal dignity. What makes this case special is that first a famous Internet user maliciously insulted and defamed a national hero, and then a commercial company made use of the unlawful statements to maliciously drive up the efficacy of a commercial promotion. The combination of these two actions formed a single damaging outcome.

The judgment in this case is worthy of praise in the following ways: 
First, in its analysis of the infringing statements, it linked the context in which they were made to the publication and public reaction to them, and recognized that the infringing parties were objectively malicious and the harmful consequences.  
Second, in grasping collective infringement of multiple parties, it focused its analysis on the connections between the multiple statements and their interaction, correctly grasping the commonality between the subjective relationship among the parties and the harmful consequences.
Third, in terms of the nature of the liability, it recognized the joint liability between multiple infringing parties. 
Fourth, in terms of the form of the liability, based on the fact that the infringing parties had  deleted the infringing statements, it held they bore a responsibility to formally apologize and provide compensation for emotional suffering, and this form of liability was appropriate.

This judgment safeguarded the legal rights and interests of a national hero and revolutionary martyr, and serves as a clear warning that it is a tortious act to insult and defame the personal dignity of a national hero and revolutionary martyr and engage in malicious commercial speculation to obtain unlawful benefits. 
本案是恶意诋毁、侮辱民族英雄和革命先烈,侵害其人格利益的典型案件。本案的特点是,先有网络名人恶意侮辱、诋毁民族英雄,再有商业公司借助不法言论恶意炒作获得商业推广效果,两者行为的结合造成了同一损害后果。本案判决在如下方面值得赞同:一是对侵权言论的分析上,结合其语境及侵权言论的传播和舆论反应,认定侵权人的主观恶意和损害后果;二是对多个行为人共同侵权的把握上,注意分析多个言论的关联性及互动性,准确把握多个行为人的主观关联性及损害后果的同一性;三是在责任形态上,认定多个侵权人之间的连带责任;四是在责任方式上,根据侵权人事后删除侵权言论的事实,判决其承担赔礼道歉、消除影响和精神损害抚慰金的责任,责任形式妥当。这一判决,维护了民族英雄和革命先烈的合法权益,对于以侮辱、诋毁民族英雄和革命先烈的人格为手段,恶意商业炒作获得不法利益的侵权行为,具有鲜明的警示意义。

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Court Upholds Jail Time for Statements Critical of the Dead Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain

As previously noted on this blog, on October 19, 2016, China's Supreme People's Court published a piece on its website entitled "People's Courts Come to the Defense of the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain' and Other Model Cases Involving the Right of Human Dignity of Heroic Figures" (人民法院依法保护“狼牙山五壮士”等英雄人物人格权益典型案例).  That article explained why People’s Courts in Beijing had been correct in holding Hong Zhenkuai liable for defaming two dead soldiers. The defamation took place in two articles written by Hong and published in 2013 on the Caijing website and in the Yanhuang Chunqiu magazine. For more on this, see Supreme People's Court Website Explains Why Courts Found Author Guilty of Defaming Dead Heroes.

Those two articles questioned the official version of events that took place during World War II, which are summarized on the website of China’s State Council Information Office as follows:
In 1941, during the Sino-Japanese war, a group of five Communist soldiers were able to deceive the advancing Japanese army and drew them up to the slopes of Langya Mountain. The Japanese, thinking they were besieging the main army, lost valuable time and troops trying to eliminate them. When the five heroes ran out of bullets, they jumped off the cliffs. Three of them died but two could hang by a tree branch, survived and could recount the story. In the mean time, the Chinese main force could escape and regroup.
Hong’s impetus for writing those two articles appears to have been the detention of Zhang Guanghong (张广红) for posting the following on his Sina Weibo on August 27, 2013:
Teacher Yuan Tengfei was filming the movie of the screenplay "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain, and when Mr. Geng went to the location to understand the situation, the locals said: These five were just a few straggling soldiers of the Eighth Road Army, and after they got here they wanted to eat and drink, and if you showed any reluctance they beat you. Because a few of them held guns, the locals didn't dare give offense. Afterwards some people came up with an idea, and secretly to the Japanese of their whereabouts. The Japanese then came along and surrounded them, and the locals intentionally steered the five to flee down a dead end path."
老师袁腾飞拍‘狼牙山五壮士’电影编剧,邢某去当地了解实情,村民说:这五人只不过是几个散兵游勇土八路,来村里后要吃要喝,稍不如意就打人。由于几人手上有枪,村民们也不敢惹。后来有人想出了个办法,偷偷地把他们的行踪告诉日本人。日本人就来围剿了。村民故意引5人绝路逃跑。
The day after Zhang posted this, the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau Yuexiu District Division detained him, and on August 30, 2013, it issued an order that Zhang would be subjected to seven days of administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Articles 25(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." That article provides:
Anyone who commits any of the following acts shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and may be concurrently fined 500 yuan. If the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained 5 days or less or be fined not more than 500 yuan: 1. Intentionally disturbing public order by spreading any rumor, giving false information about the situation of any risk, epidemic disease or emergency, or by any other means . . . .
有下列行为之一的,处五日以上十日以下拘留,可以并处五百元以下罚款;情节较轻的,处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款:(一)散布谣言,谎报险情、疫情、警情或者以其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的;……。
At the time of his detention, several state sponsored media outlets reported on the matter. For example, on August 31, 2013, the state sponsored Southern Metropolitan Daily published an article in its print edition entitled “Yue Police: Internet User Detained for Defaming the Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain” (穗警方:网民污蔑狼牙山五壮士被拘). Some excerpts:
A search by a Southern Metro reporter indicated that this was not the first time this information had appeared online. As early as 2007, Internet users had already posted this information on Baidu’s PostBar forum, and this kind of information was posted many times thereafter, but the posters’ identities could not be confirmed.
南都记者搜索发现,这一信息并非首次出现在网络,早在2007年,就已经有网友在百度贴吧上发布过此消息,同样的消息此后又曾多次被发布,但发帖者的身份无法确认。
Similarly, on September 1, 2013, the state sponsored Beijing Youth Daily publishes an article in its print edition entitled “An Internet User in Guangzhou is Detained for Spreading Rumors About the “Five Heroes” (广州一网民涉嫌散布“五壮士”谣言被拘留). Some excerpts:
In March 1996, a news report entitled "Five Great Men, One Insignificant One - There Were Six Men at Wolf Tooth Mountain" caused a momentary stir, with the article outlining that there were six people doing battle on Wolf Tooth Mountain that year, with five jumping and one surrendering and being killed. The report was republished by quite a few newspapers and magazines.
On July 18, 2007, an Internet user posted an article on Baidu's PostBar forum entitled "The Truth About the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain Who Plummeted to Death in Their Prime." Quite a few Internet users followed and responded trying to further understand this heretofore unknown "story."
On December 14, 2011, the author of a post on Baidu's PostBar forum entitled "Here is the Real Truth About the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain!" wrote that "In 1985 I once followed a work team though the mountainous areas of Wolf Tooth Mountain in Guantou Village in Yi County for half a year doing a survey of the situation in the countryside. I was fortunate to hear an old man offer a different description of the story of the Five Heroes."
1996年3月,—篇名为《五人重于泰山,—人轻于鸿毛———狼牙山有六人》的通讯轰动—时,文中记述称当年狼牙山上作战的共有6人,5人跳崖、1人投敌被杀,这条通讯曾被不少报刊转载。
2OO7年7月18日,有网友在百度贴吧里发布名为《被吹得夭花乱坠的狼牙山五壮士的真相》的文章,不少网友跟帖回复试图进—步了解鲜为人知的“故事”。
2O11年12月14日,百度贴吧里—篇名为《狼牙山五壮士的真相原来是这样!》的帖子里作者写道:“1985年我曾随—个‘上山下乡’工作组在狼牙山所在地的易县管头乡做过半年的农村状况调查工作,有幸聆听了—位老先生对五壮士故事的另—种描述。”
After his release Zhang sued the Yuexiu District Public Security Bureau in the Guangzhou Yuexiu District People's Court demanding compensation for wrongfully imprisoning him. That court found in favor of the Yuexiu District Public Security Bureau.

Zhang filled an appeal with the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court asserting the lower court committed errors of fact and law.

Errors of Fact:
  • The lower court made no attempt to determine whether or nor Zhang’s weibo post contained information that was false.
  • The Public Security Bureau provided no proof that Zhang’s weibo post actually caused an socially harmful effects.
  • The content Zhang posted did not originate with him, but rather the Appellant saw it on the weibo of "Teacher Yuan Tengfei.”
  • In posting the weibo Zhang did not have any intent to deliberately disturb public order.
Errors of Law:

Article 25 of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law” requires intent, and therefore the Public Security Bureau had the burden to demonstrate:
  • Zhang himself fabricated and spread rumors.
  • The rumor's content was shocking enough to trigger a public panic and cause chaos.
  • Zhang had an intent to disrupt public order.
On May 20, 2015, the Intermediate People’s Court rejected Zhang’s appeal saying:
The Appellee [Public Security Bureau] believed that the Appellant [Zhang] used the Internet to publish false stories about the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" to distort the image of revolutionary martyrs, thereby causing harmful effects online, and that this constituted the act of spreading rumors and disturbing public order, and therefore imposing punishment in this case accorded with the aforementioned provisions.
被上诉人认为上诉人利用网络发布了虚构的“狼牙山五壮士”故事,歪曲革命烈士形象,在网络上造成了不良影响,构成散布谣言、扰乱公共秩序的行为,对其作出涉案处罚,符合上述规定。
Court Judgment: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=56361ea5-4a0c-47d6-a112-21270b5dd4fb