Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Lawyer Yuan Yulai Sues Government For Confiscating Books

On March 8, 2016, the state sponsored Global Times published an article entitled “Publication Watchdog Sued Over Book Seizure.” Some excerpts:
A lawyer from East China's Zhejiang Province sued the local publication watchdog on Monday after 14 books that he bought online and that were published by Taiwan or Hong Kong publishers - some of which are about the Bible, Marxism and North Korea - were confiscated on suspicion that they were "illegal publications."

Yuan Yulai, a lawyer at Zhejiang Zhixing Law Firm who has taken on several cases against government bodies, told the Global Times on Monday that he has filed his suit with the People's Court of the Beilun District in Ningbo, Zhejiang and will receive a reply within seven days.
. . . .
According to Yuan, five people including law enforcement officers from the culture, radio, television, news and publication bureau of Ningbo's Jiangdong district and local police officers came to his office on March 4 and informed him that books in an unopened package were illegal publications. Despite his protests, the officers opened the package and confiscated all 14 books.
. . . .
A search of Chinese e-commerce website taobao.com showed that some of these books were still sold on the platform as of press time.
. . . .
Yuan is also known as an online celebrity who had over 20 million Sina Weibo followers before his account was shut down in late 2015. He started an online campaign in April 2013 encouraging people to stop visiting the town of Fenghuang, a popular tourist destination in Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture in Central China's Hunan Province, after local authorities began charging entry fees to the town, prompting a backlash among local store owners.
On March 9, 2016, the Global Times published an article entitled “Local Govt Says Book Seizure was Lawful Operation.” Some excerpts:
The local district government in Ningbo, East China's Zhejiang Province said Tuesday that the local publication watchdog's confiscation of a lawyer's books on suspicion that they were "illegal publications" was a regular law enforcement operation and the results of the investigation will be released through proper channels.
. . . .
Yuan argued that the operation's procedure was illegal because the law enforcement officers confiscated the books, which goes against the country's Law on Administrative Penalty.

According to that law, administrative organs may obtain evidence through sampling. Under circumstances where it is likely that the evidence may be destroyed, lost, or difficult to obtain at a later point, administrative organs may - with the approval of their leading members - first register the evidence for preservation and make a timely decision on its disposition within seven days. 

"If they had merely registered the evidence for preservation, I would still have these books in my hand and would have no need to file a lawsuit," said Yuan.
This screenshot was taken on March 13, 2016, and shows that Taobao would not allow users to find results for "The Girl With Seven Names," one of the books confiscated from Yuan's offices.

This screenshot shows, however, that the same search with the final character removed returns many results.
A full translation of Yuan's complaint is available here: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2016/03/translation-lawyer-yuan-yulais.html

Translation: Lawyer Yuan Yulai's Complaint in the Administrative Lawsuit in the Hong Kong Taiwan Book Confiscation Case


Background: Lawyer Yuan Yulai Sues Government For Confiscating Books

Administrative Lawsuit in the Hong Kong Taiwan Book Confiscation Case

Plaintiff: Yuan Yulai, Male, Born May 18, 1966, Han ethnicity, Star of Zhejiang Law Firm, Residing at 4th Floor, Meibai Apartments, No. 655 Zhongxing Road, Ningbo.

Defendant: Administration for Culture and Radio, Television,  News, and Publishing of Jiangdong District, Ningbo, Located at No. 8 Yanwu Street, Ningbo.

Legal Representative: Wang Yu, Director.

Request for Relief:

Rescind the (Yongdong) Culture\Broadcasting\News Cert. Doc. (2016)#1 Notice of Preliminary Registration and Retention of Evidence issued by Defendant on March 4, 2016, and order Defendant to immediately return the 14 confiscated books to Plaintiff.

Statement of Facts:

At around 11:00 am on March 4, 2016, five individuals comprising the Defendant accompanied by the police did, without permission of the Plaintiff, suddenly enter the Plaintiff's office. Only one individual carried any law enforcement credentials, while the others did not produce any law enforcement credentials. One of these was a police officer with whom the Plaintiff had had previous work-related contact.

The Defendant and law enforcement agents said that during a joint law enforcement action it was discovered that the Plaintiff was suspected of purchasing and storing illegal publications, and afterwards produced a package, saying that it contained illegal publications.

When the Defendant decided to unseal it, they met with the stern refusual of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant produce their legal basis. Nevertheless, over the express objections of the Plaintiff, the policies officers forced the package to be opened.

Afterwards, after the Defendant had finished writing out a record, they produced the (Yongdong) Culture\Broadcasting\News Cert. Doc. (2016)#1 Notice of Preliminary Registration and Retention of Evidence and a Preliminary Statement of Evidence Registration and Retention, and confiscated the 14 books that were in the package.

The Plaintiff believes that the actions of the Defendant in confiscating the Plaintiff's books was without factual or legal basis, and severely infringed upon the rights of the Plaintiff:

(1) Lack of Factual Basis.

(i) The Defendant claims that the books discovered during the joing law enforcement inspection were illegal publications. The Plaintiff's package had not, however, been opened, and there was no way for the Defendant to have determined the contents were illegal publications.

When being interviewed the Defendant claimed, "Specifically, there were other clues there, you should ask the police, as it was the police that called us to go over there with them and take joint action." This is a dereliction of duty and an abuse of authority. The Defendant should have acted in accordance with the facts and the law, and not blindly follow or submit to the will of another agency.

(ii) Even if the books in question were illegal publications, the Defendant and the police conducted an illegal inspection by forcefully opening the Plaintiff's package to obtain evidence, and it cannot be used to prove the legality of the administrative action that is the subject of this lawsuit.

In this case the criteria for a fored inspection and search of the Plaintiff's package were lacking, as the Plaintiff was not under suspicion of endangering state security or committing a crime. Article 40 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly states: "The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law."

Clause 3 of Article 43 of the Administrative Litigation Law clearly states: "Evidence that has been obtained illegally may not be used as the basis for determining facts in a case."

(iii) The Books in Case Were not Illegal Publications

First, the books were published legally by Hong Kong and Taiwan publishers, and the Plaintiff purchased them legally from a Taobao website bookstore, and the online bookstore should have had an operating license. The latter should have been examined by Taobao, and based on the Plaintiff's understanding, Taobao should also have been inspected. In the Plaintiff's own defense, the Defendant's law enforcement officers themselves did not know whether mainland Chinese online and brick-and-mortar book stores could legally sell books published in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Their ignorance is shocking.

Second, looking only at the title of the books, there is no problem with the content of these books, and they are no so-called banned books. Several can be seen as being a positive force, and the Plaintiff had closely reviewed them prior to purchase.

"A Guide to Understanding the Bible's Old and New Testaments" and "The 100 Bible Events That Influenced the World" relate to the Bible.

"The Girl With Seven Names," "The Man With No Name," "I Want to Live Like a Man," and "Heaven" all discuss matter in North Korea.

"The Flowing Waters Never Revealed the Truth" is about the Cultural Revolution.

"Hidden Power" discusses historical events.

"Night: A Memoir of a Nazi Concentration Camp" is about Nazis.
"Thoughts on Law Enforcement" is the recollections of the judicial reform period by Taiwan prosecutor.

"Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" is a story about Lincoln.

"Heeding Marx in the Face of the Capitalist Catastrophe," "Who Says Democracy is not Subjugating," "Cai Yingwen Cannot Get Around the Republic of China" can be seen as being positive forces. The first promotes Marxist thought, the second opposes placing excessive faith in democracy, and the third is, after all, anti-Taiwan independence.

Nevertheless, the Defendant confiscated all of them over the express objections of the Plaintiff.

(2) Lack of Legal Basis

In its Notice of Preliminary Registration and Retention of Evidence the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was suspected of "purchasing and storing illegal publications," but failed to clarify which law stipulates investigation and prosecution of consumers who purchase so-called banned books. This is a classic example of misapplication of the law. As far as the Plaintiff is aware, there is no such legal provision.

This lawsuit is filed based on the foregoing. It must be explained that this case implicates issues of extreme importance. First, if  individuals' letters and packages can be inspected arbitrarily and capriciously and forced open, then people will be unable to go about their work and lives, and no one in our society will feel secure.

Second, if books from Hong Kong and Taiwan may be arbitrarily and capriciously deemed to be illegal publications and prohibited from being purchased by people in the mainland, then cultural exchanges across the strait will not be able to continue in a normal fashion, which will have an impact on the grand enterprise of the unification of the fatherland.

港台图书被查扣事件行政起诉状

原告袁裕来,男 ,1966年5月18日出生,汉族,浙江之星律师事务所律师,住宁波市中兴路655号梅柏公寓四楼。

被告宁波市江东区文化广播新闻出版局,住所地宁波市演武街8号。

法定代表人王昱,局长。

诉讼请求:

撤销被告2016年3月4日作出的(甬东)文广新证通字(2016)第01号先行登记保存证据通知书,责令其及时将扣押的14本书籍返还给原告。

事实和理由:

2016年3月4日11时许,被告偕同公安民警共计5人,未经原告准许,忽然进入原告办公室。只有一位佩戴着执法证,其余几位未出示执法证。 其中一位系公安局民警,原告曾经有过工作上的接触。

被告执法人员说是在联合执法中,发现原告涉嫌购买贮存非法出版物,然后有人拿进来一个包裹,说里面是非法出版物。

被告决定拆封时,遭到原告严词拒绝,原告要求被告出具法律依据。但是,在原告的抗议声中,同行的公安民警还是强行拆开了包裹。

随后,被告在制作笔录后,出具了(甬东)文广新证通字(2016)第01号先行登记保存证据通知书和先行登记保存证据清单,扣押了包裹内的14本书。

原告认为,被告查扣原告书籍行为没有事实和法律依据,严重侵犯了原告的权利:

一、没有事实依据。

1、被告称是在联合执法检查中发现包裹里的书是非法出版物,可是原告的包裹尚未打开,被告根本无法认定其中是非法出版物。

被告在接受记者采访时称,“具体的,还有线索那边,要问公安,是公安叫我们一起过去,联合行动”,这是玩忽职守、滥用职权。被告应该根据事实和法律依法行政,而不应该盲从或者屈从其他机关的意志。

2、即使涉案书籍是非法出版物,被告或者公安民警非法检查、强行拆封原告包裹取得的证据,也不能用来证明所诉行政行为的合法性。

本 案不具备强行检查、搜查原告包裹的条件,原告并无危害国家安全也未涉嫌刑事犯罪。《中华人民共和国宪法》第40条明确规定:“中华人民共和国公民的通信自 由和通信秘密受法律的保护。除因国家安全或者追查刑事犯罪的需要,由公安机关或者检察机关依照法律规定的程序对通信进行检查外,任何组织或者个人不得以任 何理由侵犯公民的通信自由和通信秘密。”

《行政诉讼法》第43条第3款明确规定:“以非法手段取得的证据,不得作为认定案件事实的根据。”

3、涉案书籍并非非法出版物。

首先,这些书是港台出版社合法出版的,原告是从淘宝网上的书店依法购买的,网上书店应该是有经营许可证的。后者应该由淘宝网进行审查,据原告了解,淘宝网也是经过审查的。
在原告申辩过程中,被告执法人员竟然不知道大陆的网上书店和实体书店可以依法出售港台书籍,其无知实在让人震惊。

其次,单从书名来看,这几本书的内容都没有问题,也不是所谓的禁书。有几本则堪称是正能量,原告下单之前是经过认真审查的。
《新 旧约圣经轻松读》、《影响世界的圣经100大事件》是有关圣经的,《拥有七个名字的女孩》、《没有名字的人》、《我想活得像个人》 、《天堂》讲的是朝鲜 的事情,《流水何曾洗是非》是反思文革的,《隐动力》讲的历史故事,《夜:纳粹集中营回忆录》讲的是纳粹,《执法所思》是一位台湾检察官对司法改革年代的 回顾,《无敌:林肯不以任何人为敌人创造了连政敌都同心效力的团队》讲的是林肯的故事。

《在资本主义带来浩劫时聆听马克思》、《谁说民主不亡国》、《蔡英文绕不绕得过中华民国》三本则堪称正能量,第一本是弘扬马克思思想的,第二本是反对过分迷信民主,第三本则显然是反台独的。

可是,被告在原告的异议声中,竟然全部都扣押了。

二、没有法律依据。

被告在先行登记保存证据通知书认定原告涉嫌的是“购买贮存非法出版物”,但没有明确什么法律规定了消费者购买所谓的禁书可以予以查处,这是典型的适用法律错误。而根据原告所知,也没有这样的法律规定。

综 上所述,特提起诉讼。不能不说明的是,本案涉及的问题特别重要,首先个人的信函和包裹如果能够随便检查、强行拆封,人们就无法正常生产、生活,社会就会人 人自危。其次,如果随便将港台书籍认定为非法出版物而不准在大陆民众购买,两岸的文化交流就无法正常,进而会影响祖国统一大业。

此致

宁波市北仑区人民法院

原告:袁裕来

2016年3月7日

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Article About Government Censorship of Article About Politician's Complaints of "Frightening" Censorship of Article About Chilling Effects on Speech Gets Censored

On March 3, 2016, Caixin Magazine published an article on its website entitled "Committee Member Jiang Hong: Citizens' Right to Expression Must be Safeguarded" (蒋洪委员:公民表达的权利必须要保障). Some excerpts: 
"The whole point of the Two Sessions meetings is to discuss major issues of State and put forth constructive opinions, not chat about trivialities. Owing to certain incidents, however, the masses are now all possessed with uncertainty, hoping to speak as little as possible. That's what the atmosphere is like now."

Jiang Hong, Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference delegate and Shanghai University of Finance and Economics professor, arrived in Beijing on March 2 to participate in the Two Sessions meetings.
“两会本身就是议论国家大事,提出建设性的意见,而不是讨论什么鸡毛蒜皮的小事。只不过,受某些事件的影响,现在公众也都有点迷茫,希望少讲些话,气氛是这样。”
  
3月2日下午到京的全国政协委员、上海财经大学教授蒋洪,第八次参加一年一次的全国两会。
The article was subsequently deleted. Original URL: http://topics.caixin.com/2016-03-03/100915459.html

On March 5, 2016, Caixin published an article on its website entitled "Committee Member Jiang Hong: The Fact That My Statements About the Two Sessions Have Been Labeled Illegal is ‘Frightening’” (蒋洪委员:我的两会言论被指违法违规“太可怕”). Some excerpts:

While browsing for an article about himself on the Weixin platform, Jiang Hong, Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference delegate and Shanghai University of Finance and Economics professor, got a notice saying "This Page Can No Longer be Accessed." He found this "completely unacceptable." Jiang Hong stated it thus during an interview with a Caixin journalist on March 5.

Jiang Hong was presented with the following "ruling": "This page includes content that violates laws or rules, it was reported by many people, and in order to protect a green online environment, it has been blocked."

The article was a March 3 Caixin interview of Jiang Hong entitled "Committee Member Jiang Hong: Citizens' Right to Expression Must be Safeguarded." Jiang Hong explained to a Caixin reporter "Our school has a public platform where the article was posted, and it wasn't blocked."

Jiang Hong told a Caixin reporter: "The only thing I did in the article was stress a principle. I didn't even make any statements about any specific incident, and the title was a summary reflecting my meaning. Now even this basic right is deemed a violation of laws and regulations, and in the end it cannot be accessed. This leads me to wonder how much content that may not be violating laws or regulations but that is being blocked all the time."

As Jiang Hong sees it, this incident is extremely serious. The statements made in the article were basic common sense in a society with rule of law, and for it to be deemed to have violated laws and regulations is "Too scary, too shocking. After reviewing the text, I cannot find any content that would violate any laws or policies."

Jiang Hong went on to say that, over the last few years he has come across instances where "illegal" content has been inaccessible, "at those times I always thought they may have had this or that problem, but now when it is happening to me, I cannot help but keep wondering what laws and policies are being violated?"

Jiang Hong told the Caixin report that all of the illegal content was in fact an exercise of rights given by the Constitution, as well as being raised in Communist Party documents. Safeguarding the rights of citizens to know, to express, to participate, and to supervise; the right to expression is one of these.

"This way of doing things shows that this is being handled in a manner that is too arbitrary and capricious." Jiang Hong said that the modernization of the State's governance should be through administration using the rule of law. Ensuring freedom of speech for the citizens means ensuring that they can use any means to express themselves, including the Internet, Weibo, Weixin, newspapers, and any other forms of media.

"I am not denying that some people's speech may be wrong or illegal. But this can be resolved entirely through the legal process, using the law to made determinations and handle outcomes. We cannot have this kind of arbitrary and capricious censorship. When matters are handled in this fashion it is very easy for citizens' right to expression to be infringed upon." Jiang Hong went on to say that this issues must be treated seriously, that this is a fundamental principle for the society, and once abandoned it will become impossible to have any sort of discussion of a society with the rule of law.

全国政协委员、上海财经大学教授蒋洪在微信平台浏览自己的一篇采访时,被提醒“已停止访问该页面”,这让他“完全不能接受。”3月5日,在接受财新网记者采访时,蒋洪如是说。

“该网页包含违法或违规内容,被多人举报,为维护绿色上网环境,已停止访问。”蒋洪看到的是这样一条“成规”。
  
文章是3月3日财新网对蒋洪的两会采访,题目为《蒋洪委员:公民表达的权利必须要保障》。目前,该文在财新网以及其他平台仍是正常访问状态。蒋洪向财新记者介绍,“我们学校有一个公共平台,转发了该文,也没有被屏蔽。”
  
“我只是在文章中强调了一个原则,甚至没有特定的所指对哪一件事进行评论,标题也集中反映了我的意思。现在连这个基本权利都被视为违法违规,这就让我联想到,平时多少内容,他们可能并不违法或违规,最后还是无法访问了。”蒋洪向财新记者说。
  
在蒋洪看来,这件事是很严重的,文章其实表达的只是一个法治社会的基本共识,现在却也被视为违法违规,“太可怕了,太让人惊奇了。我左看右看,看不出什么违法违规的内容。”
  
蒋洪还表示,近些年来也会碰到一些“违法违规”的内容无法浏览,“这时我总在想,可能哪些方面会有些问题吧,但这次轮到我头上,反复想到底哪些违法违规了?”
  
蒋洪告诉财新记者说,所谓违法违规的内容,恰恰是宪法赋予的权利,也是党的文件多次提到的,维护公民的知情权、表达权、参与权和监督权,表达权是其中之一。
  
“这种做法本身,就说明处理起来太随意了。”蒋洪说,国家治理现代化应该是法治化管理,保障公民的言论自由,就是要保障他们通过各种方式表达,比如网络、微博、微信、报纸以及其他形式的媒体等,都应该涵盖在其中。
  
“我并不否认,有可能一些人的言论会有错误和违法违规的地方,这完全可以通过法律程序解决,通过法律加以认定和处理,不能这么随便就被禁。这样的处理,很容易让公众的表达权受到侵犯。”蒋洪进一步指出,这个问题必须认真对待,这是社会的基本规则,抛弃这条,在任何意义上,恐怕都谈不上是法治社会。
The article was subsequently deleted. Original URL: http://topics.caixin.com/2016-03-05/100916504.html

On March 7, Caixin published an article in English entitled “Story about Advisor's Free Speech Comments Removed from Caixin Website.” Some excerpts:
An article about a call by a member of the country's political advisory body for the people of China to enjoy freedom of speech has been removed from Caixin's Chinese-language website, even as the head of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference said its members should be allowed to speak their minds freely.
. . . .
An article based on the interview was posted on the news website, but on March 5 it was deleted by the Cyberspace Administration of China, a government censorship organ, because it contained "illegal content."
. . . .
The administration told Caixin's editors that the article "violated laws and regulations."
These screenshots show that the article was subsequently replaced with a different article entitled "A Lack of Vision in China's Internet Companies."


Original URL: http://english.caixin.com/2016-03-07/100917276.html

The same day, the state sponsored Global Times published an English language article entitled “Advisor Mulls Freedom of Speech Proposal.” Some excerpts:
A national political adviser was considering making a proposal to the national legislature in a bid to ensure citizens' legal right to self expression after a report about his remarks on this topic was blocked on China's social media, he told the Global Times on Sunday.
. . . .
Jiang told the Global Times on Sunday that the blocking of news reports is not "isolated and occasional."

"We see many cases of deleting posts and blocking websites on the Internet," said Jiang, who expressed concern about whether such moves are made in accordance with laws and regulations.

Jiang said that he has chosen to raise the issue of content blocking now because he is certain that the content in the blocked report in question did not violate any laws or regulations.

"That being the case, we need to think about whether decisions to block some content in the past were made on legal grounds or not," Jiang said, noting that much still needs to be done to ensure that citizens' right to expression is duly respected.

On Tuesday, China Discipline Inspection Daily, a newspaper affiliated with China's top Party disciplinary watchdog, weighed in with an old saying that a thousand yes-men cannot compare with one person who criticizes frankly. 
As of March 13, 2016, the Global Time's article was still available here: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/972228.shtml.

Below are the three deleted Caixin articles in full.



Thursday, March 3, 2016

Cyberspace Administration of China Orders Websites to Shut Ren Zhiqiang's Accounts

On December 14, 2014,  Red Flag Manuscript published an article by Li Yanyan (李艳艳 - whom it
identified as "with the Humanities division of Beijing Union University" - 北京联合大学) entitled "Some Tendencies That Must Be Addressed In Order to Safeguard Weibo's Ideological Security" ( 维护微博意识形态安全必须纠正的几种倾向). Some excerpts:
1. Guard Against Deception by Western Ideology Bundled Within "Universal Values" on Weibo
. . . .
Analysis of data on public sentiment research shows that some Big V's on Weibo lack an appreciation of the importance of the threat represented by the infiltration of the ideology of Western developed countries. Some even rely on foreign forces, blindly echoing them, and publicly insult leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and the Socialist system on their Weibo, repeatedly throwing up provocative topics to attack the government and incite social antagonism.

A certain famous economist who had over 2,000,000 followers not only greatly admires Western "liberalism," but even publicly declared that Communism was "a dead end."

Another famous actor with over 2,600,000 followers expressed doubts about whether "without the Communist Party there would be no new China," which is basic common sense, and publicly declared "without anyone there would still be a China."
. . . .
There are many struggles over Weibo ideology debates that implicate certain basic and fundamental questions of right and wrong. On March 28, 2014, the Weibo post of a certain famous economist was viewed over 4,000,000 times, and the statement in the Weibo that "A century ago Communism swept the globe, and how many young people had their blood spilled for it. But a century of practice has shown that this road is a dead end" received 15,000 reposts with various appraisals.

On September 4, 2014, a famous property magnate with over 20,000,000 followers made a Weibo post where he directly attacked Marxism for "brainwashing" the masses.
. . . .
Ideological and political work represents the future and destiny of the Party and the State. However, today there continues to be a flood of speech on Weibo attacking and denigrating the Party's leaders and the Socialist system. Some websites have failed to implement effective oversight. For example, Sina Weibo's reporting system includes seven items: "Spam, Obscenity, False Information, Sensitive Information, Plagiarism, Harassment, Fraudulent Contests," but it does not have an item relating to politics.
. . . .
Agencies responsible for propaganda and ideology especially need to strengthen their contacts with Weibo Big Vs, and do a good job of educating and guiding them, and as far as possible rally them around the Party and the government.
. . . .
The privatization of Weibo operating platforms may represent a significant threat to the ideology security of the State. According to statistics from April 2014, the shareholding structure of Sina Weibo, with 129,000,000 active registered users, was 59,8 held by Sina's special shares held by private companies and foreign investors, and 32% held by Alibaba, which has foreign shareholders. It has already listed on the US NASDAQ. The developments in the Weibo platform are a warning to us, that we must vigorously develop state-owned Weibo operating enterprises, and thereby enable the Party's ideology propaganda work to derive power from the developement of our Weibo platform.

1、防止微博中被所谓“普世价值”包装的西方意识形态所蒙蔽
. . . .
舆 情检索和分析的数据表明,一些微博大V显然没有对西方发达国家的意识形态渗透引起重视和警惕,更有甚者挟洋自重、盲目附和,在其微博中公开污辱中国共产党 的领导和社会主义制度,频频设置挑衅性议题向政府发难,挑动社会对立情绪。某拥有逾200万“粉丝”的知名经济学者,不仅十分艳羡西方的“自由主义”,甚 至在微博上公开宣称共产主义“此路不通”。另一拥有260多万“粉丝”的某著名演员,在微博上质疑“没有共产党就没有新中国”的基本共识,公开声称“没谁 都有中国”。
. . . .
在微博意识形态论争较量中,有很多是涉及原则性、根本性的大是大非问题。2014年3月28日, 一条某知名经济学家的微博获得了超过400万人次的阅读量,博文中“百年前共产主义风靡全球,多少热血青年为此抛头颅洒热血。可是经过百年的实践,证明此 路不通”的内容引发了近1.5万条褒贬不一的转评。2014年9月4日,一位拥有2000多万“粉丝”的知名地产商人发布微博,直接抨击马克思“洗脑”大 众。
. . . .
思想政治工作关系着党和国家的前途命运。然而,微博上一些攻击、诋毁党的领导和社会主义制度的言论至今仍 在泛滥,一些网站也没有有效监管。例如,新浪微博的举报制度包括“垃圾营销、淫秽色情、不实信息、敏感信息、抄袭内容、骚扰我、虚假中奖”七个条目,但没 有一条是涉及政治性的条目。
. . . .
宣传思想工作部门还要特别加强与微博大V的联系,做好他们的教育引导工作,最大限度地把他们团结凝聚在党和政府的周围。
. . . . 
微 博运营平台的私有化,可能存在着威胁国家意识形态安全的巨大风险。据2014年4月的统计数据,在拥有1.29亿月活跃注册用户数量的新浪微博股权结构 中,民企和外资背景的新浪公司持股占比59.8%,外资控股的阿里巴巴公司占比32%,而且已经在美国纳斯达克挂牌上市。微博平台的这种发展趋势警示我 们,必须大力发展国有控股的微博运营企业,从而使党的思想宣传工作能够借力我们的微博平台来开展。
According to a 2016 report in the state sponsored Global Times:
In September 2015, Ren [Zhiqiang] clashed with the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of China (CYLC) on social media, claiming that it is "ridiculous" to ask CYLC members to be "communist successors" before communism has been achieved.

Ren also attacked CCTV in 2014, calling the State broadcaster "the dumbest pig on Earth," after a CCTV report claimed that China's largest residential real estate developer Vanke failed to pay the 4.4 billion-yuan land value increment tax.
The same report stated that Ren Zhiqiang had been "openly criticizing President Xi Jinping's emphasis on Party leadership in Party-run media," and on February 19, he had launched a "tirade . . .  writing on Weibo that the people will be forgotten when all the media follow the Party and do not represent the people's interests, after President Xi toured major State media outlets and underscored the Party's leadership over media run by the Party."

On February 22, 2016, Qianlong.com, a news portal affiliated with the Beijing Communist Party Central Committee, published two editorials. The first was entitled "Why Do Internet Users Need to Take Ren Zhiqiang to Party School?" (网友为何要给任志强上党课?). Some excerpts:
On the morning of February 19, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the country, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, conducted a review of the People's Daily Press, Xinhua News Agency, and China Central Television. That afternoon, Xi Jinping convened a symposium on the Party's news public opinion work at the Great Hall of the People, during which he stressed that all media sponsored by the Party and the government are propaganda fortifications for the Party and the government, and must bear the Party's surname.
. . . .
On the same evening after General Secretary Xi gave his speech, Ren Zhijiang, a famous online celebrity and outstanding Communist Party member said on his Weibo "When did the people's government transform into the Party's government? Is the money being spent Party fees?" and  "You can't make this kind of change on whim!" "Don't use taxpayer money to engage in activities that are not providing services to taxpayers." Immediately afterwards he shrieks "Is this a categorical division into two opposing camps? When all of the media has a surname, and furthermore no longer represents the interests of the people, then the people will be discarded in some forgotten corner!"
. . . .
Any muckraking behavior must of necessity be subjected to the censure of the people. Any attempt at provoking disturbances or inciting hatred must of necessity be subjected to the disapprobation of the people. Having Internet users give Ren Zhiqiang some Party classes is the best evidence of this. In the days to come we will see even more Internet users with sincere patriotic hears bravely speak out and dare to struggle in the name of strengthening positive forces and contribute their power to realizing the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

2月19日上午,中共中央总书记、国家主席、中央军委主席习近平来到人民日报社、新华社和中央电视台调研。当天下午,习近平在人民大会堂主持召开党的新闻舆论工作座谈会,强调党和政府主办的媒体是党和政府的宣传阵地,必须姓党。
. . . .
习总书记发表讲话后,网络知名大V、优秀共产党员任志强就于当日晚上在微博上说“人民政府啥时候改党政府了?花的是党费吗?”还称“这个不能随便改!”“别用纳税人的钱去办不为纳税人提供服务的事。”紧接着,任志强又叫喊道:“彻底的分为对立的两个阵营了?当所有的媒体有了姓,并且不代表人民的利益时,人民就被抛弃到被遗忘的角落了!”
. . . .
任何唯恐天下不乱的行为都必然会遭到人民的唾弃,任何试图挑起事端制造仇恨的行径都必然会遭到人民的反对,网友给任志强上党课就是最好的佐证。而在今后的日子里,将会有更多的网友以拳拳爱国之心勇于发声、敢于斗争,以更加强大的正能量,为实现中华民族的伟大复兴的中国梦贡献力量。
The second editorial was entitled "Who Gave Ren Zhiqiang the Nerve to Oppose the Party" (谁给了任志强反党的底气). Some excerpts:
How did the former Soviet Union fall? The fall began first from the media. Taking a page from history, the Party media will never again fail to speak the Party's principles, never abandon their kinship with the Party. The only thing to fear is that they will take the surname "capitalism." 
前苏联是怎么倒的?最先就是从媒体上倒的,前车之鉴,党媒再不讲党性原则,再不姓党,只怕通通要姓“资”了。
On February 28, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China posted an announcement on its CAC Spokesperson Announcement on the Shutting of Ren Zhiqiang's Weibo Account." Some excerpts:
website entitled "
Jiang Jun stated that, based on reports by Internet users, Ren Zhiqiang's Weibo account continuously publicized illegal information, and its influence was malicious. . . . [T]he CAC ordered relevant websites, including Sina and Tencent, to shut down Ren Zhiqiang's Weibo accounts.
. . . .
Online celebrities, "Online Big V's" must particularly ensure the proper usage of their personal influence, be models of obeying laws and regulations, be aware of their social responsibilities, and pro-actively disseminate positive energy.

姜军表示,据网民举报,任志强微博账号持续公开发布违法信息,影响恶劣。. . . 国家网信办责令新浪、腾讯等有关网站依法关闭任志强微博账号。
. . . .
网络名人、“网络大V”更要正确运用自身影响力,模范遵守法律法规,自觉承担社会责任,积极传播正能量。
The same evening, Hu Xijin (胡锡进), editor-in-chief of the state sponsored Global Times, posted the following on his verified Sina Weibo account:
People are spreading rumors about me, so I have to say a few words myself. The first is this time what Ren Zhiqiang said really crossed the line, and I firmly oppose his perspective and attitude. Second is he has been saying this for a long time now, and officials didn't touch him, and my personal hope and support for this kind of tolerance remains to this day. Third, until now Ren was one of the greatest beneficiaries of online culture, and I hope he becomes the best performer of flying right up to the bottom line, and doesn't continue to play the role of the Big V crashing into the line in some childish tragedy. Back when Big-Eyed Li (Li Chengpeng) and Lively Panpan were around, Ren was a kind straight man among the Big V's. Today he has "grown up," and furthermore he is a Party member, and I hope he becomes a lesson for the liberals and the "extreme liberals," as well as their "Party representative" that respects the rules as they should.

被人造谣发言,不如自己说几句。一是任志强这一次说的很过分,坚决反对他的观点和态度。二是他长期这么说话,官方没碰他,我个人希望,支持这种包容的理由直到今天依然成立。第三,任迄今是互联网文化的最大受益者之一,希望他成为贴底线飞行的最佳表演者,而不是续演大V撞线陨落的幼稚悲情戏。李大眼在的时候,潘潘活跃的时候,任大概算捧哏的“中V”。今天他“成长起来”,又是党员,希望他成为教自由派们既“很自由派”,又守他们应守规矩的“党代表”。
These screenshots show that on February 28 Sina Weibo began censoring searches for “Ren Zhiqiang” (任志强) as an account name.


This screenshot was taken on February 28, and shows Baidu had banned users from establishing a PostBar (贴吧 Tieba) forum about "Ren Zhiqiang."


Here is an image of Ren's Sina Weibo home page before it was shuttered.

On February 29, the Global Times published an editorial entitled “Shut-Down of Ren’s Social Media Accounts Anticipated” (任志强被销号,很多人都预见到了). Some excerpts:
Despite Ren being a Party member, he recently argued that "once media start to follow the Party line, ... the people will be left to a deserted corner," and questioned whether taxpayers' money should be used to promote the government. These remarks put the Party against the people, posing a challenge to the current public media management strategy.
. . . .
Ren's unprincipled outspokenness has been tolerated for a while. Such tolerance and inclusiveness is worth encouraging, but whoever crosses the bottom line must face a certain constraint. In his case, there have been debates over whether his outspokenness has crossed the line, but apparently he has given no heed to these warnings. His recent remarks have attracted wide criticism and calls for him to be held accountable.

As a Party member, Ren should have insisted on the constitutional principle of the Communist Party of China's leadership. Ren's case should be interpreted in the right way: The Internet is open, but there is no difference between managing virtual society and the real one.

任志强成为互联网上最具争议的发言者已有一段时间,他近日公开抨击主流媒体的党性原则,激起轩然大波。他说,“人民政府啥时候改党政府了?花的是党费吗?”并称一旦媒体姓党,“人民就被抛弃到被遗忘的角落了”。他刻意把党性与人民性对立起来,对时下的新闻舆论工作治理横加指责。
. . . .
在任志强的例子上,应当说社会的宽容在很长时间里表现出了耐心。社会上关于他是否“过线”了的议论断断续续了很长时间,这段时间也应当说为他反思和改正错误提供了机会。但他显然无视早就能听到的警钟,到他最近发表错误言论时,人们受到震动,不仅要求追究他的呼声此起彼伏,而且相信他这一次将“付出代价”成了有相当普遍性的预测。

公民要守法,党员更要遵纪守规,党员中的名人尤其要随时保持一份敬畏之心。一些激进自由派不断攻击“党的领导”这一宪法原则,身为党员,任不仅不同他们做斗争,反而与他们相互呼应,有时甚至自己“冲在了前头”。看看他在网上的“盟友圈”是什么情况,他的影响力中掺入了多少非健康的因素,他对党纪国法的认识看来已经飞到云端上。

任的微博被销号应会引起一定范围的警醒。希望大家正确解读这件事,从互联网管理和名人的责任两个方向厘清一段时间以来的争论。互联网必定是开放的,这是它积极的天性。同时现实社会的全部治理必须介入互联网,这是虚拟空间的现实性和它与人类生活越来越紧密交织决定的。互联网不是法外之地,这决非比喻,它真实得就像我们早上醒来看到的洒进房间的阳光。不要再玩网上撞线的游戏了,它并不好玩。
On February 29, 2016, the Global Times published an article entitled "Net Watchdog Closes Tycoon’s Social Media Accounts." Some excerpts:
There are people who applauded the shutdown of Ren's Weibo accounts. But some are asking whether he should be banned just for "talking too harshly."

He Hui (何辉), head of the Public Relations and Public Opinion Institute of the Communication University of China, said shutting down his Weibo accounts is a move to maintain the country's interests in accordance with laws.

"As an influential online celebrity and a Party member, many of Ren's comments on the real estate market and political issues violated the central government's policies and have had a negative impact on society," He told the Global Times Sunday.
 On March 2, the Global Times published an article entitled "Guangzhou to Punish Party Members’ Baseless Comments." Some excerpts:
The Party discipline watchdog in Guangzhou, South China's Guangdong Province vowed to closely investigate and punish Party members for making groundless comments on the Party's leadership in 2016, media reported Tuesday.

The discipline inspection commission pledged to impose punishment - in addition to punishment imposed by the Party's leadership - on those who irresponsibly make comments about the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and socialism with Chinese characteristics, Guangzhou-based Nanfang Daily reported.
. . . .
The announcement follows the case of Ren Zhiqiang - a property tycoon whose Sina Weibo account had more than 37 million followers - who will be punished by the Xicheng District Committee of the CPC in Beijing after openly criticizing President Xi Jinping's emphasis on Party leadership in Party-run media.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

A Chronology of Actor Sun Haiying's Ban From China's Social Media

Actor Sun Haiying's Weibo shortly before it was shuttered.
December 14, 2014,  Red Flag Manuscript published an article by Li Yanyan (李艳艳 - whom it
identified as "with the Humanities division of Beijing Union University" - 北京联合大学) entitled "Some Tendencies That Must Be Addressed In Order to Safeguard Weibo's Ideological Security" ( 维护微博意识形态安全必须纠正的几种倾向). Some excerpts:
1. Guard Against Deception by Western Ideology Bundled Within "Universal Values" on Weibo
. . . .
Analysis of data on public sentiment research shows that some Big V's on Weibo lack an appreciation of the importance of the threat represented by the infiltration of the ideology of Western developed countries. Some even rely on foreign forces, blindly echoing them, and publicly insult leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and the Socialist system on their Weibo, repeatedly throwing up provocative topics to attack the government and incite social antagonism.

A certain famous economist who had over 2,000,000 followers not only greatly admires Western "liberalism," but even publicly declared that Communism was "a dead end."

Another famous actor with over 2,600,000 followers expressed doubts about whether "without the Communist Party there would be no new China," which is basic common sense, and publicly declared "without anyone there would still be a China."
. . . .
There are many struggles over Weibo ideology debates that implicate certain basic and fundamental questions of right and wrong. On March 28, 2014, the Weibo post of a certain famous economist was viewed over 4,000,000 times, and the statement in the Weibo that "A century ago Communism swept the globe, and how many young people had their blood spilled for it. But a century of practice has shown that this road is a dead end" received 15,000 reposts with various appraisals.

On September 4, 2014, a famous property magnate with over 20,000,000 followers made a Weibo post where he directly attacked Marxism for "brainwashing" the masses.
. . . .
Ideological and political work represents the future and destiny of the Party and the State. However, today there continues to be a flood of speech on Weibo attacking and denigrating the Party's leaders and the Socialist system. Some websites have failed to implement effective oversight. For example, Sina Weibo's reporting system includes seven items: "Spam, Obscenity, False Information, Sensitive Information, Plagiarism, Harassment, Fraudulent Contests," but it does not have an item relating to politics.
. . . .
Agencies responsible for propaganda and ideology especially need to strengthen their contacts with Weibo Big Vs, and do a good job of educating and guiding them, and as far as possible rally them around the Party and the government.
. . . .
The privatization of Weibo operating platforms may represent a significant threat to the ideology security of the State. According to statistics from April 2014, the shareholding structure of Sina Weibo, with 129,000,000 active registered users, was 59,8 held by Sina's special shares held by private companies and foreign investors, and 32% held by Alibaba, which has foreign shareholders. It has already listed on the US NASDAQ. The developments in the Weibo platform are a warning to us, that we must vigorously develop state-owned Weibo operating enterprises, and thereby enable the Party's ideology propaganda work to derive power from the developement of our Weibo platform.

1、防止微博中被所谓“普世价值”包装的西方意识形态所蒙蔽
. . . .
舆情检索和分析的数据表明,一些微博大V显然没有对西方发达国家的意识形态渗透引起重视和警惕,更有甚者挟洋自重、盲目附和,在其微博中公开污辱中国共产党的领导和社会主义制度,频频设置挑衅性议题向政府发难,挑动社会对立情绪。某拥有逾200万“粉丝”的知名经济学者,不仅十分艳羡西方的“自由主义”,甚至在微博上公开宣称共产主义“此路不通”。另一拥有260多万“粉丝”的某著名演员,在微博上质疑“没有共产党就没有新中国”的基本共识,公开声称“没谁都有中国”。
. . . .
在微博意识形态论争较量中,有很多是涉及原则性、根本性的大是大非问题。2014年3月28日,一条某知名经济学家的微博获得了超过400万人次的阅读量,博文中“百年前共产主义风靡全球,多少热血青年为此抛头颅洒热血。可是经过百年的实践,证明此路不通”的内容引发了近1.5万条褒贬不一的转评。2014年9月4日,一位拥有2000多万“粉丝”的知名地产商人发布微博,直接抨击马克思“洗脑”大众。
. . . .
思想政治工作关系着党和国家的前途命运。然而,微博上一些攻击、诋毁党的领导和社会主义制度的言论至今仍在泛滥,一些网站也没有有效监管。例如,新浪微博的举报制度包括“垃圾营销、淫秽色情、不实信息、敏感信息、抄袭内容、骚扰我、虚假中奖”七个条目,但没有一条是涉及政治性的条目。
. . . .
宣传思想工作部门还要特别加强与微博大V的联系,做好他们的教育引导工作,最大限度地把他们团结凝聚在党和政府的周围。
. . . . 
微博运营平台的私有化,可能存在着威胁国家意识形态安全的巨大风险。据2014年4月的统计数据,在拥有1.29亿月活跃注册用户数量的新浪微博股权结构中,民企和外资背景的新浪公司持股占比59.8%,外资控股的阿里巴巴公司占比32%,而且已经在美国纳斯达克挂牌上市。微博平台的这种发展趋势警示我们,必须大力发展国有控股的微博运营企业,从而使党的思想宣传工作能够借力我们的微博平台来开展。
December 16, 2014, the Global Times published an editorial entitled “Public Opinion Divisions Reflected in Party Media.” Some excerpts:
In one of its recent articles, Hongqi Wen'gao, or Red Flag Manuscript, a political periodical, singled out for criticism some big Vs, which refers to verified Weibo users who have more than 500,000 followers. It poured scorn on "a renowned economist," "a famous actor," and "a real estate tycoon who has over 20 million followers," accusing them of slandering the Party's leadership. The article stirred up public opinion, and it was inferred by some Net users that the anonymous targets of criticism by the journal are respectively Mao Yushi, Sun Haiying and Ren Zhiqiang.

As Hongqi Wen'gao is affiliated to the Communist Party-run magazine Qiushi, it is therefore defined as State media. Some have spoken out, saying that the journal's censure of the three "anti-Party" figures indicates a re-occurrence of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76).
. . . .
Hongqi Wen'gao has more freedom of the press than traditional Party-run periodicals. Its rebukes toward anti-Party figures carry a different meaning from those made by Party-run newspapers or magazines. The Hongqi Wen'gao article illuminates views held by some Party members; however, it shouldn't be equated to an official statement from the Party.
. . . .
The three targets of criticism by Hongqi Wen'gao indeed advocated opinions that are contradictory to the Party and the country's political roadmap, which earned them fame and benefits. They gained popularity among certain groups, including Western forces.

But at the same time, they faced some uncertainties. For instance, they risk being criticized by media outlets such as Hongqi Wen'gao. In such circumstances, they have nothing to complain about. They have influence in the sphere of public opinion, so they could refute Hongqi Wen'gao and its supporters, defend themselves or feel proud of being crowned "anti-Party."
December 26, 2014, the Global Times published an editorial by "Wang Xiaoshi" (王小石 - the Global Times did not provide any background on the author) entitled "America Hopes to Topple China, and Sun Haiying is Their Third Kind of Weapon" (美国欲扳倒中国 孙海英属第三种武器). Some excerpts:
There are currently three main kinds of weapons deployed in America's ideological war for hearts and minds to "topple China." the first kind is the universal values (which are fundamentally American values) which prior to 2013 were trumpeted throughout the two public opinion venues of the traditional media and the Internet. But the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia was an ally of America, and the double standards exemplified by proclaiming "human rights is more important than sovereignty" to support color revolutions, while violently suppressing the Occupy Wall Street movement show that universal values is a joke, and the Chinese people saw through it.

The second kind of weapon was the constitutional concepts stirred up during the 2013 Southern Weekend's New Year Message incident, which hoped to use reverence for the Constitution to promote American-style separation of powers, judicial independence, civilian control over the military, and multi-Party democracy. In fact this went against China's current Constitution, as certain people have previously clearly described.
. . . .
The third kind of weapon is a bit harder to spot, it is using the guise of Christianity to spread American political concepts and values.
. . . .
Most of the overseas anti-China forces are already Christianized, and attempt to dilute their political characteristics, for example Chai Ling and Yu Jie, or the most model example - Yuan Zhiming,  a drafter of "River Eulagy," the generation of late-80's students in exile abroad.
. . . .
There are various famous Big Vs, whether on Weibo or in the real world, who have hundreds of thousands of followers and who have close interactions with Yuan Zhiming, and Sun Haiying is one of these. It would appear that Sun Haiying's faith in Christianity formally stared in July 2011, when Sun Haiying, who according to Baidu's Encyclopedia is a Communist Party member, began continuously publishing a large number of posts on Weibo about "What I Learned After I Belived." Even though the Communist Party rules state that, as a Party member, Sun Haiying must be an atheist and is not permitted to to hold religious beliefs, this did not prevent Sun from repeatedly and continuously eulogizing on the holy and gracious "lord: on Weibo.

What is even more shocking is that, as Sun Haiying's faith deepend, the more his Weibo posts included content that blackened and  vilified the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, and even wrote off China's history and culture. For example: 1. "No matter what kind of major events China's rulers faced, they just had to deploy one kind of extreme means to direct the thought and work of the people -  - the net of class struggle." (2014.12.18)
. . . .
These various types are a warning that this new age national security environment faces a grem challenge. NGOs with foreign backgrounds operating in the guise of Christianity have already launched an ideological war for hearts and minds in the name of religious freedom. They are brazenly struggling against state authority for the people's hearts in the grassroots of society and the public opinion venues.

美国“扳倒中国”的意识形态心战,目前看主要亮出了三种武器。第一种武器是2013年前在传统媒体和互联网两个舆论场大肆鼓吹普世价值,本质是美国价值观。但腐败君主制的沙特竟是美国盟友,以及对外宣称“人权高于主权”扶持颜色革命对华尔街运动却暴力压制等双重标准曝光,普世价值成了笑话,中国民众看个透彻。第二种武器是2013年南周新年贺词事件热炒的宪政概念,就是想借宪法的名头推销美国的三权分立、司法独立、军队国家化和多党制。
. . . .
第三种武器则稍显隐蔽一些,是披着基督教的外衣传播扩散美国的政治理念和价值观。
. . . .
境外的反华势力多数都已基督化,试图洗弱身上的政治色彩,如柴玲、余杰等,最为典型的是《河殇》的撰稿人之一的远志明,八十年代末学潮后流亡海外。
. . . .
微博上个别拥有几百万关注者的名人大V无论在微博上还是现实中都与远志明互动密切,演员孙海英便是其中之一。自2011年7月开始,百度百科资料显示中共党员身份的孙海英突兀地连续发表多条“信主以后才知道”微博,似是正式公开了其信仰基督教的事实。尽管中共党章规定孙海英作为党员必须是无神论者不准许信教,但这并未能阻止孙在微博持续不断地歌颂“主”的神圣与恩德。

更让人震惊的是,伴随着孙海英信教的深入,他的微博上越来越多抹黑、诋毁中国共产党、毛泽东甚至抹杀中国历史文明的内容。例如:1.“我国的执政者无论遇到何等大的事,只要用一种极端的方法来指导人的思想和工作就行了——以阶级斗争为纲。”(2014.12.18)
. . . .
如此种种,警示我们新时期国家安全环境面临着极为严峻的挑战。披着基督教外衣的境外背景NGO已经在宗教信仰自由的名号下发起了意识形态心战,在社会基层以及舆论场上跟国家政权明目张胆地争夺民心。
September 17, 2015, the Global Times published an editorial by its editor-in-chief Hu Xijin (胡锡进 - writing under the name Shan Renping (单仁平)) entitled "Those Who Curse the Mainstream Shouldn't Hope to Act the Mainstream, What's the Point" (骂主旋律者非要演主旋律,何必). Some excerpts:
Based on information published online on the 11th, CCTV has dropped the war film "8848" starring Sun Haiying, leading to some heated discussions. Sun Haiying took to his own Weibo to express his strong dissatisfaction, while many Internet users expressed their support for CCTV's actions.

According to reports, "8848" is an inspirational movie that realistically portrays the military, and tells the story of the growth of special forces stationed in Tibet.
. . . .
For several years Sun has been fond of political commentary, and has become an active personality online. He has concentrated on using his personal Weibo to launch missives at and deride China's current political system and its various related symbols, and essentially stands in opposition to the mainstream values of Chinese society. This is diametrically opposed to the values advanced by the heroic roles that plays.

CCTV did not publicly discuss the reasons it cancelled the broadcast of "8848," but various online analysis concluded that it is related to the heated rhetoric of Sun Haiying's Weibo. If this is the case, then I'm afraide that what CCTV did was no accident.
. . . .
This is not an issue of freedom or no freedom. Sun has been speaking freely, and as a Christian he often "preaches" on his Weibo, with no restrictions.

据互联网11日传出的消息,孙海英参演的军事题材电视剧《8848》被央视放弃播出,引来一片热议。孙海英本人通过他的微博表达强烈不满,相当多的网友则对央视的做法表示支持。

据报道,《8848》是一部长篇现实军旅题材的励志片,描述一批驻扎西藏的极地特种兵的成长故事。
. . . .
然而孙这几年热衷政治评论,成为互联网上的活跃人物。他十分密集地通过个人微博抨击、嘲弄中国现行政治制度及与之相关的各种符号,基本站到了中国社会主流价值观的对立面,与他所饰演的正面英雄角色在价值取向上南辕北辙。

央视没有公开谈论取消播出《8848》的缘由,但是互联网上的各种分析认为,这与孙海英在微博上的激烈言论有关。如果是这样的话,那么央视的做法恐怕算不上意外。
. . . .  
这不是自由不自由的问题。孙一直自由发言,作为基督徒他经常在微博上“传教”,也没有受限。
December 2015, the Cyber Administration of China organized meetings at the offices of China’s major website operators to “study the spirit of the Communiqué of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee.” For example, according to a report on the CAC website, on December 11, 2015, a meeting was held in Baidu’s offices, with over 100 Baidu employees in attendance. At the meeting it was “stressed that as a focal point of the State’s cyberspace  work, Baidu should be attentive to the work of the National Cyberspace System” (强调百度作为国家网信工作的重点单位,应着眼全国网信系统工作大局).

February 25, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China published an announcement entitled "The Results of the 2015 National Cyberspace System Law Enforcement's Raising the Flag and Unsheathing the Sword are Clear" (2015年全国网信执法举旗亮剑成效明显). Some excerpts:
According to statistics, during the entire year [of 2015] the national cyberspace system scheduled meetings with 820 illegal website operators over 1,000 times, and in accordance with the law cancelled the ICP licenses and registrations and shut down serious violators involving 4,977 websites, and shut down 2,260,000 various sorts of illegal accounts.
. . . .
With respect to outstanding issues that arose involving illegal online information content, the CAC arranged talks with Sina, Netease, Baidu, Sohu, Miaopai, etc., and this produced a significant social impact. As regards outstanding issues with harmful operating behavior by Internet enterprises, such as Baidu offering its "Hemophilia Forum" for sale, and other commercial operations where management was in chaos, meetings were held with officials at Baidu, and they were urged to undertake comprehensive correction and reform.
. . . .
With respect to various outstanding problems with news websites, weibo, weixin, search engines, forums, PostBar, etc, the CAC launched five comprehensive campaigns including the "Clean Web 2015," "Fix Borders 2015," "Purify Sources 2015," "Autumn Wind 2015," and "Seedling Protection 2015" to continuously cleanse the web of all kinds of illegal harmful information such as obscene pornography.

据统计,全国网信系统全年依法约谈违法违规网站820余家1000余次,依法取消违法违规网站许可或备案、依法关闭严重违法违规网站4977家,有关网站依法关闭各类违法违规账号226万多个。
. . . .
国家网信办就网络信息内容违法违规突出问题先后约谈新浪、网易、百度、搜狐、秒拍等,产生强烈社会反响;针对互联网企业不良经营行为突出问题,如百度贴吧出卖“血友病吧”,商业化运作管理混乱等突出问题,约谈百度公司负责人,督促其全面整改;
. . . .
针对新闻网站、微博、微信、搜索引擎、论坛、贴吧等各环节突出问题,国家网信办还开展了“净网2015”“清源2015”“固边2015”“秋风2015”“护苗2015”5个网上专项整治行动,持续清理网上淫秽色情低俗等各类有害信息。
February 26, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China published an announcement on its website entitled "CAC Continues to Strike Hard Against Illegal Behavior" (国家网信办持续重拳打击网上违法违规行为). Some excerpts:
Relevant websites shut down the accounts of several online Big V's such as @Luoyameng, @ActorSunHaiying, @WangYajunShanghai, @RongJián2001, @WenShanwa, @Jiyun, and @DaPengViewsTheWorld, on the grounds that they disregarded their social responsibilities, abused their personal influence, and on many occasions did engage in the behavior of posting illegal information online that opposed the basic principles affirmed in the Constitution, harmed the honor and interests of the nation, and spread rumors causing social disorder.

针对少数网络名人无视社会责任,滥用自身影响力,在网上多次发布反对宪法所确定的基本原则、损害国家荣誉和利益以及造谣传谣、扰乱社会秩序等违法违规信息的行为,有关网站依法关闭@罗亚蒙、@演员孙海英、@王亚军上海、@荣剑2001、@文山娃、@纪昀、@大鹏看天下等网络大V账号。
On February 27, 2016, the state sponsored Global Times published a report entitled “CAC Closes 580 ‘Misleading’ Social Media Accounts.” Some excerpts:
China's cyberspace administration authority shut down 580 social media accounts which "misled the public" or "violated regulations," including the accounts of several Internet celebrities, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) said on Friday.
. . . .
Among the big Vs, a term which refers to verified Weibo users who have more than 500,000 followers, who have been shut down are famous actor Sun Haiying, an editor of a Henan-based news website hnr.cn and a Beijing art center manager.

Sun has been the center of public criticism several times for making "disrespectful" comments about former leader Mao Zedong and for condemning homosexuality.
This screenshot was taken on February 28, 2016, and shows that a search on Sina Weibo for accounts with "Sun Haiying" in the name returned a censorship notice.


Translation: Huang Xuqin and Wang Jianbing Inciting Subversion Indictment

On June 14, 2024, the Twitter account "Free Huang Xueqin & Wang Jianbing 释放雪饼" (@FreeXueBing)  posted a copy of the last two p...