According to a judgment issued by the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court in May 2014 (translated below) Cheng Huaishan was sentenced to ten days administrative detention for using Tencent’s QQ service to post statements that “openly insulted leaders of the Party and the State.” Cheng’s sentence was imposed by officials at a local police station based their determination that he had violated China’s “Public Security Administrative Punishment Law.”
The original decision is available on the court's website here: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=4da8571c-ab9c-4a47-beec-4437e63bb700
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan
Defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau, located at No. 1288, Qianjin West Road, Kunshan, Jiangsu, Organization No. 01418924-6.
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan filed suit regarding defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau's administrative punishment case, and after this court accepted the suit on February 14, 2014 it served a copy of the claim and notice of the lawsuit on the defendant on the same day. This court convened a collegiate panel, and on March 20, 2014 held a hearing on this case in open court. Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan and the representatives for defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau Lu Huanfang and Cha Wenming appeared in court to participate in the litigation. Hearings in this case have concluded.
On November 12, 2013, the Kunshan Public Security Bureau issued the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544, finding that on the afternoon of November 3, 2013 plaintiff Cheng Huaishan was discovered to have logged into the Internet QQ group "Jiangsu Democracy Group" (Group No. 273997921) from Lujia township, Kunshan, and in this QQ group he published statements defaming State leaders. The foregoing facts were confirmed through Cheng Huaishan's statements and pleadings, investigation records, on-the-scene records, and documentation. They determined to subject Cheng Huaishan to ten days administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China.
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan's lawsuit claims that on the morning of November 12, 2013, police officers from the Lujia station of the Kunshan Public Security Bureau came to his temporary residence and gave him a verbal summons to go the police station. They then interrogated him regarding certain statement of his in a QQ group which defamed the nation's leaders, and ordered him held for 10 days in administrative detention. On November 3, 2013, the plaintiff reposted the following text:
Defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau argues that, the statements published on the QQ group by plaintiff Cheng Huaishan on November 3, 2013 using information networks openly insulted leaders of the Party and the State, and this was subsequently investigated and confirmed by public security agencies. The foregoing facts have been verified based on the statements and pleadings of the parties, on-the-scene records and information records, and the detention process. The plaintiff's use of information networks that enable widespread and rapid dissemination to publish statements that insulted leaders of the Party and the State constitutes a relatively severe instance of insulting third parties, and the defense attorney argue that the decision to impose ten days administrative punishment in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China was found to be based on clear facts, a correct application of the law, and the punishment was appropriate.
Plaintiff claims that the statement made online constitute freedom of speech, and it does not matter whether or not the statements were proper.
The defense attorneys believe that freedom of speech has boundaries. Article 35 of the Constitution provides that citizens have freedom of speech, and Article 41 provides that a citizen is protected by law when offering criticisms and suggestions to State agencies and State employees. But citizens' rights must be exercised in accordance with the law, and may not infringe upon the rights of others. Article 51 provides that in exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens must not damage any State, social, or collective rights or the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. Although the statements made online by the plaintiff did not clearly refer to any State leader's name, it was nevertheless extremely clear what it was referring to, the statements' contents were obviously insulting, had infringed upon others' rights to dignity and reputation, exceeding the scope allowed by law, constituting illegal behavior, and responsibility should be borne in accordance with law. Based on the foregoing, they request that the court reject the lawsuit's claims.
An investigation has shown that at approximately 2:23 in the afternoon on November 3, 2013, plaintiff Cheng Huaishan, using the online name "Rare Animal" (QQ10xxx46), utilizing online information in Lujia, used a cell phone to publish the following statement on the QQ group "Jiangsu Democracy Group" (Group No. 273997921):
Seven wolves will convene the 18th street burial clock plenary session; the meeting will discuss the liberalization of the lambs being put out to pasture; local beasts of prey will be responsible for a portion of the flock's expenditures; give the sheep more sovereignty over their grazing; continue reducing the approvals required for being put out to pasture; resolve the problem of mutton allotment; reform the sheep registration system, with no division between black mountain sheep and plains sheep, they are one and the same; demarcate the reform routes for Xi big wolf and Li little wolf; bring universal happiness for the shepherds, and keep the sheep ignorant of their fate; let the chorus ring out: Fuck your mother, Damn!
At approximately 11:00 in the morning on November 12, 2013, after defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau determined that the user with the online name "Rare Animal" (QQ10xxx46) was plaintiff Cheng Huaishan, they proceeded to handle the case in accordance with the law. Following an investigation, on November 12, 2013, defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau issued the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544, and determined to subject Cheng Huaishan to ten days administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China.
On November 12, 2013, the defendant carried out the aforementioned punishment and transferred plaintiff Cheng Huaishan to the Kunshan Detention Center. Because plaintiff Cheng Huaishan submitted an administrative appeal application, on January 23, 2014, the Kunshan Municipal Government issued Kunshan Government Administrative Review No. 6, upholding the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544 decision.
This court finds that, in accordance with Clause 1, Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, public security bureaus of the people's government at the level of county and above are responsible for public security administrative punishments within their administrative districts relating to disturbing public order, harming public security, infringements of personal and property rights, harming social management where there is social harm that does not rise to the level requiring criminal sanctions. Because the defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau is responsible for public security administration work in this jurisdiction, it is the appropriate defendant in this case.
The point of dispute in this case is whether the content of the post published by plaintiff Cheng Huaishan at issue in this case does in fact constitute relatively severe insult and defamation of a third party. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, insult or fabrication of facts to defame a third party may be punished by detention of five days or less or a fine of no more than 500 yuan. Where the circumstances are severe, a punishment of between five and 10 days detention and a fine of no more than 500 yuan may be imposed.
Insult refers to words and actions that harm the reputation or personal dignity of a third party. Defamation refers to distorting and spreading falsehoods which harm the reputation or personal dignity of a third party.
The plaintiff in this case Cheng Huaishan used an online alias to post content which, while not explicitly naming any State leader, nevertheless included content that was obviously insulting and defamatory, and its target was both specific and unique, and based on the timing of the post and the related content, it was entirely obvious who it was about.
Plaintiff's utilization of networks for fast and broad dissemination of the aforementioned statements that insulted national leaders falls within the scope of insulting and defaming third parties as provided in the aforementioned law, and the circumstances were relatively severe. The administrative punishment issued by defendant Kunshan Publish Security Bureau was lawful.
Plaintiff believes that his statements were the exercise of free speech as provided for in the Constitution. This court holds that the Constitution of the People's Republic of China provides that citizens of the People's Republic of China have freedom of speech, and that have the right to make criticisms and suggestions to State agencies and State employees. But it also provides that the personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China may not be infringed upon, and prohibits insult, defamation, or false claims against citizens by any means. When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens must not damage any State, social, or collective rights or the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. Therefore the defense statement of plaintiff Cheng Huaishan is rejected.
In handling the aforementioned case, defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau conducted its inquiries and investigation of the defendant within 24 hours, and on November 12, 2013 imposed administrative punishment and carried out the procedures in the manner prescribed by law. The prerequisite for administrative compensation is that the legal rights and interests of a citizen, legal person or other organization has been infringed upon by a specific administrative act performed by an administrative agency or an employee thereof. The administrative acts of the defendant did not infringe upon the legal rights and interests of plaintiff Cheng Huaishan. Plaintiff's contention that defendant's administrative acts were illegal and request for personal compensation is without factual or legal basis.
Based on the foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(4) of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation Regarding Certain Issues Relating to the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 33 of the Supreme People's Court's Rules Regarding Certain Issues Relating to Adjudicating Administrative Compensation Cases, it is hereby decided as follows:
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan's claims in his lawsuit are rejected.
Court costs in the amount of 50 yuan will be borne by the plaintiff Cheng Huaishan.
If he does not agree with this decision, he may submit an appeal to this court within 15 days of this issuance of this judgment, with the number of copies based on the number of opposing parties. The court of appeal shall be the Jiangsu Intermediate People's Court.
Judge: Li Shiyin
Acting Judge: Zhou You
People's Assessor: Wang Guixiang
May 12, 2014
Clerk: Jin Yufang
原告成怀山。
被告昆山市公安局，住所地江苏省昆山市前进西路1288号，组织机构代码01418924-6。
原告成怀山诉被告昆山市公安局治安行政处罚一案，本院于2014年2月14日受理后，于2014年2月14日向被告送达了起诉状副本及应诉通知书。本院依法组成合议庭，于2014年3月20日公开开庭审理了本案，原告成怀山，被告昆山市公安局的委托代理人陆迎芳、查文明到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
被告昆山市公安局于2013年11月12日作出昆公（陆家）行罚决字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，认为原告成怀山于2013年11月3日下午，在昆山市陆家镇登陆互联网QQ群“江苏民主群”（群号273997921），在该QQ群内发布公然侮辱国家领导人的言论，被查获。以上事实有成怀山的陈述和申辩、检查笔录、现场笔录、书证等证据证实。根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项之规定，决定对成怀山处行政拘留十日的处罚。
原告成怀山诉称，2013年11月12日上午，昆山市公安局陆家派出所警察到其暂住地口头传唤其至派出所，并进行了询问以其在QQ群里公然发布侮辱国家领导人的言论作出行政拘留10天的决定。2013年11月3日，原告在QQ群里转发了这样一个帖子：七头狼要召开十八街葬钟全会；与会讨论羊的放牧自由化；地方鹰犬负担部分羊圈支出；给予羊更大的吃草自主权；继续减少放牧审批环节；解决羊肉分配问题；改革羊户籍制度，不区分黑山羊与草原羊，一事同羊；制定刁得一狼与李子狼改革路线图；羊倌们喜大普奔，众羊们不明觉厉；纷纷喊道：开你妈逼，草！
通观全贴，没有提到任何国家领导人的名字，只提了狼和羊，怎么就构成对国家领导人的侮辱呢？当然，帖中的文字很易让人联想，但公安机关办案不能靠联想执法。从言论自由的角度看，民主政治就是民众有骂掌权者的权利，掌权者有容忍被骂的义务。何况帖子中根本没有直接骂掌权者，我国宪法第三十五条也明确规定中华人民共和国公民有言论自由。昆山市公安局作出的行政拘留决定认定事实错误，适用法律错误，请求依法撤销昆公（陆家）行罚决定（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，赔偿申请人人身自由限制国家赔偿金1825元。
被告昆山市公安局辩称，2013年11月3日，原告利用信息网络在QQ群发表的言论，对党和国家领导人进行公然的侮辱，后被公安机关查获。上述事实由当事人的陈述和申辩、现场笔录和消息记录、抓获经过等证据证实。原告利用扩散范围广、传播速度快的信息网络发布侮辱党和国家领导人的言论属于侮辱他人情节较重的情形，答辩人依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项的规定对原告作出行政拘留十日的行政处罚决定，认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，处罚适当。原告称网络上发表言论属于言论自由，而不论言论是否正确。答辩人认为，言论自由是有边界的。《宪法》第三十五条规定公民有言论自由，第四十一条规定公民对于国家机关和国家工作人员提出批评和建议，受法律保护。但公民权利必须依法行使，不得侵犯他人权利。第五十一条规定公民在行使自由和权利的时候，不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民的合法自由和权利。原告在网络上所发的言论虽然没有明确提到国家领导人名字，但是所指十分明确，言论中含有明显的侮辱内容，已造成了对他人人格尊严与名誉的侵犯，超出法律的范围，属于违法行为，应承担相应法律责任。综上所述，请求法院判决驳回诉讼请求。
经审理查明，2013年11月3日14：23许，原告成怀山以其网名“稀有动物”（QQ10×××46）在陆家镇利用网络信息，通过手机在QQ群“江苏民主群”（群号273997921）内发表了“七头狼要召开十八街葬钟全会；与会讨论羊的放牧自由化；地方鹰犬负担部分羊圈支出；给予羊更大的吃草自主权；继续减少放牧审批环节；解决羊肉分配问题；改革羊户籍制度，不区分黑山羊与草原羊，一事同羊；制定刁得一狼与李子狼改革路线图；羊倌们喜大普奔，众羊们不明觉厉；纷纷喊道：开你妈逼，草！”的言论。
2013年11月12日11时许，被告昆山市公安局查明网名“稀有动物”（QQ10×××46）的使用人为原告成怀山后，依法予以立案处理。经调查后，被告昆山市公安局于2013年11月12日作出昆公（陆家）行罚决字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项之规定，决定对成怀山处行政拘留十日的处罚。
2013年11月12日，被告将原告成怀山交昆山市拘留所执行上述拘留处罚。因原告成怀山提起行政复议申请，昆山市人民政府于2014年1月23日作出（2014）昆府行复第6号行政复议决定书，维持了昆公（陆家）行罚字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书。
本院认为，根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二条、第七条第一款的规定，县级以上地方各级人民政府公安机关负责本行政区域内的有关扰乱公共秩序，妨害公共安全，侵犯人身权利、财产权利，妨害社会管理，具有社会危害性，尚不够刑事处罚的治安管理处罚工作。由此本案被告昆山市公安局负责本辖区内治安管理工作，是本案的适格被告。
本案的争议焦点是原告成怀山在网络发表涉案内容帖子是否属于公然侮辱、诽谤他人情节较重的行为。《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第（二）项规定，公然侮辱他人或者捏造事实诽谤他人的， 处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款；情节较重的，处五日以上十日以下拘留，可以并处五百元以下罚款。
侮辱是指以言行公然损害他人名誉、人格尊严的行为；诽谤是指捏造并散布虚构的事实，损害他人名誉、人格的行为。
本案中原告成怀山用其网名所发帖子内容虽然没有明确指出国家领导人的名字，但从其网贴发表的时间及相关内容看，所指十分明确，含有明显的侮辱、诽谤内容，且指向具有特定性和唯一性。
原告利用传播快、范围广的网络发布上述侮辱国家领导人的言论，属于上述法律规定的公然侮辱、诽谤他人，且情节较重情形。被告昆山市公安局据此作出的行政处罚适用法律正确。
原告认为其言论属于宪法规定的言论自由行为，本院认为，《中华人民共和国宪法》规定了中华人民共和国公民有言论的自由，对于任何国家机关和国家工作人员，有提出批评和建议的权利，但同时亦规定中华人民共和国公民的人格尊严不受侵犯，禁止用任何方法对公民进行侮辱、诽谤和诬告陷害，公民在行使自由和权利的时候，不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民的合法的自由和权利。因此原告成怀山的辩论意见不予支持。
被告昆山市公安局受案处理上述涉案后，在二十四小时内对原告进行了询问、调查，并于2013年11月12日作出行政处罚，并交所执行的程序符合法定程序。行政赔偿的前提是公民、法人或者其他组织的合法权益受到行政机关或者行政机关工作人员作出的具体行政行为侵犯并造成损害，本案中被告昆山市公安局对原告成怀山作出的涉案行政处罚并无不妥，即被告的行政行为并未侵犯原告成怀山的合法权益，原告认为被告行政行为违法并要求人身赔偿的请求无事实及法律依据。
综上，依照《最高人民法院关于执行﹤中华人民共和国行政诉讼法﹥若干问题的解释》第五十六条第（四）项、《最高人民法院关于审理行政赔偿案件若干问题的规定》第三十三条的规定，判决如下：
驳回原告成怀山的诉讼请求。
案件受理费50元，由原告成怀山负担。
如不服本判决，可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于苏州市中级人民法院。
审 判 长： 李诗茵
代理审判员： 周 游
人民陪审员： 王桂香
二Ｏ一四年五月十二日
书 记 员： 晋玉芳
The original decision is available on the court's website here: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=4da8571c-ab9c-4a47-beec-4437e63bb700
Cheng Huaishan vs. Jiangsu Kunshan Public Security Bureau Administrative Security et. al.
Administrative Judgment in the Court of First Instance
Jiangsu Kunshan People's Court
Administrative Judgment
(2014) Kun Admin First Instance No. 0015
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan
Defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau, located at No. 1288, Qianjin West Road, Kunshan, Jiangsu, Organization No. 01418924-6.
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan filed suit regarding defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau's administrative punishment case, and after this court accepted the suit on February 14, 2014 it served a copy of the claim and notice of the lawsuit on the defendant on the same day. This court convened a collegiate panel, and on March 20, 2014 held a hearing on this case in open court. Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan and the representatives for defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau Lu Huanfang and Cha Wenming appeared in court to participate in the litigation. Hearings in this case have concluded.
On November 12, 2013, the Kunshan Public Security Bureau issued the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544, finding that on the afternoon of November 3, 2013 plaintiff Cheng Huaishan was discovered to have logged into the Internet QQ group "Jiangsu Democracy Group" (Group No. 273997921) from Lujia township, Kunshan, and in this QQ group he published statements defaming State leaders. The foregoing facts were confirmed through Cheng Huaishan's statements and pleadings, investigation records, on-the-scene records, and documentation. They determined to subject Cheng Huaishan to ten days administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China.
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan's lawsuit claims that on the morning of November 12, 2013, police officers from the Lujia station of the Kunshan Public Security Bureau came to his temporary residence and gave him a verbal summons to go the police station. They then interrogated him regarding certain statement of his in a QQ group which defamed the nation's leaders, and ordered him held for 10 days in administrative detention. On November 3, 2013, the plaintiff reposted the following text:
Seven wolves will convene the 18th street burial clock plenary session; the meeting will discuss the liberalization of the lambs being put out to pasture; local beasts of prey will be responsible for a portion of the flock's expenditures; give the sheep more sovereignty over their grazing; continue reducing the approvals required for being put out to pasture; resolve the problem of mutton allotment; reform the sheep registration system, with no division between black mountain sheep and plains sheep, they are one and the same; demarcate the reform routes for Xi big wolf and Li little wolf; bring universal happiness for the shepherds, and keep the sheep ignorant of their fate; let the chorus ring out: Fuck your mother, Damn!Looking at the whole post, it did not mention the name of a single State leader, it only mentioned wolves and sheep, so how could it constitute defamation of State leaders? Of course, the post's text can easily allow people to make associations, but the police can't rely on mental associations when enforcing the law. Looking at this from the perspective of free speech, democratic governance means that citizens have the right to curse those who hold power, and those who hold power have a duty to be tolerant of criticism. All the more so because the post did not even directly curse anyone who holds power, and Article 35 of China's Constitution clearly provides that citizens of the People's Republic of China have the freedom of speech. The Kunshan Public Security Bureau's decision to impose administrative detention was factually flawed, made improper use of the law, and it is requested that Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544 be rescinded, and the applicant receive compensation from the State for restricting his freedom of movement in the amount 1,825 yuan.
Defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau argues that, the statements published on the QQ group by plaintiff Cheng Huaishan on November 3, 2013 using information networks openly insulted leaders of the Party and the State, and this was subsequently investigated and confirmed by public security agencies. The foregoing facts have been verified based on the statements and pleadings of the parties, on-the-scene records and information records, and the detention process. The plaintiff's use of information networks that enable widespread and rapid dissemination to publish statements that insulted leaders of the Party and the State constitutes a relatively severe instance of insulting third parties, and the defense attorney argue that the decision to impose ten days administrative punishment in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China was found to be based on clear facts, a correct application of the law, and the punishment was appropriate.
Plaintiff claims that the statement made online constitute freedom of speech, and it does not matter whether or not the statements were proper.
The defense attorneys believe that freedom of speech has boundaries. Article 35 of the Constitution provides that citizens have freedom of speech, and Article 41 provides that a citizen is protected by law when offering criticisms and suggestions to State agencies and State employees. But citizens' rights must be exercised in accordance with the law, and may not infringe upon the rights of others. Article 51 provides that in exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens must not damage any State, social, or collective rights or the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. Although the statements made online by the plaintiff did not clearly refer to any State leader's name, it was nevertheless extremely clear what it was referring to, the statements' contents were obviously insulting, had infringed upon others' rights to dignity and reputation, exceeding the scope allowed by law, constituting illegal behavior, and responsibility should be borne in accordance with law. Based on the foregoing, they request that the court reject the lawsuit's claims.
An investigation has shown that at approximately 2:23 in the afternoon on November 3, 2013, plaintiff Cheng Huaishan, using the online name "Rare Animal" (QQ10xxx46), utilizing online information in Lujia, used a cell phone to publish the following statement on the QQ group "Jiangsu Democracy Group" (Group No. 273997921):
Seven wolves will convene the 18th street burial clock plenary session; the meeting will discuss the liberalization of the lambs being put out to pasture; local beasts of prey will be responsible for a portion of the flock's expenditures; give the sheep more sovereignty over their grazing; continue reducing the approvals required for being put out to pasture; resolve the problem of mutton allotment; reform the sheep registration system, with no division between black mountain sheep and plains sheep, they are one and the same; demarcate the reform routes for Xi big wolf and Li little wolf; bring universal happiness for the shepherds, and keep the sheep ignorant of their fate; let the chorus ring out: Fuck your mother, Damn!
At approximately 11:00 in the morning on November 12, 2013, after defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau determined that the user with the online name "Rare Animal" (QQ10xxx46) was plaintiff Cheng Huaishan, they proceeded to handle the case in accordance with the law. Following an investigation, on November 12, 2013, defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau issued the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544, and determined to subject Cheng Huaishan to ten days administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China.
On November 12, 2013, the defendant carried out the aforementioned punishment and transferred plaintiff Cheng Huaishan to the Kunshan Detention Center. Because plaintiff Cheng Huaishan submitted an administrative appeal application, on January 23, 2014, the Kunshan Municipal Government issued Kunshan Government Administrative Review No. 6, upholding the Kunshan PSB (Lujia) Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 6544 decision.
This court finds that, in accordance with Clause 1, Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, public security bureaus of the people's government at the level of county and above are responsible for public security administrative punishments within their administrative districts relating to disturbing public order, harming public security, infringements of personal and property rights, harming social management where there is social harm that does not rise to the level requiring criminal sanctions. Because the defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau is responsible for public security administration work in this jurisdiction, it is the appropriate defendant in this case.
The point of dispute in this case is whether the content of the post published by plaintiff Cheng Huaishan at issue in this case does in fact constitute relatively severe insult and defamation of a third party. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 42 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, insult or fabrication of facts to defame a third party may be punished by detention of five days or less or a fine of no more than 500 yuan. Where the circumstances are severe, a punishment of between five and 10 days detention and a fine of no more than 500 yuan may be imposed.
Insult refers to words and actions that harm the reputation or personal dignity of a third party. Defamation refers to distorting and spreading falsehoods which harm the reputation or personal dignity of a third party.
The plaintiff in this case Cheng Huaishan used an online alias to post content which, while not explicitly naming any State leader, nevertheless included content that was obviously insulting and defamatory, and its target was both specific and unique, and based on the timing of the post and the related content, it was entirely obvious who it was about.
Plaintiff's utilization of networks for fast and broad dissemination of the aforementioned statements that insulted national leaders falls within the scope of insulting and defaming third parties as provided in the aforementioned law, and the circumstances were relatively severe. The administrative punishment issued by defendant Kunshan Publish Security Bureau was lawful.
Plaintiff believes that his statements were the exercise of free speech as provided for in the Constitution. This court holds that the Constitution of the People's Republic of China provides that citizens of the People's Republic of China have freedom of speech, and that have the right to make criticisms and suggestions to State agencies and State employees. But it also provides that the personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China may not be infringed upon, and prohibits insult, defamation, or false claims against citizens by any means. When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens must not damage any State, social, or collective rights or the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. Therefore the defense statement of plaintiff Cheng Huaishan is rejected.
In handling the aforementioned case, defendant Kunshan Public Security Bureau conducted its inquiries and investigation of the defendant within 24 hours, and on November 12, 2013 imposed administrative punishment and carried out the procedures in the manner prescribed by law. The prerequisite for administrative compensation is that the legal rights and interests of a citizen, legal person or other organization has been infringed upon by a specific administrative act performed by an administrative agency or an employee thereof. The administrative acts of the defendant did not infringe upon the legal rights and interests of plaintiff Cheng Huaishan. Plaintiff's contention that defendant's administrative acts were illegal and request for personal compensation is without factual or legal basis.
Based on the foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(4) of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation Regarding Certain Issues Relating to the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 33 of the Supreme People's Court's Rules Regarding Certain Issues Relating to Adjudicating Administrative Compensation Cases, it is hereby decided as follows:
Plaintiff Cheng Huaishan's claims in his lawsuit are rejected.
Court costs in the amount of 50 yuan will be borne by the plaintiff Cheng Huaishan.
If he does not agree with this decision, he may submit an appeal to this court within 15 days of this issuance of this judgment, with the number of copies based on the number of opposing parties. The court of appeal shall be the Jiangsu Intermediate People's Court.
Judge: Li Shiyin
Acting Judge: Zhou You
People's Assessor: Wang Guixiang
May 12, 2014
Clerk: Jin Yufang
成怀山与江苏省昆山市公安局行政公安其他一审行政判决书
江苏省昆山市人民法院
行政判决书
（2014）昆行初字第0015号
原告成怀山。
被告昆山市公安局，住所地江苏省昆山市前进西路1288号，组织机构代码01418924-6。
原告成怀山诉被告昆山市公安局治安行政处罚一案，本院于2014年2月14日受理后，于2014年2月14日向被告送达了起诉状副本及应诉通知书。本院依法组成合议庭，于2014年3月20日公开开庭审理了本案，原告成怀山，被告昆山市公安局的委托代理人陆迎芳、查文明到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
被告昆山市公安局于2013年11月12日作出昆公（陆家）行罚决字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，认为原告成怀山于2013年11月3日下午，在昆山市陆家镇登陆互联网QQ群“江苏民主群”（群号273997921），在该QQ群内发布公然侮辱国家领导人的言论，被查获。以上事实有成怀山的陈述和申辩、检查笔录、现场笔录、书证等证据证实。根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项之规定，决定对成怀山处行政拘留十日的处罚。
原告成怀山诉称，2013年11月12日上午，昆山市公安局陆家派出所警察到其暂住地口头传唤其至派出所，并进行了询问以其在QQ群里公然发布侮辱国家领导人的言论作出行政拘留10天的决定。2013年11月3日，原告在QQ群里转发了这样一个帖子：七头狼要召开十八街葬钟全会；与会讨论羊的放牧自由化；地方鹰犬负担部分羊圈支出；给予羊更大的吃草自主权；继续减少放牧审批环节；解决羊肉分配问题；改革羊户籍制度，不区分黑山羊与草原羊，一事同羊；制定刁得一狼与李子狼改革路线图；羊倌们喜大普奔，众羊们不明觉厉；纷纷喊道：开你妈逼，草！
通观全贴，没有提到任何国家领导人的名字，只提了狼和羊，怎么就构成对国家领导人的侮辱呢？当然，帖中的文字很易让人联想，但公安机关办案不能靠联想执法。从言论自由的角度看，民主政治就是民众有骂掌权者的权利，掌权者有容忍被骂的义务。何况帖子中根本没有直接骂掌权者，我国宪法第三十五条也明确规定中华人民共和国公民有言论自由。昆山市公安局作出的行政拘留决定认定事实错误，适用法律错误，请求依法撤销昆公（陆家）行罚决定（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，赔偿申请人人身自由限制国家赔偿金1825元。
被告昆山市公安局辩称，2013年11月3日，原告利用信息网络在QQ群发表的言论，对党和国家领导人进行公然的侮辱，后被公安机关查获。上述事实由当事人的陈述和申辩、现场笔录和消息记录、抓获经过等证据证实。原告利用扩散范围广、传播速度快的信息网络发布侮辱党和国家领导人的言论属于侮辱他人情节较重的情形，答辩人依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项的规定对原告作出行政拘留十日的行政处罚决定，认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，处罚适当。原告称网络上发表言论属于言论自由，而不论言论是否正确。答辩人认为，言论自由是有边界的。《宪法》第三十五条规定公民有言论自由，第四十一条规定公民对于国家机关和国家工作人员提出批评和建议，受法律保护。但公民权利必须依法行使，不得侵犯他人权利。第五十一条规定公民在行使自由和权利的时候，不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民的合法自由和权利。原告在网络上所发的言论虽然没有明确提到国家领导人名字，但是所指十分明确，言论中含有明显的侮辱内容，已造成了对他人人格尊严与名誉的侵犯，超出法律的范围，属于违法行为，应承担相应法律责任。综上所述，请求法院判决驳回诉讼请求。
经审理查明，2013年11月3日14：23许，原告成怀山以其网名“稀有动物”（QQ10×××46）在陆家镇利用网络信息，通过手机在QQ群“江苏民主群”（群号273997921）内发表了“七头狼要召开十八街葬钟全会；与会讨论羊的放牧自由化；地方鹰犬负担部分羊圈支出；给予羊更大的吃草自主权；继续减少放牧审批环节；解决羊肉分配问题；改革羊户籍制度，不区分黑山羊与草原羊，一事同羊；制定刁得一狼与李子狼改革路线图；羊倌们喜大普奔，众羊们不明觉厉；纷纷喊道：开你妈逼，草！”的言论。
2013年11月12日11时许，被告昆山市公安局查明网名“稀有动物”（QQ10×××46）的使用人为原告成怀山后，依法予以立案处理。经调查后，被告昆山市公安局于2013年11月12日作出昆公（陆家）行罚决字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书，根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项之规定，决定对成怀山处行政拘留十日的处罚。
2013年11月12日，被告将原告成怀山交昆山市拘留所执行上述拘留处罚。因原告成怀山提起行政复议申请，昆山市人民政府于2014年1月23日作出（2014）昆府行复第6号行政复议决定书，维持了昆公（陆家）行罚字（2013）6544号行政处罚决定书。
本院认为，根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二条、第七条第一款的规定，县级以上地方各级人民政府公安机关负责本行政区域内的有关扰乱公共秩序，妨害公共安全，侵犯人身权利、财产权利，妨害社会管理，具有社会危害性，尚不够刑事处罚的治安管理处罚工作。由此本案被告昆山市公安局负责本辖区内治安管理工作，是本案的适格被告。
本案的争议焦点是原告成怀山在网络发表涉案内容帖子是否属于公然侮辱、诽谤他人情节较重的行为。《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第（二）项规定，公然侮辱他人或者捏造事实诽谤他人的， 处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款；情节较重的，处五日以上十日以下拘留，可以并处五百元以下罚款。
侮辱是指以言行公然损害他人名誉、人格尊严的行为；诽谤是指捏造并散布虚构的事实，损害他人名誉、人格的行为。
本案中原告成怀山用其网名所发帖子内容虽然没有明确指出国家领导人的名字，但从其网贴发表的时间及相关内容看，所指十分明确，含有明显的侮辱、诽谤内容，且指向具有特定性和唯一性。
原告利用传播快、范围广的网络发布上述侮辱国家领导人的言论，属于上述法律规定的公然侮辱、诽谤他人，且情节较重情形。被告昆山市公安局据此作出的行政处罚适用法律正确。
原告认为其言论属于宪法规定的言论自由行为，本院认为，《中华人民共和国宪法》规定了中华人民共和国公民有言论的自由，对于任何国家机关和国家工作人员，有提出批评和建议的权利，但同时亦规定中华人民共和国公民的人格尊严不受侵犯，禁止用任何方法对公民进行侮辱、诽谤和诬告陷害，公民在行使自由和权利的时候，不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民的合法的自由和权利。因此原告成怀山的辩论意见不予支持。
被告昆山市公安局受案处理上述涉案后，在二十四小时内对原告进行了询问、调查，并于2013年11月12日作出行政处罚，并交所执行的程序符合法定程序。行政赔偿的前提是公民、法人或者其他组织的合法权益受到行政机关或者行政机关工作人员作出的具体行政行为侵犯并造成损害，本案中被告昆山市公安局对原告成怀山作出的涉案行政处罚并无不妥，即被告的行政行为并未侵犯原告成怀山的合法权益，原告认为被告行政行为违法并要求人身赔偿的请求无事实及法律依据。
综上，依照《最高人民法院关于执行﹤中华人民共和国行政诉讼法﹥若干问题的解释》第五十六条第（四）项、《最高人民法院关于审理行政赔偿案件若干问题的规定》第三十三条的规定，判决如下：
驳回原告成怀山的诉讼请求。
案件受理费50元，由原告成怀山负担。
如不服本判决，可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于苏州市中级人民法院。
审 判 长： 李诗茵
代理审判员： 周 游
人民陪审员： 王桂香
二Ｏ一四年五月十二日
书 记 员： 晋玉芳
