Translator' Notes:
The Chinese text was generated by OCR'ing low-quality images of the original court judgment posted online. I have attempted to identify and correct the typographical errors that may have been introduced in the OCR process.
This judgment is notable for several reasons:
- This is the first court judgment I've translated that quotes extensively from the opinions of government censors to justify the court's finding that certain speech is illegal and not constitutionally protected.
- It provides details of what the defendant said that was subversive that is, in my experience, unprecedented. Typically judges in the PRC are unwilling to specify what defendants in speech related prosecutions said that was illegal, unprotected speech. For example, in the Wang Aizhong judgment the judge merely noted that Wang "fabricated fake information, or knowingly disseminated fake information on the Internet." In this case, however, the judge not only provides extensive quotations and descriptions of images, but actually presents analyses (albeit of a third party) as to why the quotations and images are illegal.
- Owing to the unique level of detail provided by the court, I have attempted to ascertain and obtain some of the materials described in the judgment (specifically cartoons and posters), and have included them in the English translation. Please note these are my best guesses, and the original judgment did not contain any actual materials.
Intermediate People's Court of Suizhou, Hubei
Criminal Judgment
(2017) E 13 Criminal First Instance No. 24
The public prosecution agency was the People's Procuratorate of Suizhou, Hubei.
Defendant Liu Feiyue, male, born [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED], 1970 in Zengdu District, Suizhou, Hubei , citizen ID number [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED], Han ethnicity, junior college education, formerly a teacher of Dongguan School, Zengdu District, Suizhou, residing in [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED], Wenfeng School, Zengdu District, Suizhou, Room 602, West Unit. On November 18, 2016, he was taken into criminal detention on suspicion of committing the crime of inciting subversion of state power, and on December 23 of the same year he was arrested. He is currently being held in detention at the Suizhou detention center.
Defense counsel Wu Kuiming is a lawyer at the Guangdong Xugao Law Firm.
In the Sui Procuratorate Criminal Indictment (2017) No. 23, the People's Procuratorate of Suizhou, Hubei charged defendant Liu Feiyue with committing the crime of inciting subversion of state power, and on December 6, 2017, it filed a public prosecution with this Court. On December 12, 2017, this Court opened a case and formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law. The public prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant held pre-trial conferences with this Court on July 10 and August 2, 2018 respectively,to learn about the circumstances and hear opinions on issues related to the trial. On August 7, 2018, this Court tried this case in open court. The People's Procuratorate of Suizhou, Hubei assigned deputy prosecutor Hu Liangzhi, procurator Cheng Jinping to appear in court in support of the public prosecution. Defendant Liu Feiyue and his defense counsel Wu Kuiming appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. During the trial process of the case, due to the wide range of cases involved and the seriousness and complexity of the case, the High People's Court of Hubei approved a three month extension of the trial period. The Supreme People's Court approved a cumulative extension of the trial period for nine months. The collegial panel has held deliberations on this case and made a written request for instructions to this Court's adjudicative committee for discussion and rendering a decision. The trial has now concluded.
The People's Procuratorate of Suizhou, Hubei charged: Defendant Liu Feiyue had been dissatisfied with the Communist Party of China leadership and the socialist system since the early '90s of the preceding century, and gradually formed the reactionary ideology of "ending the one-party dictatorship and establishing a democratic constitutional government." Since October 2005, defendant Liu Feiyue illegally established the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio," leased a foreign server to launch the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," recruited staff, colluded with foreign institutions and organizations, applied for foreign financial support, specialized in collecting one-sided information, distort and concoct facts, sensationalized sensitive incidents, used the Internet and foreign media to disseminate inciting statements and articles, denigrated the image of the Communist Party of China and the government of China, attack the current political system, agitate public discontent toward China's State regime and socialist system, and incite subversion of state power.
The specific facts are: He wrote and distributed a series of articles on "nonviolence," and defamed our country's State regime and socialist system as a "despotic" regime and system, spread ideology that subverted the State regime, and proposed means and methods to subvert state power. He wrote and distributed six annual reports "Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" and "Involuntary Institutionalization and Human Rights" which manufactured rumors and defamed the Party and the government as "grossly violating human rights," and the State regime and socialist system as a "despotic political system." He utilized rumors sensitive incidents to distribute commentary articles that manufactured rumors and defamed the government of China upholding " despotic systems," "gross violations of human rights," and spread statements that were detrimental to the State regime and socialist system. He organized and plotted the distribution of cartoons and posters that defamed the State regime and socialist system as infringing on citizens' human rights, attacking the country's judiciary, calling for the release of criminals who had jeopardized national security. He granted interviews to foreign media that defamed and denigrated the State political system and judicial system, and attacked the State regime and socialist system. He launched the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," recruited staff, colluded with foreign institutions and organizations, applied for foreign financial support, and used it to engage in activities that incited subversion of state power over an extended period of time.
In order to charge the aforementioned facts, the public prosecution agency presented evidence to the court including physical evidence, documentary evidence, audio-visual materials, electronic data ,crime scene investigation records, witness testimony, review reports, and the defendant's statements and justifications.
The public prosecution agency alleged defendant Liu Feiyue used methods such as manufacturing rumors and defamation to incite subversion of state power, overthrow the socialist order, and colluded with foreign institutions and organizations. For his actions he should bear criminal liability for committing the crime of inciting subversion of state power. It requests this Court pass sentence in accordance with the law.
Defendant Liu Feiyue did not have any objections to the facts charged by the public prosecution agency, but he believed that the review report used specific words to interpret the cartoons which were inconsistent with the abstract nature of cartoons. With regards to his granting interviews to foreign media, it did not offer a systematic overview because of the brevity of the content. With regards to his accepting foreign financial support, this was normal cooperation with foreign organizations. His original intention was to promote social harmony, and the establishment of "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" was also to pay attention to the interests of the people at the bottom, so of course there were also problems and deficiencies. Some articles involved opinions and views regarding changing the existing system.
The defense opinions preferred by defense counsel Wu Kuiming were: The majority of the review reports of the evidence in this case were speculation and determinations of the defendant's subjective intentions. Whether the defendant had criminal intent cannot be replaced by a review report, and the review report should not be accepted. There were no specific facts with respect to collusion abroad, one cannot infer collusion from the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" and foreign contacts, and in this case the collusion with foreign institutions and organizations does not constitute aggravated circumstances. In this case, there is a lack of evidence in the chain of evidence that the defendant caused harm and consequences to society and third parties.
It was ascertained at trial: Defendant Liu Feiyue had been dissatisfied with the Communist Party of China leadership and the socialist system since the early 1990s, and gradually formed the idea of "ending the one-party dictatorship and establishing a democratic constitutional government." Since October 2005, the Liu Feiyue illegally established the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio," leased a foreign Internet server to illegally set up the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," recruited staff, colluded with foreign institutions and organizations, applied for foreign financial support, specialized in collecting one-sided information, distort and concoct facts, sensationalized sensitive incidents, used the Internet and foreign media to disseminate inciting statements and articles, denigrated the image of the Communist Party of China and the government of China, attack the current political system, agitate public discontent toward China's State regime and socialist system, and incite subversion of state power.
The specific facts are as follows:
I. He wrote and distributed a series of 12 "nonviolence" articles, and defamed China's State regime and socialist system as a "despotic" regime and system, spread ideology that subverted the State regime, and proposed means and methods to subvert state power.
From January 2006 to May 2012, defendant Liu Feiyue successively distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" a series of 12 articles that he wrote including "The Voice of Nonviolence: A Discussion of the Principles of Nonviolence" and "The Voice of Nonviolence: Proof of Color Revolutions." The articles defamed the government of China as "a despotic government that persists in violence and lies," the State regime as a "despotic regime" that "persists in violent and oppressive rule and tramples on human rights", and the socialist system as a "despotic and dictatorial system." The articles advocated "color revolutions...unarmed struggles such as large-scale mass movements and street fights," and adopting "sarcastic actions" and "naked protests" to "struggle for army defections and the disintegration of the 'despotic government,'" and proposed means and methods to subvert state power, in order to incite subversion of state power.
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
1. Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: From November 24 to 28, 2016 the Detachment used remote crime scene investigation to download 12 articles from the foreign "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net": "The Voice of Nonviolence: My Democracy Party Perspective," "The Voice of Nonviolence: Two Kinds of Nonviolence," "The Voice of Nonviolence: A Discussion of the Principles of Nonviolence," "The Voice of Nonviolence: Nonviolence Movements In the Face of Severe Pressure," "The Voice of Nonviolence: Focusing on Social Issues When Launching Social Movements," "The Voice of Nonviolence; Exploring Means and Methods of Launching Social Movements," "The Voice of Nonviolence: Proof of Color Revolutions," "The Voice of Nonviolence:The Noviolence Movement as Seen From the Do-Not-Buy-A-House Movement in China's Early Stages," "Liu Feiyue: A Discussion on Some of My Experiences in the Rights Defense Movement," "Liu Feiyue: The Power of Nonviolence Rights Defense: Writing for the Broader Rights Defense Public," and "Using the Human Body as a Protest Method for Nonviolent Rights Defense: Naked Protests," "Sarcastic Action as One Recommended Means of Nonviolent Rights Defense." Liu Feiyue signed an affirmation that the aforementioned articles were written and distributed by him.
2. Liu Feiyue distributed a series of "nonviolence" articles on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" with these main contents:
(1) "The Voice of Nonviolence: My Democracy Party Perspective" stated that the formation of democracy parties is a typical means of nonviolence resistance, and it is disobedience against the authorities depriving people of the right to form parties and associations. In the current high-pressure political environment, this way is the most desirable , the most feasible. The China Democracy Party already has the embryonic form of becoming a national opposition party.
(2) "The Voice of Nonviolence: Two Kinds of Nonviolence," divided the nonviolence movement theoretically into two ways: "moderate resistance" and "non-armed struggle," and maintained that the government of China is a despotic ruling regime and a despotic government that persists in violence and lies, and proposed the need to bring about "democratization" in China.
(3) "The Voice of Nonviolence: A Discussion of the Principles of Nonviolence," stated that the realization of "democratization" is the basic appeal of China's democracy parties, and defamed the government as suppressing domestic party activities and persecuting dissidents who oppose the government.
(4) "The Voice of Nonviolence: Nonviolence Movements In the Face of Severe Pressure," defamed China as a despotic high pressure society, proposed "nonviolence movement" ideology and means of launching it, and the use of "disobedience movement ""and "non-cooperation movements" to struggle against political institutions such as China's electoral system.
(5) "The Voice of Nonviolence: Focusing on Social Issues When Launching Social Movements," stated that the status quo of the "democracy" movement was caused by the authorities' brutal repression, called for the use of social issues such as education, medical care, environment, demolition, mine accidents, and AIDS to carry out a democratic movement to avoid government repression.
(6) "The Voice of Nonviolence: Exploring Means and Methods of Launching Social Movements," proposed specific ways to launch social movements, such as posting signed letters, open letters, and appeal letters on the Internet, going to scenes to sit in, and going on a hunger strikes.
(7) "The Voice of Nonviolence: Proof of Color Revolutions," stated that the "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, and other countries were carried out in a peaceful nonviolent way, "regime change does not require large-scale violent conflicts and bloodshed," and "struggle for army defections, disintegrate violent despots."
(8) "The Voice of Nonviolence: The Nonviolence Movement as Seen From the Do-Not-Buy-A-House Movement in China's Early Stages," defamed China as a despotic political system that persists in high-handed rule, and proposed that the "nonviolence movement" should focus on hot issues of people's livelihood and social concerns such as medical care, education, housing, land expropriation, and demolition, and it provided theoretical support and means for "activist" activities.
(9) "Liu Feiyue: A Discussion on Some of My Experiences in the Rights Defense Movement,"defamed China's regime as a despotic dictatorial system, persisting in violent and oppressive rule and trampling on human rights, and proposed using the masses' rights protection needs to carry out democratic movements, and incited the masses to rebel against the government.
(10) "Liu Feiyue: The Power of Nonviolence Rights Defense: Writing for the Broader Rights Defense Public," proposed the concept of nonviolent rights defense, saying that nonviolence is a kind of "soft violence," which also has the coercive power of submissiveness, and called on the public to launch a nonviolent rights movement.
(11) "Using the Human Body as a Protest Method for Nonviolent Rights Defense: Naked Protests" and "Sarcastic Action as One Recommended Means of Nonviolent Rights Defense" called on the public to engage in nonviolent rights defense through "naked protests" and "sarcasm."
3. A review report issued by the Publication Review Center of Hubei: The "nonviolence" series of articles prescribes life-saving medicine for the illegal organization "China Democracy Party," and lays out plans for how to work against the Communist Party of China: It provides an overview of the lessons of the failures of the "democracy movement" and how to advance the anti-government activities of the "democracy movement" and offers advice for the "disintegration of a powerful despotic government." It opposes the "four basic principles," finds excuses to pay attention to social issues, incites crowds to riot, and instigates people who are dissatisfied with the government on what methods to use to struggle against the government. It fantasizes about a "color revolution" in China and the "collapse" of the regime led by the Communist Party of China. It calls for using issues of people's livelihoods to promote the "nonviolence movement" and finally achieve the goal of overthrowing the so-called "despotic government." It confuses the legitimate rights protection of the masses with the anti-government activities of the "democracy activists," and uses "petitions for the people" as a cover is another way of being anti-government.
4. Defendant Liu Feiyue's statement: The series of 12 "nonviolence" articles were written for and distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." In the articles, "At the critical moment, we even need to win the support of the army" meant that the army would not follow orders to suppress the "nonviolence movement" and would even support "nonviolence" secretly or openly, and would turn its guns. "Disintegration of a powerful despotic government" referred to the transformation of the original government from a despotic system into a democratic system, that is, the transformation of Chinese society and the realization of China's democratization. "Achieve one's own goals" the goal is to realize democratization in China and establish a democratized social system. Dissatisfaction with the electoral system was because China's electoral system is not a real one-person-one-vote election, and the candidates are still under official control.
II. He wrote and distributed seven issues of "Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" and "Involuntary Institutionalization and Human Rights" annual reports which manufactured rumors and defamed the Party and the government as "severely trampling on human rights" and the State regime and socialist system as a "despotic political system."
1. On February 3, 2014, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed "End the Stability Maintenance System - '2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China' Published" and "2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." These articles stated "The CCP authorities insist on continuous and strict maintenance and monitoring of Chinese society, especially when it comes to the behavior of Chinese citizens involving the political system and civil rights, they will spare no effort to suppress at all costs and do not rule out any means. The essence of the evils of maintaining stability, including beatings, illegal harassment, intimidation, enforced disappearance, kidnapping, and house arrest, is the evil of the system. Under a one-party dictatorship that lacks a constitutional system, official power is deformed and powerful, and interest groups are rampant in corruption. Stability maintenance powers are being widely abused in order to preserve political power and interests. As long as China’s current system fails to change its totalitarian form, the evil of the stability maintenance system will remain."
2. On February 16, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" the "2014 Annual Report on the Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Situation." The article stated "The stability maintenance system combines the methods of dictatorship with the existing social management system, and expands with the intensification of social conflicts in China. It has become the main cause of China's human rights disaster. In 2014, the Chinese government regarded all the efforts of the people to promote the progress of Chinese society as "instability factors" that jeopardized the security of the regime, and it comprehensively monitored, suppressed, and mobilized all its forces to maintain stability with an iron fist. Its severe suppression of China's civil society has shown astonishing arrogance and madness. A large number of human rights lawyers, scholars, journalists, editors, writers, NGO activists, human rights defenders, and dissidents were arrested."
3. On February 9, 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" the "2015 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China." The article stated "Judging from the fact that the CPC authorities still operate a stability maintenance system that violates the spirit of the rule of law as the pillar of the maintenance of system governance, the construction of the rule of law in China has not made any improvement in the stability maintenance mechanism. In order to maintain stability here it has been a clamping down on civil rights and the providing of legal support for the barbarism, gangsterization, and evil. Large steps backwards have taken place in law enforcement, completely throwing away the veil of the legal system of the past, displaying a naked trampling on civilization and the rule of law, and repeatedly breaking the bottom line of basic human relations. Under China's stability maintenance system, in order to eliminate dissidents and achieve the goal of stabilizing society and maintaining the rule of power, the "Anti-Terrorism Law," "National Security Law," and "Cybersecurity Law" issued in 2015 contain many clauses that openly infringe on citizens' rights, which is a typical idea for maintaining stability. This derogation of the legal system has added a legal basis for further evil to the stability maintenance system that was originally extremely illegal and infringing rights, and this will inevitably greatly increase the severity of stability maintenance in mainland China."
4. On February 13, 2014, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" the "2014 Annual Report on China's Mental Health and Human Rights." The article stated:
"At the current stage in China, the people persecuted with 'involuntary institutionalization' involve all walks of life, from rich people to farmers, from officials to opposition parties. It can be said that under this system, everyone may be subjected to involuntary institutionalization."
"The current non-democratic and despotic political system has endowed them with absolute and unrestricted power. The phenomenon of 'involuntary institutionalization' will continue until we see the establishment of a real civil society, the awareness and protection mechanisms of human rights and the supremacy of law in the whole society, the updating of the neo-traditional and oppressive concept of domination, and the establishment of a modern real democratic and free system."
5. On January 14, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," "2014 Annual Report on China's Mental Health and Human Rights." The article stated:
"Because of the abolition of the reeducation through labor system, Chinese authorities, under the habit of maintaining stability, in order to strengthen the control of society, in addition to widely adopting black jails, legal education classes, and other illegal methods of depriving citizens of their right to personal liberty, have also strengthened controlling society through the use of 'involuntary institutionalization.'"
"Looking at the human rights situation in the field of mental health in China in 2014, we believe that in order to truly and completely eliminate the phenomenon of "involuntary institutionalization" that violates human rights in the field of mental health, it is necessary to comprehensively and systematically transform the political system, legal system, and society so that the country truly implement administration according to law and constitution."
6. On February 8, 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report." The article stated:
"With the frequent occurrence of social conflicts, serious confrontations between the government and the people continues to deepen, the government of China has increased its control over the society, and the suppression of civil dissidents and human rights defenders has become increasingly cruel. Due to the great pressure and need to maintain stability, the use of 'involuntary institutionalization' to forcibly restrict the personal freedom of citizens has become the choice of stability maintenance institutions in various places, and 'involuntary institutionalization' has become a tool for maintaining stability"
"To change the current situation where involuntary institutionalization continues to occur and, more importantly, to promote institutional transformation and realize a constitutional regime, without a democratic constitutional system that protects civil liberties, it is impossible to fundamentally eradicate the 'power to practice medicine,' and every citizen will face the threat of 'involuntary institutionalization' at any time."
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
1. Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: From November 24, 2016 to January 18, 2017, the Detachment undertook a remote crime scene investigation to download these seven reports and surveys from the foreign"Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net": "End the Stability Maintenance System: 2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Issued," "2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," "2014 Annual Report on the Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Situation," "2015 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," "2013 Annual Report on China's Mental Health and Human Rights," "2014 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report," "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report." Liu Feiyue signed an affirmation that the aforementioned reports and surveys were written and distributed by him .
2. The Review Report issued by the Publication Review Center of Hubei:
(1) The "End the Stability Maintenance System - 2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Issued" stands completely in opposition to the Party and the government, ridiculing the stability maintenance work of the Party and the government, denying the excellent situation of national stability and unity achieved by maintaining stability, and inciting people's dissatisfaction with stability maintenance work.
(2) In the name of safeguarding human rights, the "2013 China Stability Maintenance and Human Rights Year-End Report" opposes the strategic policy of our Party and government to maintain social stability, opposes the preventive measures taken against elements that jeopardize social stability and jeopardize national security, social stability. It is described as a victim of "severe attacks" and "severe controls," and stability maintenance actions are described as "a flagrant violation of the Constitution and an open challenge to the universal values of mankind."
(3) Under the banner of safeguarding human rights, "The "2014 Report on China's Stability Maintenance Situation" advocates "constitutional democracy and slanders the stability maintenance work carried out by our Party and government as "restricting freedom of the press, freedom of the Internet," and "persecuting human rights defenders." Its essence is to deny and attack our stability maintenance system, peddle the Western "universal human values" that transcend class and history, and use models such as separation of powers and multi-party rotating governance to fundamentally negate the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system."
(4) The author of the "2015 Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Annual Report" places himself entirely in opposition to the Party and the government, saying: "2015 is the year of unprecedented strengthening of China's stability maintenance system in terms of laws and regulations, unprecedented barbarism in means and methods, and the development trends in the situation of human rights in China has further deteriorated. The construction of the legal system has rapidly retreated, the whole society has fallen into a state of extreme tension, and the whole country is shrouded in a highly terrorist atmosphere of maintaining stability. Based on the situation of maintaining stability throughout the year, it can be asserted that this is the harshest year for stability maintenance in China since the establishment of the system."
(5) The "2013 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report" goes to great lengths to deny the country's "Mental Health Law," and smear the government as persecuting petitioners and using of hospitals to imprison normal people, and subjecting people with "involuntary institutionalization" to all kinds of persecution. This harmed the image of the State and jeopardized national security.
(6) The "2014 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report" claimed:
"Over a year after the implementation of the 'Mental Health Law' the situation of 'involuntary institutionalization' has not significantly improved."
"It is necessary to reform the awareness of rights from the system, end the system, and reverse the totalitarian dictatorship that regards the people as the enemy and treats the people as the enemy."
"In order to truly eliminate the phenomenon of "involuntary institutionalization" that violates human rights in the spiritual field, it is necessary to comprehensively and systematically transform the form of government and the legal system."
The transformation of the form of government posited by this report would represent a change to the socialist system, and in doing so achieve a shake-up of public opinion. This violates the four basic principles.
(7) The "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report" claims "involuntary institutionalization" is when government authorities or interested parties forcibly send those without mental illness or who should not be admitted to mental hospitals for treatment in isolation, and that it is a serious humanitarian disaster that violates citizens' personal rights, damages citizens' personal dignity, restricts citizens' personal freedom, and endangers citizens' personal safety on a large scale. The report uses "involuntary institutionalization" as an issue and disseminates a large number of statements that violate the people's democratic dictatorship, which is detrimental to social stability and national security.
3. Defendant Liu Feiyue's statement: The "Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" and "Involuntary Institutionalization and Human Rights" annual reports were compiled and distributed by him on the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." The sources of the cases reported in the reports were the Internet and telephone calls or face-to-face visits with the parties. He has not received professional training in the field of emotional disorders and has not studied it systematically. There are no statistics on the numbers mentioned in the report of "petitioners accounted for as many as 80% of the involuntarily institutionalized" and of the "involuntarily institutionalized."
III. He used rumors and sensitive incidents to distribute five commentary articles, and manufactured rumors and defamed the government of China as persisting in a "despotic system" with "gross violations of human rights," spreading statements that were detrimental to the State regime and socialist system:
1. On March 8, 2006, the foreign "Epoch Times Net" distributed rumors that the "Shenyang Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital Secretly Extracted Human Organs from Living Falun Gong Members." That month, defendant Liu Feiyue wrote the article "The Sujiatun Incident and the 'Constitution of Human Rights'" and distributed it on "Epoch Times Net," further spreading the aforementioned rumors claiming:
"The exposure of the Sujiatun incident shows that the current government's awareness of human rights is very poor."
"We still see that the Chinese government is brutally trampling on human rights."
"Although China's human rights are "incorporated into the constitution," if "incorporation into the constitution" is merely to relieve international pressure, if incidents like Sujiatun happen again and again, if it continues to stubbornly insist on being an authoritarian and high-handed political system, "human rights incorporation in the constitution" is just a pretty lie that exists only on paper."
2. On November 23, 2006, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," "An Open Letter to the Government of China" claiming:
"Eleven years ago, the Chinese government used violence to create the '6-4' tragedy. Eleven years later, the Chinese government continued to use violence to send a large number of dissidents to prison. China used violence to suppress the '8-9' pro-democracy movement. But the voices for human rights and democracy have never stopped. China has used violence to persecute Falun Gong, but people’s pursuit of freedom of belief has never stopped. China has used violence to suppress workers’ demonstrations and petitions one after another, but workers' dissatisfaction still exists."
"As a member of a China's democracy party, I adhere to the belief of nonviolence and abide by the principle of nonviolence. . . In accordance with the principle of nonviolence, I call on the government of China to rehabilitate 6-4 and release all political prisoners."
3. On May 2, 2015, a person who attacked a police officer in the waiting room of the railway station in Qing'an County, Heilongjiang was shot dead on the spot by the police on duty, and on May 8 and 21 of that year defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," "End the Stability Maintenance System: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch's Statement on the Xu Chunhe Case in Heilongjiang" and "What is More Serious Than the Shooting is 'Stability Maintenance': Civil Rights & Livelihood Comments on the Xu Chunhe Incident." Those articles stated:
"In this inhuman country where even beggars are not spared, the stability maintenance system was the chief culprit in depriving Xu Chunhe of his life."
"The so-called "stability uber alles" ideological policy not only means the loss of basic human rights, but also represents all kinds of persecution and torture you may encounter, including but not limited to: stalking, harassment, kidnapping, detention in mental hospitals, violent beatings, illegal detention, black jails, being taken into custody, imprisonment. . . and even the ultimate "interception" that Xu Chunhe encountered: being shot to death."
"Violent interception arises from the increasingly insane 'stability maintenance system.' Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch strongly demands an end to this inhuman 'stability maintenance system' that ignores the law and tramples on human rights."
4. On September 4, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," "Statistics on Stability Maintenance Cases During the 2015 '9-3' Military Parade." The article claimed:
"On September 3, 2015, on the occasion of commemorating the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, in order to ensure the smooth progress of its military parade to show off its force, the Chinese Communist government launched a series of stability maintenance, monitoring, and control without regard to the cost that went far beyond the limits of what anyone could have imagined."
"During this round of human rights disasters, countless people have been subjected to pressures ranging from tracking and monitoring, to criminal detention and imprisonment, all for the sake of maintaining stability."
"Although the Second World War ended 70 years ago, this despotic war on freedom has not come to an end. The Chinese people have a long way to go to achieve true democracy and freedom."
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
1. Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: From November 24, 2016 to February 16, 2017, the Detachment downloaded from the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" these five articles: "The Sujiatun Incident and 'Human Rights Incorporation Into the Constitution,'" "An Open Letter to the Government of China," "End the Stability Maintenance System: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement on the Xu Chunhe Case in Heilongjiang," "'Stability Maintenance' is More Serious Than Being Shot: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Commentary on the Xu Chunhe Incident," "Statistics on Stability Maintenance Cases During the 2015 '9-3' Military Parade". Liu Feiyue signed an affirmation that the aforementioned articles were written and distributed by him.
2. The Review Report issued by the Publication Review Center of Hubei:
(1) "The Sujiatun Incident and 'Human Rights Incorporation Into the Constitution'" does not present any facts, and merely relies on the phrase "based on disclosures" to say that "a secret concentration camp similar to fascism was set up in the Sujiatun District of Shenyang City, where more than 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners were detained.......Those who entered here did not come out alive, and their internal organs were emptied and sold before being cremated." It says that this kind of "illegal behavior is rampant in China," and used it to smear and attack "The government of China is brutally trampling on human rights."
(2) "An Open Letter to the Government of China" takes an anti-government position, challenges the people's government and opposes the four basic principles, especially the principle of the people's democratic dictatorship.
(3) "End the Stability Maintenance System: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement on the Xu Chunhe Case in Heilongjiang" made irresponsible remarks about the shooting incident at the Qing’an railway station in Heilongjiang, and confused the public. It did not investigate, and subjectively assumed the truth of the incident, thereby attacking the Party and the government.
(4) "Stability Maintenance is More Serious Than Being Shot: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Commentary on the Xu Chunhe Incident" turns the "shooting case" at the railway station in Qing'an County, Heilongjiang into a long article, fans the flames, and directs its attacks on the stability maintenance work of the Party and the government.
(5) "Statistics on Stability Maintenance Cases During the 2015 '9-3' Military Parade" collects 64 cases of stability maintenance from illegal media, and distorts the stability maintenance work adopted by the government during the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Anti-Japanese War. It smears the government as having "conducted large-scale suppression of petitioners and dissidents, the means are enough to be described as 'madness.'" "The author calls for his party to wage war on the government for a long time, making this an article that incites the people to oppose the government.
3. Defendant Liu Feiyue's statement: The five articles "The Sujiatun Incident and 'Human Rights Incorporation Into the Constitution,'" "An Open Letter to the Government of China," "End the Stability Maintenance System: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement on the Xu Chunhe Case in Heilongjiang," "'Stability Maintenance' is More Serious Than Being Shot: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Commentary on the Xu Chunhe Incident," and "Statistics on Stability Maintenance Cases During the 2015 "9-3" Military Parade" were written and distributed by him on the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." The sources and data of the "Sujiatun Incident" were obtained from foreign websites and some related reports in the country. The examples in the article have not been verified. The sources of the cases in "Statistics on Stability Maintenance Cases During the 2015 '9-3' Military Parade" were reported by the parties concerned, and there were direct references to case information from "Rights Defense," "64 Tianwang," and "Radio Free Asia."
IV. He organized and plotted the distribution of 21 cartoons and posters on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" that defamed the State regime and socialist system as violating citizens' human rights , attacking the State judiciary, and calling for the release of individuals who jeopardized national security.
1. From April 2014 to November 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue organized and plotted the continuous distribution of a series of 13 cartoons on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" including "Eighteen Measures to Maintain Stability, Arrest and Sentencing" and "Talking about Human Rights: The 7.09 Trial" that insinuated that, in order to maintain stability, the government of China, used intimidation, restriction of personal freedom, kidnapping, "pocket crimes," and "black jails" to willfully deprive citizens of their personal rights and violate human rights.
2. From April to November, 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue organized and plotted the distribution of eight Internet posters on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" including "Stop Suppressing Human Rights, Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Demands the Immediate Release of Zhou Shifeng, Hu Shigen and Others." These were directed against the State judiciary's trial of Zhou Shifeng, Qin Yongmin, Huang Wenxun and other criminals who jeopardize national security, and claimed:
"It is political persecution by the CPC authorities, and its approach seriously violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and China's own criminal procedures."
"We call on governments, human rights organizations and news institutions all over the world to pay close attention to and condemn the political persecution acts of the CPC authorities, and demand that the authorities immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience in custody."
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
(1) Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: On January 1, 2017, the Detachment utilized remote crime scene investigation to download a series of 13 "18 Methods of Chinese Stability Maintenance" cartoons from the foreign"Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" including "Clean Out the City," "Exit Bans," "Real Name Registration""Arrest and Imprison," "Kidnap and Beat," "Silence, Threaten, and Intimidate," "Chase and Intercept," "Pocket Crimes," "Black Jails," "The 7.09 Trials," "Jia Lingmin and the Rule of Law in China," and "The 'C' in CCTV Stands for Calamitous Judgments." Liu Feiyue signed an affirmation that he compiled and plotted to distribute the aforementioned cartoons.
(2) Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: From December 30, 2016 to February 16, 2017, the Detachment downloaded eight Internet posters from "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" including "Release Chen Yunfei," "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement Protesting the Heavy Sentences Handed Down for the Zhejiang Democracy Party's Chen Shuqing and Lü Gengsong," "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Calls for the Unconditional Release of Qin Yongmin Who is Being Held in Custody Pending a Charge of Subversion," "Stop Suppressing Human Rights: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Demands the Immediate Release of Zhou Shifeng, Hu Shigen and Others," "Stop Trampling on Human Rights: Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Calls for the Immediate Release of the Three Gentlemen of Chibi," "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement Post-90s Young Rights Defender Huang Wenxun Being Put on Political Trial," "The Butcher (Wu Gan) has been Held in Custody for a Whole Year, Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Calls for His Immediate Release," and "On the First Anniversary of the Mass Arrests of 7.09 Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Calls for an End to the Persecution and Their Immediate Release."
3. The Review Report commentary issued by the Publication Review Center of Hubei regarding the 13 cartoons in this case:
(1) The cartoon "Clean Out the City" fools the people by showing a mass of the public sitting quietly, and uses the ironic phrase "Leaders let us make new achievements" to insinuate that China's stability maintenance work is "cleaning out the cities."
(2) The cartoon "Exit Bans" attacks the "Exit Ban" initiatives as a measure adopted for China's stability maintenance using an illustration of "Exit Bans" by Chinese Customs and Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch's text description "Illegally depriving domestic dissidents and human rights defenders of their normal exit rights."
(3) The cartoon "Real Name Registration" attacks the privacy and freedom of citizens in China as a place where they must "take out their ID card" using an illustration of Chinese citizens being required to show their ID cards when entering a public restroom.
(4) The cartoon "Arrest and Imprison" attacks China's stability maintenance as comprising show trials where human rights defenders are suppressed and deprived of their personal freedom.
(5) The cartoon "Kidnap and Beat" smears China's police as kidnapping and beating the masses at every opportunity by showing them beating people who spread their personal opinions, saying of themselves "You're looking at the government," and saying to their leader "Boss, I'm educating them."
(6) The cartoon "Gag Order" insinuates that China's media issues "gag orders" about hot-button issues and mass incidents, engages in control over public opinion, goes as far as issuing "directions" and orders about what is allowed to be reported and how. The cartoon attacks CCTV and the Xinhua News Agency as "Calamity TV" and "New Lie Agency."
(7) The cartoon "Threats and Intimidation" insinuates China's police threaten petitioners saying "Think about your wife and children," run away after beating them, and send text messages to extort money from them.
4. The Review Report Commentary produced by the Publication Review Center of Hubei regarding the posters in this case:
(1) "Release Chen Yunfei" directly attacks China's laws for "famous human rights defender Chen Yunfei" being arrested for two offenses of "disturbing the peace" and "inciting subversion of state power."
(2) "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Statement Protesting the Heavy Sentences Handed Down for the Zhejiang Democracy Party's Chen Shuqing and Lü Gengsong" is wanton opposition to the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the rule of law and democracy as it cries out for Chen and Lv being severely sentenced for the crime of "subversion of state power" and attack it as "naked political trial" and "maintaining the stability of the one-party dictatorship. . . strengthening the control and oppression of civil society."
V. He granted interviews to foreign media four times and defamed and denigrated China's State political system and judicial system, and attacked China's State regime and socialist system.
1. On February 3, 2014, February 6, 2015, and February 9, 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue granted three interviews to a Radio Free Asia reporter regarding the "2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," "2014 Annual Report on the Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Situation," and "2015 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," claiming:
"At present, China is a stability-maintenance system. Any voice that criticizes the government is subjected to strict controls. It is still gradually strengthening and becoming more and more crazy. The authorities believe that the effectiveness of the stability maintenance system has been limited, so it has been elevated to a national level security system."
"The current stability maintenance of the CPC has become internationalized, crazy and rampant to a new level, The high-pressure situation will be grow increasingly severe, and the tentacles of maintaining stability will spread to various fields. It is necessary to pay attention to this matter, and even to fight back. This is the original intention of issuing such a report."
(2) On February 13, 2014, January 15, 2015, February 8, 2016, defendant Liu Feiyue granted three interviews to a Radio Free Asia reporter regarding the "2013 Annual Report on China's Mental Health and Human Rights," "2014 Annual Report on China's Mental Health and Human Rights," and "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights (Involuntary Institutionalization) Annual Report," claiming:
"The phenomenon of citizens being forcibly committed because of defending their rights is a very serious social problem. Sending normal citizens to mental hospitals, giving them injections and making them take medicine is inhumane, and it is a very brutal attack on the human rights of the victims."
"The authorities have unfettered power to send anyone who displeases them, who needs to be suppressed, to a mental hospital."
"China's 'involuntary institutionalization' issue exposes China's legal and institutional problems."
"These phenomena are caused by the system. If this system does not change, it will not gradually evolve into a modern democratic and free system and 'involuntary institutionalization' will continue."
"To completely solve this phenomenon, we need to establish a way of governing the country in accordance with the law, governing the country according to the constitution, and change the ways of despotic rule."
(3) On July 16, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue granted an interview to a Radio Free Asia reporter regarding Zhou Shifeng and others being taken into criminal detention on suspicion of the offense of subversion of state power,claiming: "The authorities suppress human rights lawyers, in a certain sense, to eliminate the so-called instability factors. It wants to achieve 100% stability, absolute stability, and clean up the instability factors, lest these factors grow bigger."
(4) On August 21, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue granted an interview to a Radio Free Asia reporter regarding the government of China's "9-3 military parade," claiming:
"On the one hand, the authorities are putting on a strong display of force, and on the other hand, they are strengthening their control over every aspect of society. This is not a confident approach, and it will only continue to cause of build up of social conflicts."
"The authorities' control over society has been increasing, and the suppression of human rights has become increasingly severe."
(5) On August 5, 2015, defendant Liu Feiyue granted an interview to a Radio Free Asia reporter regarding Gou Hongguo being sentenced for the crime of subversion of state power, claiming: "What Gou Hongguo has done does not constitute a crime of subversion of state power."
"It is a kind of crime...It is a very brutal trampling of human rights."
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
1. The remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved:
(1) From January 11 to 19, 2017, the Detachment utilized remote crime scene investigation to download three news reports and related audio of Liu Feiyue's interviews by reporters from Radio Free Asia from the foreign "Radio Free Asia" website regarding the "2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," "2014 Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Annual Report," and "2015 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China."
(2) From January 11 to 19, 2017, the Detachment utilized remote crime scene investigation to download three news reports and related audio of Liu Feiyue's interviews by reporters from Radio Free Asia from the foreign "Radio Free Asia" website regarding the "2013 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report," "2014 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report," and "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report."
(3) From December 9, 2016 to January 19, 2017, the Detachment utilized remote crime scene investigation to download news reports and related audio from the foreign "Radio Free Asia" website of Liu Feiyue's interviews by a reporter from Radio Free Asia regarding "Five United Nations human rights experts demanded that China stop the crackdown on lawyers," "A Military parade to maintain stability and Beijing's arrest of petitioners 'intensified,' forcing street sleepers into 'guerrilla warfare' with police," and "Gou Hongguo's sentence for "subversion" suspended for three years."
2. The Review commentary produced by the Publication Review Center of Hubei:
(1) The interviews for Radio Free Asia news reports that Liu Feiyue granted regarding the "2013 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China," "2014 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China Annual Report," and "2015 Annual Report on Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" distorted and denied the necessary and legitimate measures taken by the government of China to maintain social stability it was a slander creating something out of nothing and, in essence, they openly advocated the Western democratic constitutional system and denied the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.
(2) The three interviews for Radio Free Asia news reports that Liu Feiyue granted regarding the "2013 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report," "2014 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report," and "2015 China Mental Illness and Human Rights Annual Report" distorted and smeared reality, were a complete denial of China's current system, advocated the so-called democratic system in the West, and were an open denial of China's current socialist system.
(3) The interviews Liu Feiyue granted a reporter from Radio Free Asia for the news reports "Five United Nations human rights experts demanded that China stop the crackdown on lawyers," "A Military parade to maintain stability and Beijing's arrest of petitioners 'intensified,' forcing street sleepers into 'guerrilla warfare' with police," and "Gou Hongguo's sentence for "subversion" suspended for three years" attempted to put pressure on China's government with external forces shows the author's anti-government stance. They smeared the Beijing police's clearing-up of idlers to ensure the safety of the military parade as "round ups" and "arrests." They smeared the government of China saying that when major events are held in the capital, "persons, including petitioners, are regarded as instabiligy factors, and they are targeted for surveillance and attacks." Liu Feiyue approved of Gou Hongguo's subversion of state power conduct, and holds the same positions as Gou.
3. Audio recordings of defendant Liu Feiyue's interviews with "Radio Free Asia" reporter, which proved the relevant circumstances of Liu Feiyue granting interviews to foreign media.
4. Defendant Liu Feiyue's statement: He has been interviewed by "Radio Free Asia" nine times, and believes that the intensified stability maintenance system actions have undermined the social legal system and violated the basic human rights of the majority of "rights defenders." Beijing Fengrui Law Firm's Gou Hongguo's behavior does not constitute a crime. He was fulfilling his rights and duties, and he was promoting the development and progress of human rights in China.
VI. Defendant Liu Feiyue founded "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" and engaged in long-term collusion with foreign institutions and organizations, applying for foreign funding for illegal activities.
In October 2005, defendant Liu Feiyue did, without undertaking registration and filing procedures in accordance with the law, illegally establish the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio." In October 2006, with the help of foreign personnel, Liu Feiyue leased foreign servers, illegally established "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," recruited staff, operated a website, distributed articles, posters, and cartoons that manufactured rumors and defamed the State regime and socialist system. Since 2008, individuals organized by Liu Feiyue distributed the articles on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," and used e-mail and the personal-media Twitter (Tuite) to continuously push them to many Internet users at home and abroad. Since 2008, he provided project proposals and year-end result reports to the Taiwan Democracy Foundation, Chinese Human Rights Defenders (USA), the National Endowment for Democracy and other foreign institutions and organizations, applied for financial support, and accepted "China Youth Human Rights Award" awards and prize money from foreign organizations. As of September 13, 2016, Liu Feiyue's personal bank account had received remittances from foreign institutions, organizations, and individuals totaling RMB 1,013,471, all of which have been used for illegal activities such as operating websites.
The aforementioned facts have been by the following evidence presented, examined, and affirmed by this Court in court during the trial:
1. Remote crime scene investigation work transcripts produced by the Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: On November 26, 2016, the Detachment utilized remote crime scene investigation to download "Liu Feiyue's acknowledgment speech to the jury of the China Youth Human Rights Award" from the foreign "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." On December 8 of the same year, it utilized remote crime scene investigation to take screenshots of "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" website pages. Liu Feiyue's phone, email, QQ, SKYPE and other communication accounts published on the website were consistent with those registered and used by Liu Feiyue.
2. The crime scene investigation Inspection Report Certificate produced by Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Cybersecurity Detachment proved: On November 18 and 19, 2016, the Detachment seized two desktop computers at Liu Feiyue home, and undertook an electronic evidence crime scene investigation examination. The computer hard disks contained the login information and chat records of communication accounts involved in the case such as QQ number 405420692 and SKYPE number liufeiyue19702, minshengguancha, etc. There were 60 documents involved in the case, including Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Rights Protection Studio's "Project Plan (Application) Letter," "Project Plan Results Report," and "Request for Salary and Expense List." There were records of Liu Feiyue browsing foreign websites and Liu Feiyue's five mass mailing group user lists.
3. The Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Rights Defense Studio's "Project Plan (Application)" and "Application Form" for the nine years from 2008 to 2016 that the public security agency collected from Liu Feiyue's computer hard drive proved: From 2008 to 2016, Liu Feiyue submitted annual work plans and declared funding to foreign organizations such as the Taiwan Democracy Foundation, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, and the National Endowment for Democracy for nine consecutive years.
4. The public security agency collected from Liu Feiyue's computer hard drive Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Rights Defense Studio 12 work summary reports from 2008 to 2012 including the 2014 "Project Plan Achievement Report," the Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch 2015 Four Quarter "Work Report," and the Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio 2011, 2012 "Annual Report" which proved: The circumstances of Liu Feiyue reports of the results of the work of Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio to the foreign organization that provided funding for it.
5. The "Request for payment of wages and utility bills" and "Employee Attendance" the public security agency collected from Liu Feiyue's computer hard drive proved: Liu Feiyue ran the "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" with funds provided by foreign organizations.
6. Bank account information and transaction details obtained by the public security agency proved; Liu Feiyue received foreign funds totaling 1,013,471 yuan from 2006 to 2016.
7. The witness testimony of Yu Jinping ( Liu Feiyue's wife): The two computers seized from her home by the public security agency were used solely by Liu Feiyue, and were not used by others.
8. The witness testimony of Shi Yulin: At the end of May 2011, he contacted Liu Feiyue via Skype to join the Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio, and he collected information for Liu Feiyue on officials' human rights violations and interceptions and beatings of petitioners. In November 2015, he left "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." He received a total of 197,100 yuan in salary from Liu Feiyue via bank transfers. The regular staff working for "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" included Gao Jian and Liu Wei, and temporary volunteers Ding Lingjie, Wu Lijuan, Huang Bin and others who collected information. The articles and news released by "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" came mainly from petitioners who provided information by phone, we did not go to the scenes to verify anything, and we could not guarantee the authenticity and objectivity of the news.
9. The witness testimony of Gao Xuqiang: In 2014, he got in touch with Liu Feiyue through Liu Wei's introduction, and he joined Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Studio, and communicated through skype chat software. Liu Feiyue arranged for him to be primarily responsible for the collection of "involuntary institutionalization" monthly materials and related articles. Each article was about 500 yuan, and the monthly fee was no more than 2,000 yuan. He received less than a year's remuneration, a total of about 8,000 yuan.
10. The witness testimony of Deng Yulin: Beginning in 2011, Liu Feiyue asked him to use 5 Google mailboxes to send emails to other groups with the content distributed on "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," and Liu Feiyue paid him for this.
11. Defendant Liu Feiyue's statement: He got acquainted with Wei Shi, the founder of the website on the foreign "Boxun Net," and in October 2006, with the help of Wei Shi, he rented a server in the United States, founded "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," and recruited Shi Yulin and others responsible for collecting manuscripts and materials for each part of the website. In order to maintain the operation of "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," it began to apply for funds of 1,013,471 yuan from foreign organizations such as the Taiwan Democracy Foundation, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, and the National Endowment for Democracy in 2008. The vast majority of the aforementioned funds were used to operate "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," including payment of manuscript fees, wages, bonuses, and reimbursement for "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" staff. A small amount of funds were used to assist domestic human rights defenders and carry out humanitarian aid activities. He once compiled the content of "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" into an electronic newsletter, and asked Deng Yulin to push it to domestic and foreign mailbox users through mass mailings. After receiving the "China Youth Human Rights Award" on June 5, 2016, he gave a speech of thanks the next day.
In addition, the public prosecution agency also presented the following evidence that was produced and examined in court, and is affirmed by this Court:
1. The Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's "Decision to Open a Case," which proved that in this case, it opened a case on September 16, 2014.
2."The Process of how Defendant Liu Feiyue Came Into Police Custody" and "The Explanation of the Process of how Defendant Liu Feiyue Came Into Police Custody" proved: Liu Feiyue was summoned by the public security agency on November 17, 2016.
3. The Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's application to seize two desktop computers and a mobile phone from Liu Feiyue's house. The aforementioned two desktop computers were used by Liu Feiyue to operate "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net," and the mobile phone was used by him.
4. The Public Security Bureau of Suizhou's Evidence Collection Notice, Search Warrant and attached evidence collection list, Forensic Employment Letter, Assistance in Property Inquiry Notice, Assistance in Freezing Property Notice and other legal documents proved: The circumstances of the public security agency's inquiry, retrieval, seizure, frozen physical evidence, documentary evidence, property and entrusted forensics and other investigation activities.
5. The household registration materials issued by public security agency proved the circumstances of Liu Feiyue's identity.
Regarding the justification and defense opinions put forward by the defendant and his defense counsel, based on the ascertained facts and evidence, this Court passes judgment as follows:
1. Regarding the question of whether the Review Report issued by the Publication Review Center of Hubei should be accepted. Based on an investigation, the Publication Review Center of Hubei is responsible for screening the contents of books, newspapers, audio-visual products, and electronic and Internet publications in the province. The review reports issued by it can be used as evidence. The review report is consistent with the content of the articles reviewed and is confirmed by the statement of defender Liu Feiyue, and should be accepted. Liu Feiyue's justification regarding the inconsistency between the review report commentary and the abstract nature of the cartoons themselves, and that foreign media interviews are not a systematic views, and the opinion of his defense counsel that the most of the review report commentary were speculation and determinations relating to the defendant's subjective intent and should not be accepted, cannot be established, and are not accepted by this Court.
2. Regarding the question of whether defendant Liu Feiyue had the criminal intent to incite subversion of state power. Based on an investigation, Liu Feiyue founded "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net" and wrote and distributed a series of "nonviolence" articles that spread ideology that subverted state power and proposed means and methods to subvert state power. He utilized the distribution of "Stability Maintenance and Human Rights in China" and "Involuntary Institutionalization and Human Rights" annual reports and rumors of sensitive incidents to distribute commentary articles, and organized and plotted to distribute cartoons and posters that defamed and attacked State agencies, and spread statements that were detrimental to the State regime and socialist system, and granted interviews to foreign media that denigrated the State system. It can be seen that his subjective intent to incite subversion of state power is obvious.
3. Regarding the question of whether defendant Liu Feiyue colluded with foreign institutions and organizations. Based on an investigation, evidence such as the "Project plan (application) book," "Fund application form," "Project plan achievement report," and bank transaction records proved Liu Feiyue repeatedly applied to foreign institutions and organizations such as the Taiwan Democracy Foundation, Chinese Human Rights Defenders (USA), and National Endowment for Democracy for funding for projects, and used these to engage in illegal activities such as the operation of "Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch Net." Many times he granted interviews to foreign media that defamed and denigrated China's government system and judicial system, and attacked China's State regime and socialist system. The aforementioned conduct is sufficient to reach a determination that he colluded with foreign institutions and organizations. Therefore, the justification proposed by Liu Feiyue that "accepting foreign funds is normal cooperation with foreign organizations" and his defense counsel's defense opinion that "in this case it does not constitute aggravated circumstances of colluding with foreign organizations" cannot be establish, and are not accepted by this Court.
4. Regarding the question of whether it caused harm and consequences to society and others. The evidence in the case proved that Liu Feiyue illegally operated a website, and used the website to distribute articles, cartoons, posters, etc. in large quantities, for a long time, and in many ways. He granted several interviews to foreign media that manufactured rumors and defamed China's government. He colluded with foreign institutions and organizations to attack China's government in exchange for foreign funding. The subjective malice was deep and the social harm was great. Therefore, the defense opinion that there is "lack of evidence that the defendant has caused harm and consequences to society and others" put forward by his defense counsel cannot be establish, and is not accepted by this Court.
This Court finds, defendant Liu Feiyue leased foreign servers, illegally established and operated a website, and distributed a large number of articles, cartoons, and posters on the website, pushing them to many Internet users at home and abroad and granting interviews to foreign media, smearing State agencies, attacking the basic political system established by the constitution, inciting subversion of state power and the overthrow of the socialist order. His actions constitute the commission of the crime of inciting subversion of state power. The criminal facts charged by the public prosecution agency are clear, the evidence is reliable and copious, and the offense accurate, and is affirmed by this Court. Liu Feiyue colluded with foreign institutions and organizations to carry out criminal activities inciting subversion of state power, and in accordance with the law should be severely punished. Liu Feiyue's crime lasted for a long time, involved many facts and various criminal methods, and has formed a systematic theory of "nonviolence," which should be punished in accordance with the law. Although Liu Feiyue did not disagree with the facts charged, he did not sincerely confess his guilt. Liu Feiyue used two desktop computers and one mobile phone for the crime, and in accordance with the law these shall be confiscated. Based on its criminal facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society and his attitude with respect to pleading guilty, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 105(2), 106, 111(2), 55(1), 56(1), 64, and 67(3) of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment of this Court is as follows:
1. Defendant Liu Feiyue committed the crime of inciting subversion of state power,and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of five years and three years deprivation of political rights, and the confiscation of RMB 1.01 million worth of personal property (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, with one day of the sentence to be offset for each day of detention prior to the execution of this judgment, that is from November 18, 2016 to November 17, 2021).
2. The two desktop computers and one mobile phone the public security agency seized from defendant Liu Feiyue are hereby confiscated in accordance with the law.
If any party does not accept this judgment, they may within 10 days after the second day after receiving this written judgment bring an appeal through this Court or directly to the High People's Court of Hubei. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies of the appeal brief.
Chief Adjudicator Li Haiyun
Adjudicator Li Wen
Adjudicator Wang Qiong
January 29, 2019
Clerk Wang Kun
Clerk Deng Yishou
湖北省随州市中级人民法院
刑事判决书
(2017)鄂13刑初24号
公诉机关湖北省随州市人民检察院。
被告人刘飞跃,男,1970年[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]出生于湖北省随州市曾都区,公民身份号码[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED],汉族,大专文化,原系随州市曾都区东关学校教师,住随州市曾都区文峰学校[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]。因涉嫌犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪于2016年11月18日被刑事拘留,同年12月23日被逮捕。现羁押于随州市看守所。
辩护人吴魁明,广东旭高律师事务所律师。
湖北省随州市人民检察院以随检刑诉[2017]23号起诉书指控被告人刘飞跃犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,于2017年12月6日向本院提起公诉。本院于2017年12月12日立案,依法组成合议庭,分别于2018年7月10日、8月2日召集公诉人、辩护人、被告人召开庭前会议,就与审判相关问题了解情况,听取意见。2018年8月7日,在本院公开开庭审理了本案。湖北省随州市人民检察院指派副检察长胡良智、检察员程锦萍出庭支持公诉。被告人刘飞跃及其辩护人吴魁明到庭参加诉讼。案件审理过程中,因涉及面广,案情重大复杂,经湖北省高级人民法院批准延长审理期限三个月。经最高人民法院批准累计延长审理期限九个月。本案经合议庭评议并报请本院审判委员会讨论决定,现已审理终结。
湖北省随州市人民检察院指控:被告人刘飞跃自上世纪90年代初期以来,对中国共产党的领导和社会主义制度不满,逐渐形成了"结束一党专政,建立民主宪政政体"的反动思想。自2005年10月以来,被告人刘飞跃非法成立"民生观察工作室",租赁境外服务器开办"民生观察网",招募工作人员,与境外机构、组织勾结,申请接受资金资助,专门搜集片面信息,歪曲、捏造事实,炒作敏感事件,通过互联网和境外媒体,散布煽动性言论、文章,诋毁中国共产党和中国政府形象,攻击现行政治体制,鼓动社会公众对我国国家政权、社会主义制度不满,煽动颠覆国家政权。具体事实有:撰写发表"非暴力"系列文章,诽谤我国国家政权和社会主义制度是"专制"的政权和制度,传播顛覆国家政权的思想,提出颠覆国家政权的方式方法;撰写发表"中国维稳与人权""被精神病与人权"的6个年度报告(总结),造谣、诽谤党和政府"严重践踏人权,"国家政权和社会主义制度是"专制的政治体制";利用谣言和敏感事件发表评论文章,造谣、诽谤中国政府坚持"专制体制"、"粗暴践踏人权",传播有损于国家政权和社会主义制度的言论;组织策划发表漫画,海报,诽谤国家政权和社会主义制度侵犯公民人权,攻击国家司法机关,呼吁释放危害国家安全的犯罪分子;接受境外媒体采访,诽谤、诋毁国家政治制度和司法制度,攻击国家政权和社会主义制度;开办"民生观察网",与境外机构、组织勾结,申请接受境外資金資助,供其长期从事煽动颠覆国家政权活动。
为指控上述事实,公诉机关向法庭出示了物证,书证、视听资料、电子数据,勘验检查笔录、证人证言、审读报告及被告人的供述与辩解等证据。
公诉机关认为,被告人刘飞跃以造谣、诽谤等方式煽动颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度,与境外机构,组织勾结,其行为应当以煽动颠覆国家政权罪追究其刑事责任,提请本院依法判处。
被告人刘飞跃对公诉机关指控的事实没有异议,但其认为审读报告用具体的文字来解读漫画,与漫画本身的抽象性不相符:接受境外媒体采访,因内容简短不是系统的看法;接受境外资金是与境外组织的正常合作。其初衷是为了促进社会和谐,开办"民生观察网"也是为了关注底层民众利益,当然也存在着问题和不足,有些文章涉及改变现有制度的意见和观点。
辩护人吴魁明提出的辩护意见为:本案证据中的审读报告大部分是对被告人主观意图的推测和认定,被告人是否存在犯罪故意,不能由审读报告代替,审读报告不应采信;与境外勾结的事实不具体,不认可"民生观察网"与境外联系就是勾结,本案不构成与境外机构、组织勾结的从重情节:本案在证据链上缺乏被告人对社会和他人造成危害和后果方面的证据。
经审理查明:被告人刘飞跃自1990年代初,对中国共产党的领导和社会主义制度不满,逐渐形成了"结束一党专政,建立民主宪政政体"的思想。为宣传其思想,自2005年10月以来,刘飞跃非法成立"民生观察工作室",租赁互联网境外服务器,非法创办"民生观察网",招募工作人员,与境外机构、组织勾结,申请接受资金资助,专门搜集片面信息,歪曲、捏造事实,炒作敏感事件,通过互联网和境外媒体,散布煽动性言论、文章,诋毁中国共产党和中国政府形象,攻击现行政治体制,鼓动社会公众对我国国家政权、社会主义制度不满,煽动颠覆国家政权。具体事实如下:
一、撰写发表"非暴力"系列文章12篇,诽谤我国国家政权和社会主义制度是"专制"的政权和制度,传播颠覆国家政权的思想,提出颠覆国家政权的方式方法。
2006年1月至2012年5月,被告人刘飞跃先后将其撰写的《非暴力之声——论非暴力原則》《非暴力之声:颜色革命的证明》等12篇系列文章在"民生观察网"上发表。文章诽谤中国政府是"坚持暴力与谎言的专制政府",国家政权是"坚持暴力高压统治,践踏人权"的"专制政权",社会主义制度是"专制独裁的制度"。文章鼓吹"颜色革命...开展大规模的群众运动和街头斗争等非武装斗争",采取"挖苦性行动""裸体抗议""争取军队倒戈,瓦解'专制政府'",提出在中国开展颠覆运动的方式方法,以煽动颠覆国家政权。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2016年11月24日至28日,通过远程勘验从境外"民生观察网"下载《非暴力之声——我的民主党观》《非暴力之声——两种非暴力》《非暴力之声——论非暴力原则》《非暴力之声——高压下的非暴力运动》《非暴力之声:关注社会问题开展社会运动》《非暴力之声;探索开展社会运动的方式方法》《非暴力之声:颜色革命的证明》《非暴力之声:从不买房运动看中国初期阶段的非暴力运动》《刘飞跃——谈一谈我对维权运动的几点体会》、《刘飞跃:非暴力维权的力量——写给广大维权民众》《以人体作抗争的非暴力维权方式——裸体抗议》《值得推荐的一种非暴力维权方式—挖苦性行动》等文章12篇。刘飞跃签字确认上述文章系其所撰写和发表。
2.刘飞跃在"民生观察网"发表的"非暴力"系列文章的主要内容:
(1)《非暴力之声——我的民主党观》称组建民主党,是典型的非暴力抗争方式,是对当局剥夺人们组党结社权利的不服从。在当前高压的政治环境下,这种方式是最可取的,最可行的。中国民主党已具备了成为一个全国性反对党的雏形。
(2)《非暴力之声——两种非暴力》从理论上将非暴力运动分为"温和抵抗"和"非武装斗争"两种方式,认为中国政府是专制统治的政权,是坚持暴力与谎言的专制政府,提出要在中国实现"民主化"。
(3)《非暴力之声——论非暴力原则》称实现"民主化"是中国民主党的基本诉求,诽谤政府镇压国内组党活动,迫害反对政府的异见人士。
(4)《非暴力之声——高压下的非暴力运动》诽谤中国是专制高压的社会,提出"非暴力运动"的思想及开展方式,用"不服从运动''''不合作运动"对中国的选举制度等政权制度进行抗争。
(5)《非暴力之声:关注社会问题开展社会运动》称"民主"运动"的现状是当局的残酷打压造成的,呼吁利用教育、医疗、环境、拆迁、矿难、艾滋病等社会问题,开展民主运动,规避政府打压。
(6)《非暴力之声:探索开展社会运动的方式方法》提出在互联网发签名信、发公开信、发呼吁信,到现场静坐、绝食等开展社会运动的具体方式。
(7)《非暴力之声:颜色革命的证明》称格鲁吉亚、乌克兰、吉尔吉斯斯坦,黎巴嫩等国家的"颜色革命"都是用和平非暴力的方式进行的,"实现政权更迭不必出现大规模的暴力冲突和流血事件'''争取军队倒戈,瓦解暴力专制"。
(8)《非暴力之声:从不买房运动看中国初期阶段的非暴力运动》诽谤中国是专制集权的政治体制,坚持高压统治,提出"非暴力运动"应该以医疗、教育、住房、征地、拆迁等热点民生问题和社会关注问题为切入点,为"民运人士"活动提供理论支持和方式方法。
(9)《刘飞跃:谈一谈我对维权运动的几点体会》诽谤中国政权系专制独裁的制度,坚持暴力高压统治,践踏人权,提出利用群众的维权需要开展民主运动,煽动群众反抗政府。
(10)《刘飞跃:非暴力维权的力量——写给广大维权民众》提出了非暴力维权的概念,称非暴力是一种"软暴力",同样具有通人就范的强制力,打击力,号召民众开展非暴力维权运动。
(11)《以人体作抗争的非暴力维权方式—裸体抗议》和《值得推荐的一种非暴力维权方式——挖苦性行动》召民众通过"裸体抗议"和"挖苦性"行动进行非暴力维权。
3.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的审读报告:"非暴力"系列文章为非法组织"中国民主党"开救命药方,谋划怎样与中国共产党作对:为"民运"总结失败的教训,为如何推进"民运"的反政府活动,以及"瓦解一个强大的专制政府"出谋划策;反对"四项基本原则",借口关注社会问题,煽动聚众闹事,并教唆一些对政府不满的人用什么样的方式方法与政府抗争:幻想中国发生"颜色革命",使中国共产党领导的政权"土崩瓦解":呼吁利用民生问题推进"非暴力运动",以最终达到推翻所谓"专制政府的目的:把群众合法维权的事和他们"民运"分子反政府活动混淆在一起,以"为民请愿"作掩护,又堂、反政府。
4.被告人刘飞跃的供述:12篇"非暴力"系列文章系其撰写,发表到"民生观察网"。文中"关键时刻甚至还要争取军队的倒戈支持"是指军队对于"非暴力运动不按指令进行镇压,甚至暗中或公开支持"非暴力",调转枪头:"瓦解一个强大的专制政府"是指原来的政府由专制体制变成民主体制,也就是中国社会的转型和实现中国的民主化:"实现自己的目标",目标是指在中国实现民主化,建立民主化的社会制度。对选举制度不满是因为中国的选举制度不是真正的一人一票的选举,候选人还是受官方控制的候选人。
二、撰写发表"中国维稳与人权""被精神病与人权"的年度报告(总结)7篇,造谣、诽谤党和政府"严重践踏人权",国家政权和社会主义制度是"专制的政治体制"
(一)2014年2月3日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《终结维稳体制—<2013年中国维稳与人权年终报告>发布》及《二〇一三年中国维稳与人权年终报告》。文中称"中共当局坚持对中国社会进行持续而严密的维稳与监控,特别是在中国公民涉及政治体制、公民权利等方面的行为,更是会不惜一切代价,不排除一切手段进行全力打压,所采取的手段包括殴打、非法骚扰、恐吓、强制失踪、绑架、软禁等暴力压制的维稳之恶的实质是体制之恶。缺乏宪政体制的一党专政下,官权畸形强大,利益集团腐败丛生,为了保住政权和利益,维稳权力得以被广泛滥用。只要中国现行制度无以改变其极权形态,则维稳体制之恶仍将得以维系"。
(二)2015年2月16日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二〇一四年中国维稳与人权状况年终总结》。文中称"维稳体制把专政手段与既有的社会管理体系相结合,随着中国社会矛盾的加剧而膨胀,成为中国人权灾难的主要病因。2014年,中国政府把民间所有推动中国社会进步的努力都当成是危害政权安全的'不穩定因素',全面监控,全面打压,动员一切力量铁腕维稳当局有计划、有步骤地在全国范围内以大扫荡模式严厉镇压中国的民间社会,表现出惊人的蛮横和疯狂。大批维权律师、学者、记者、编辑、作家、NGO活动人士、人权捍卫者、不同政见人士被抓捕"。
(三)2016年2月9日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二○一五年中国维稳与人权年终报告》。文中称"从中共当局仍然操持违背法治精神的维稳体制以作为维系统治之支柱来看,中国法治建设在维稳机制上没有任何改善,相反,这一年从立法上进一步在固化维稳体制,扩张公权力,压缩公民权利,为维稳的野蛮化、黑帮化、邪恶化提供法律支撑;在执法上表现出大步倒退,完全抛开过往虛情假意的法制的面纱,呈现赤裸裸的践踏文明与法治,一再突破人类基本的人伦底线的情况在中国维稳体制下,为了达到消除异己,稳控社会,维系权力统治的目的,2015年出台的《反恐法》《国安法》《网络安全法》等法规,内含诸多公然侵害公民权利的条款,是典型的为了维稳而定的想法,这种法制的恶法化,为原本极度违法侵权的维稳体制增加了更进一步作恶的法律依据,这样必然会使中国大陆维稳严酷性极大加强"。
(四)2014年2月13日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二○一年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》。文中称"在中国现阶段,遭迫害的'被精神病人,涉及各阶层,从富翁到农民,从官员到反对派,应有尽有。可以说在这种体制下,人人都可能被精神病""正是当下非民主的、专制的政治体制赋予了他们绝对的不受制约的权力。不建立真正的公民社会,不在全社会树立人权和法律至上的意识和保障机制,不更新传统的高压的统治观念,不建立现代真正的民主自由体制,'被精神病'这类现象还将继续"。
(五)2015年1月14日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二〇一四年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》。文中称"由于劳教制度的废止,中国当局在维稳惯性思维下,为了加强对社会的控制,除了广泛采取黑监狱、法教班等非法剥夺公民人身自由权的方式外,也有加强通过'被精神病'来控制社会的迹象""纵观中国2014年精神健康领域的人权状况,我们认为:要真正彻底消除精神健康领域侵犯人权的"被精神病'现象,就得全面系统地对政体、法制、社会进行改造,使国家真正落实依法行政、依宪行政"。
(六)2016年2月8日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二〇一五年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终总结》。文中称"随着社会矛盾的频发,官民严重对立的局面持续加深,中国政府加大了对社会的控制,对民间异见人士与维权人士的打压呈现越来越残酷的态势,基层政权面临着极大的维稳的压力和需要,采用'被精神病'强行限制公民的人身自由便成为各地维稳机构的选择,'被精神病'成为维稳的道具""要改变目前被精神病继续发生的状况,更重要的是,促进制度转型,实现宪政政体,没有一个保护公民自由的民主宪政制度,就不可能在根本上根绝'权力行医,每一个公民就随时面临'被精神病'的威胁"。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2016年11月24日至2017年1月18日,通过远程勘验从境外"民生观察网"下载《终结维稳体制——<2013年中国维稳与人权年终报告发布》《二〇一三年中国维稳与人权年终报告》《二〇一四年中国维稳与人权状况年终总结》《二〇一五年中国维稳与人权年终报告》《二〇一三年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》《二〇一四年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》《二〇一五年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终总结》等报告和总结7篇。刘飞跃签字确认上述报告和总结系其所撰写和发表。
2.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的审读报告:
(1)《终结维稳体制<2013年中国维稳与人权年终报告>发表》完全站在党和政府的对立面,丑化党和政府的维稳工作,否定维稳取得的全国安定团结的大好局面,煽动人们对维稳工作的不满。
(2)《二〇一三年中国维稳和人权年终报告》打着维护人权的旗号,反对我们党和政府维护社会稳定的战略方针,反对对危害社会稳定分子所采取的防范措施,把危害国家安全、社会稳定的分子,说成是受"严厉打击""严厉控制"的受害者,把维稳行动说成是"对宪法的公然践踏和对人类普世价值的公开挑战"。
(3)《二○一四年中国维稳和人权状况报告》打着维护人权的旗号,鼓吹"宪政民主",诬蔑我们党和政府开展的维稳工作是"限制新闻自由、网络自由",是"迫害人权捍卫者"。它的实质是否定和攻击我维稳体制,兜售超阶级、超历史的西方的"人类普世价值观,用三权分立、多党轮流执政等模式,从根本上否定中国共产党的领导和社会主义制度。
(4)《二〇一五年中国维稳与人权的年终报告》的作者完全把自己摆在了党和政府对立面,你"2015年是中国维稳体制从法规制度层面空前强化,从手段方式上空前野蛮,从发展趋势上跨越国界,致使中国人权状况进一步恶化,法制建设急速倒退,整个社会陷入,风声鹤唳,草木皆兵的极度紧张状态,全国笼罩于维稳的高度恐怖气氛中。综合全年维稳情况,可以断言这是中国维稳体制产生以来最严酷的一年"。
(5)《2013年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》极力否定国家的《精神卫生法》,污蔑政府迫害访民,利用医院关押正常人,致使"被精神病"人受到种种迫害,损害国家形象,危害国家安全。
(6)《2014年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》称《精神卫生法》实施一年多来,"被精神病"情况没有明显改善,要想改善中国精神领域人权状况,"要从制度上革新权利意识,结束体制,要扭转视民为敌,以民为敌的极权专制""真正彻底清除精神领域侵犯人权的'被精神病'的现象,就得全面系统地对政体、法制进行改造"。该报告提出改造政体,就是要改变社会主义制度,以此动摇民心,这是违反四项基本原则的。
(7)《2015年中国精神健康与人权年终总结》称"被精神病"是政府权力部门或利害关系人把无精神疾病或不该被收治的个人强行送进精神病院进行隔离治疗,已成为赤裸裸地大规模侵犯公民人身权利,损害公民人格尊严,限制公民人身自由,危害公民人身安全的严重人道主义灾难。该报告拿"被精神病"说事,散播了大量违反人民民主专政的言论,有损社会稳定和国家安全。
3.被告人刘飞跃的供述:"中国维稳与人权""被精神病与人权"的年度报告(总结)系其编写并发表到"民生观察网"。报告所报道的案例的來源是通过网络,电话或当面对当事人进行来访。其在情神障碍疾病领域没有经过专业的培训,没有系统学习。报告里谈到的"访民占被精神病的80%之多""被精神病"数量等数据其均没有统计过。
三、利用谣言和敏感事件发表评论文章5篇,造谣、诽谤中国政府坚持"专制体制''"粗暴践踏人权",传播有损于国家政权和社会主义制度的言论:
(一)2006年3月8日,境外"大纪元网"发表"沈阳苏家屯血栓医院秘密活体摘出法轮功成员人体器官"的谣言。同月,被告人刘飞跃撰写《苏家屯事件与"人权入宪"》文章在"大纪元网"上发表,进一步传播上述谣言,称"苏家屯事件的曝光,说明当今政府的人权意识非常差""我们仍然看到中国政府在粗暴地践踏人权''''中国的人权虽然'入宪'了,但如果仅仅是为了缓解国际压力而'入宪',如果类似苏家屯的事件一再发生,如果继续顽固地坚持专制高压的政治体制,'人权入宪'就是停留在纸上的华丽的谎言"。
(二)2006年11月23日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《给中国政府的一封公开信》,称"十一年前中国政府用暴力制造了'6-4'惨案,十一年后中国政府继续用暴力把大量持不同政见者送进监狱中国用暴力镇压了'8-9'民运,但争人权、求民主的声音从未间断;中国用暴力镇压了法轮功,但人们追求信仰自由的行动从未停止;中国用暴力镇压了一起又一起的工人示威请愿活动,但工人的不满依然存在""作为中国民主党的一名成员,本人坚持非暴力的信念,遵守非暴力的原则......依据非暴力原则,本人要求中国政府平反'6-4,'释放一切政治犯"。
(三)2015年5月2日,黑龙江省庆安县火车站候车室一袭警人员被执勤民警当场击毙,被告人刘飞跃于同年5月8日,5月21日在"民生观察网"上发表《終結维稳体制——民生观察关于黑龙江徐纯合案的声明》《比枪击更严重的是"维稳"——民生观察评徐纯合事件》。文中称"在这个连乞丐都不放过的反人性的国家,维稳体制是剥夺徐纯合生命的罪魁禍首""所谓'稳定压倒一切'的思想方针,不仅意味着基本人权的丧失,更代表你可能遭遇的各式各样的迫害与折磨,其中包括并不仅限于:跟踪、轻扰、绑架、关精神病院、暴力殴打、非法拘禁、黑监狱、拘留、判刑......甚至就像徐纯合这样遭遇终极'截访',一枪毙命""暴力截访来源于越来越疯狂的'维稳体制',民生观察强烈要求终结这种无视法律、践踏人权,没人性的'维稳体制'"。
(四)2015年9月4日,被告人刘飞跃在"民生观察网"上发表《二零一五年"九三"大阅兵期间的维稳案例统计》,文中称"中共政府在2015年9月3日纪念中国人民抗日战争暨世界反法西斯战争胜利70周年之际,为了保证其炫耀武力的阅兵活动顺利进行,开始了一系列不计代价成本的维稳与监控,管控的力度突破人们想象力的极限""在这一轮的人权灾难中,不计其数的人士遭遇从跟踪监控到刑拘收监程度不等的维稳打压""尽管人类第二次世界大战已经结束了70年,但这场关于自由与专制的战争并没有画上句号。中国人要走向真正的民主与自由,道路漫且长"。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2016年11月24日至2017年2月16日,从"民生观察网"下载《苏家屯事件与"人权人宪"》《给中国政府的一封公开信》《终结维稳体制——民生观察关于黑龙江徐纯合案的声明》《比枪击更严重的是"维稳"一民生观察评徐纯合事件》《二零一五年"九三"大阅兵期间的维稳案例统计》等文章5篇。刘飞跃签字确认上述文章系其所撰写和发表。
2.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的审读报告:
(1)《苏家屯事件与"人权入宪"》没有拿出事实根据,仅仅凭"据透露"三字,就说"沈阳市苏家屯区设立了一个类似法西斯的秘密集中营,关押着6000多名法轮功学员。......凡进到这里的人没有活着出去的,焚尸前内脏器官都被掏空出售。"说这种"非法行为在中国泛滥",并以此污蔑和攻击"中国政府在粗暴地践踏人权"。
(2)《給中国政府的一封公开信》站在反政府的立场,向人民政府挑战,反对四项基本原则,特别是人民民主专政原则。
(3)《终结维稳体制——民生观察关于黑龙江徐纯合案的声明》就黑龙江庆安火车站枪击事件说三道四,混淆视听。他们未作调查,主观臆断事件的真相,借此攻击党和政府。
(4)《比枪击更严重的是维稳——民生观察评徐纯合事件》借黑龙江庆安县火车站的"枪击案件"大做文章,煽风点火,把攻击的矛头直接指向党和政府的维稳工作。
(5)《二零一五"九三"大阅兵期间的维稳案例统计》从非法媒体收集了维稳事例64件,对纪念抗日战争胜利70周年期间政府采取的维稳工作加以歪曲,污蔑政府"对访民、异议人士进行大规模镇压,其手段足以用'疯狂'来形容"。作者呼吁他的同党要长期地对政府开战,是一間煽动民众反政府的文章。
3.被告人刘飞跃的供述:《苏家屯事件与"人权入宪"》《给中国政府的一封公开信》《终结维稳体制——民生观察关于黑龙江徐纯合案的声明》《比枪击更严重的是"维稳"——民生观察评徐纯合事件》《二零一五年"九三"大阅兵期间的维稳案例统计》等5篇文章是其撰写并发表在"民生观察网"。关于"苏家屯事件"的消息来源和数据,是其看境外的网站和境内一些相关报道得来的,文中的事例没有经过核实。《二零一五年"九三"大阅兵期间的維稳案例统计》中的案例来源有当事人反映的,有直接引用"维权"网""六四天网""自由亚洲电台"的案例及消息。
四、组织策划在"民生观察网"上发表漫画、海报共计21篇,诽谤国家政权和社会主义制度侵犯公民人权,攻击国家司法机关,呼吁释放犯危害国家安全的人员。
(一)2014年4月至2016年11月,被告人刘飞跃组织策划在"民生观察网"上持续发表"维稳十八招、逮捕判刑""漫话人权:709审判"等系列漫画13篇,影射中国政府为维护稳定,采用恐吓,限制人身自由、绑架、定"口袋罪",关"黑监狱"等手段肆意剥夺公民人身权利,侵犯人权。
(二)2016年4月至11月,被告人刘飞跃组织策划在"民生观察网"上发表《停止打压人权,民生观察要求立即释放周世锋、胡石根等人》等网络海报8篇,针对国家司法机关对周世峰、秦永敏、黄文勋等多名危害国家安全的犯罪分子的审判,称"是中共当局的政治迫害,其做法严重违背了联合国人权宣言、联合国律师角色的基本原则以及中国本身的刑事程序""呼吁全世界各国政府、人权组织和新闻机构高度关注,谴责中共当局政治迫害行为,要求当局立即无条件释放所有在押良心犯"。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2017年1月10日,通过远程勘验从境外"民生观察网"下载"中国维稳十八招"系列漫画之"空城计""限制出境""实名制''"逮捕判刑""绑架与殴打""封口令""威胁恐吓""围追堵截""口袋罪""黑监狱""709审判""贾灵敏与法治中国''''殃视审判"等漫画13篇。刘飞跃签字确认上述漫画系其所组织、策划、发表。
2.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2016年12月30日至2017年2月16日从"民生观察网"下载《释放陈云飞》《民生观察对浙江民主党人陈树庆吕耿松遭重判的抗议声明》《秦永敏被以煽顛罪羁押待审民生观察呼吁无条件释放》《停止打压人权民生观察要求立即释放周世峰、胡石根等人》《停止践踏人权民生观察呼吁立即释放赤壁三君子》《民生观察对90后青年维权人士黄文勋遭政治审判的声明》《屠夫(吴淦)遭羁押一整年,民生观察呼吁尽快放人》《709大抓捕一周年民生观察呼吁停止迫害立即放人》等网络海报8篇。
3.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的关于涉案13篇漫画的审读意见:
(1)漫画"空城计"以众多群众静坐,"领导让我们再立新功"为反讽语,影射中国维稳工作是演"空城计",忽悠民众。
(2)漫画"限制出境"以中国海关对"边控人员限制出境"的画面,以"非法剥夺本国内异议人士、维权人士正常的出境权利"民生观察的文字说明,来攻击中国维稳所采取的"限制出境"举措。
(3)漫画"实名制"以中国公民进公厕都要出示身份证为画面,攻击中国对公民的隐私自由都要"把身份证拿出来"。
(4)漫画"逮捕判刑"攻击中国维稳是以法律审判形式,对维权人士剥夺人身自由,进行打击压制。
(5)漫画"绑架与殴打"以警察殴打发表个人意见的人士,自称"老子是政府",对领导讲"头,我正在教育他呢"污蔑中国警察对群众动辄进行绑架和殴打。
(6)漫画"封口令"影射中国媒体对热点事件、群体事件颁发"封口令",进行控制舆论,甚至发布"指示"和命令,只能怎样怎样报道,漫画中攻击央视和新华社是"映视"和"新谎社"。
(7)漫画"威胁恐吓"影射中国警察对上访民众以"想想你老婆孩子"相威胁,打人就跑和发短信敲诈群众钱财。
(8)漫画"围追堵截"影射警察出动对上访群众围追堵截,扬言"活要见人死要见尸"。
(9)漫画"口袋罪"影射警察对上访群众以"扰乱秩序'''非法集会''''妨害公务寻滋闹事"为名,可以任意投向监狱。
(10)漫画"黑监狱"影射中国以"法制教育中心"为名,实为"黑监狱",把群众用汽车拉走,投进"黑监狱"。
(11)漫画"709审判"影射中国的审判制度侵犯人权,被勒紧脖子的"证人"以假证词来控诉被告人。
(12)漫画"贾灵敏与'法治中国'"以河南省一位名叫贾灵敏的拆迁户依法维权,而成为"钉子户",法院以犯寻衅滋事罪判处有期徒刑4年,影射中国的法律使普法维权群众受害。
(13)漫画"殃视审判"影射中央电视台在法院还未审理判决前,就搞舆论审判,大肆报道渲染当事人的"罪行",充当政治宣传工具。
4.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的关于涉案海报的审读意见:
(1)《释放陈云飞》以"著名人权捍卫者陈云飞"因"寻衅滋事""煽动颠覆国家政权"两项罪名刑拘被批捕,直接攻击中国法律。
(2)《民生观察对浙江民主党人陈树庆吕耿松遭重判的抗议声明》对陈、吕二人涉嫌"颠覆国家政权罪"遭到重判而鸣冤叫屈,攻击为"赤裸裸的政治审判'''维持一党专政政权稳定...强化对民间社会的控制与镇压",系对中国共产党的领导及民主法治的肆意反对。
(3)《秦永敏被以煽颊罪羁押待审民生观察呼吁无条件释放》对秦永敏被司法机关依法刑拘、逮捕,判刑,以民生观察名义发出呼吁,诬蔑司法机关剥夺其自由、非法拘禁、政治迫害。
(4)《停止打压人权民生观察要求立即释放周世峰,胡石根等人》对"民运人士"周世锋等受审,认为是被镇压,是政治迫害事件,是国家打击民间社会抗争,迫害人权捍卫者、践踏公民宪法权利,直接对抗国家的司法制度。
(5)《停止践踏人权民生观察呼吁立即释放赤壁三君子》对黄文勋、袁小华、袁兵所谓"赤壁三君子''''宣传民主理念"而受到法律制裁鸣冤叫屈,呼吁要"反对独裁、反对压迫",释放"在押良心犯"。
(6)《民生观察对90后青年维权人士黄文勋遭政治审判的声明》对黄文勋被关押受审提出"强烈抗议",认为是"粗暴践踏人权",这是对我国司法制度的公开挑衅。
(7)《屠夫(吴淦)遭羁押一整年,民生观察呼吁尽快放人》对屠夫(吴金)以"煽动颠覆国家政权罪"等罪名被批捕受审,认为是"当局对维权人士进行毫无底线的政治迫害""是当局肆意滥用强权",攻击我国"人权环境急剧恶化""社会自由空间迅逃缩减"。
5.被告人刘飞跃的供述:"维稳十八招漫话人权"等13篇漫画是其组织、策划、审核后发表到"民生观察网",主要是想以漫画的形式反映当今社会维稳的方式与手段,人权问题和人权现象。8篇海报系其组织制作并发表在"民生观察网",其认为秦永敏、黄文勋、周世峰、吴淦等人的行为和政治追求是对的,对他们的羁押、审判是政治迫害。
五、接受境外媒体采访4次,诽谤、诋毁我国国家政治制度和司法制度,攻击我国国家政权和社会主义制度。
(一)2014年2月3日,2015年2月6日、2016年2月9日,被告人刘飞跃分别就《二〇一三年中国维稳与人权年终报告》《二〇一四年中国维稳与人权状况年终总结》《二〇一五年中国维稳与人权年终报告》三次接受自由亚洲电台记者采访,称"目前中国是维稳的体制,对任何批评政府的声音都进行强力的控制,在控制的过程当中,用尽了种种违反法律的,非常没有人性的手段。这样的维稳体不仅没有结束的趋势,甚至还在逐渐加强,越来越疯狂..当局认为维稳体制效果有限,所以就上升到国家层面的维安体''''中共现在的维稳做到国际化,疯狂、猖狂到了一个新的程度,高压态势会进一步严厉,维稳触角扩散到各个领域..必须要对这个事情进行关注,甚至要进行抗争和反击。这是出台这样一个报告的初衷"。
(二)2014年2月13日,2015年1月15日、2016年2月8日,被告人刘飞跃分别就《二〇一三年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》《二〇一四年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终报告》《二〇一五年中国精神健康与人权(被精神病)年终总结》三次接受自由亚洲电台记者采访,称"公民因维权而被精神病的現象是非常严重的社会问题,将正常公民送入精神病院,打针吃药,没有人性,对受害者人权是非常粗暴的践路""当局掌握了不受制约的权力,可以把令他们不高兴的人,需要打压的人送到精神病院去""中国'被精神病'问題暴露出中国法律与制度性问题""这些现象是体制造成的,这样的体制如果不改变,不渐进到现代的民主自由的体制,'被精神病'的情况还会继续""彻底解决这个现象,要建立一个依法治国、依宪治国,改变专制统治的方式"。
(三)2015年7月16日,被告人刘飞跃针对周世锋等人因涉嫌颠覆国家政权罪被刑事拘留,接受自由亚洲电台记者采访,称"当局打压维权律师,在一定意义上,是为了消除所谓不稳定因素,他要做到百分之百的稳定,绝对稳定,把不稳定因素清洗掉,免得这些因素坐大"。
(四)2015年8月21日,被告人刘飞跃针对中国政府"九三阅兵",接受自由亚洲电台记者采访,称"当局一方面展示强大武力,一方面又事无巨细地加强对社会的控制,是不自信的做法,只能不断累积社会矛盾...当局对社会的控制不断加强,对人权的打压也越来越厉害"。
(五)2016年8月5日,被告人刘飞跃针对勾洪国因颠覆国家政权罪被判刑,接受自由亚洲电台记者采访,称"勾洪国所做的事不构成颠覆国家政权罪''''这是一种欲加之罪...是一次对人权非常粗暴的践踏"。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:
(1)该队于2017年1月11日至19日通过远程勘验从境外"自由亚洲电台"网站下载刘飞跃就《二〇一三年中国维稳与人权年终报告》《二○一四年中国维稳与人权年终总结》《二〇一五年中国维稳与人权年终报告》三次接受自由亚洲电台记者采访的新闻报道及相关音频。
(2)该队于2017年1月11日至19日通过远程勘验从境外"自由亚洲电台"网站下载刘飞跃就《二〇一三年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》《二〇一四年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》《二〇一五年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》三次接受自由亚洲电台记者采访的新闻报道及相关音频。
(3)该队于2016年12月9日至2017年1月19日通过远程勘验从境外"自由亚洲电台"网站下载刘飞跃接受自由亚洲电台记者采访形成的《联合国五位人权专家要求中国停止对律师的打压》《阅兵维稳北京搜捕访民"白热化"被迫露宿者与警方"游击战"》《勾洪国"颠覆罪成"被判三缓三》新闻报道及相关音频。
2.湖北省出版物审读中心出具的审读意见:
(1)刘飞跃就《二○一三年中国维稳与人权年终报告》《二○一四年中国维稳与人权年终总结》《二〇一五年中国维稳与人权年终报告》接受自由亚洲电台采访的新闻报道,歪曲和否定中国政府为维护社会稳定而采取的必要和正当的措施;是无中生有的中伤,实质上是公开鼓吹西方的民主宪政制度,否定中国特色的社会主义制度。
(2)刘飞跃就《二〇一三年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》《二〇一四年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》《二〇一五年中国精神健康与人权年终报告》三次接受自由亚洲电台记者采访的新闻报道,是对现实的歪曲和污蔑,是对我国现行体制的全部否定,是在鼓吹西方的所谓民主制度,是公开地否定我国现行的社会主义制度。
(3)刘飞跃接受自由亚洲电台记者采访形成的《联合国五位人权专家要求中国停止对律师的打压》《阅兵维稳北京搜捕访民"白热化"被追露宿者与警方"游击战"》《勾洪国"颠覆罪成"被判三缓三》新闻报道,企图借外力向我国政府施压,表明了作者的反政府立场;把北京警方为保证大阅兵的安全而进行的闲散人员清理行为污蔑为"围捕"和"抓捕"。污蔑中国政府在首都举办重大活动之际,把"包括访民在内的人士视为不稳定因素,作为防范和打击对象";刘飞跃对勾洪国颠覆国家政权行为的认同,是和勾持同一立场的。
3.被告人刘飞跃接受"自由亚洲电台"记者采访的录音音频,证明刘飞跃接受境外媒体采访的有关情况。
4.被告人刘飞跃的供述:其先后9次接受"自由亚洲电台"的采访,认为愈演愈烈的维稳体制和行动破坏了社会法制,侵犯了广大"维权人士"的基本人权。北京锋锐律师事务所律师勾洪国的行为并不构成犯罪,他们是在履行自己的权利和职责,是在推动中国的人权发展和进步。
六、被告人刘飞跃创办"民生观察网",长期与境外机构、组织勾结,申请接受境外资金资助,用于非法活动
2005年10月,被告人刘飞跃未依法履行注册备案程序,非法成立"民生观察工作室"。2006年10月,刘飞跃在境外人员的帮助下,租赁境外服务器,非法创办"民生观察网",招募工作人员,运营网站,发表造谣、诽谤国家政权和社会主义制度的文章、海报、漫画。自2008年起,刘飞跃组织人员将"民生观察网"上发表的文章,用电子邮件和自媒体Twitter(推特),持续向境内外众多互联网用户推送。自2008年起,先后多次向台湾民主基金会、中国人权捍卫者(美国),美国民主基金会等境外机构、组织提供项目计划书和年终成果报告等,申请资金资助,并接受境外组织颁发的"中国青年人权奖"奖项和奖金。截至2016年9月13日,刘飞跃个人银行账户收到境外机构、组织、个人的汇款资金共计折合人民币1013471元,所得资金均用于运营网站等非法活动。
上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证、本院予以确认的下列证据证实:
1.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的远程勘验工作笔录证明:该队于2016年11月26日通过远程勘验从境外"民生观察网"下载《刘飞跃致中国青年人权奖评委会的答谢词》。同年12月8日,通过远程勘验对"民生观察网"网站页面进行截图,该网站上公布的刘飞跃的电话、邮箱、QQ、讯佳普等通讯账号与刘飞跃注册使用的一致。
2.湖北省随州市公安局网安支队制作的勘验检查报告证明:该队于2016年11月18日、19日对在刘飞跃家中扣押的两台台式电脑进行电子证据勘验检查,电脑硬盘中有涉案QQ号405420692及SKYPE号liufeiyue19702,minshengguancha等通讯账号的登录情况及聊天记录,有民生观察维权工作室《项目计划(申请)书》《项目计划成果报告书》《请求发放工资和费用清单》等涉案文档60个,有刘飞跃浏览境外网站记录及刘飞跃五个群发邮件组用户名单。
3.公安机关从刘飞跃电脑硬盘中提取的民生观察维权工作室2008年至2016年九个年度的《项目计划(申请)书》及《经要申请表》证明:刘飞跃从2008年到2016年,连续九年向台湾民主基金会,中国人权捍卫者,美国民主基金会等境外组织提交年度工作计划,申报资金资助的情况。
4.公安机关从刘飞跃电脑硬盘中提取的民生观察维权工作室2008年至2012年,2014年《项目计划成果报告书》,民生观察2015年四个季度的《工作报告》,民生观察工作室2011年、2012年《年终报告》等12个工作总结类报告证明:刘飞跃向为其提供资助资金的境外组织汇报民生观察工作室的工作成果等情况。
5.公安机关从刘飞跃电脑硬盘中提取的《请求发放工资和整用清单》《员工考勤》证明:刘飞跃使用境外组织提供的资金运营"民生观察网"。
6.公安机关调取的银行账户信息及交易明细证明;刘飞跃于2006年至2016年,先后接受境外资金合计1013471元。
7.证人喻金萍(刘飞跃之妻)的证言:公安机关从其家中扣押的两台电脑都是刘飞跃一人使用,其他人没有使用。
8.证人石玉林的证言:其于2011年5月底通过skype联系刘飞跃加入到民生观察工作室,为刘飞跃收集官方侵犯人权以及截访、殴打访民的信息。2015年11月,其离开"民生观察网"。其共收到刘飞跃通过银行转账支付的工资197100元。为"民生观察网"工作的固定人员有高健和刘巍及收集消息的临时志愿者丁灵杰、伍丽娟、黄宾等人。"民生观察网"发布的文章和消息,主要来源于访民通过电话提供的,没有亲临现场核实,无法保证消息的真实性和客观性。
9.证人高旭强的证言:其于2014年通过刘巍介绍与刘飞跃取得联系,加入民生观察工作室,通过skype聊天软件沟通。刘飞跃安排其主要负责"被精神病"月刊的素材和相关文章的采集,一篇文章大概500元,每月不超过2000元,其领取了不到一年的报酬,共8000元左右。
10.证人邓玉林的证言:2011年开始,刘飞跃让其把"民生观察网"上发表的内容用5个Google邮箱向他人群发邮件,刘飞跃为此向其支付报酬。
11.被告人刘飞跃的供述:其在境外"博讯网"上结识了该网站创办人韦石,于2006年10月份在韦石的帮助下,租赁在美国服务器,创办了"民生观察网",招募了石玉林等人负责采集各部分栏目的稿件,素材。为了维系"民生观察网"的运行,其于2008年起开始,陆续向台湾民主基金会、中国人权捍卫者、美国民主基金会等境外组织申请资金1013471元。上述资金绝大多数用于经营"民生观察网",包括给"民生观察网"工作人员支付稿费、工资、奖金、差报销等。少量资金用于援助国内维权人士和开展人道援助活动。其曾将"民生观察网"的内容汇编成电子报,让邓玉林通过邮件群发的方式,向国内外邮箱用户推送。其于2016年6月5日收到"中国青年人权奖"后并于次日致答谢词。
此外,公诉机关还向法庭出示了下列证据,经庭审举证、质证,本院予以确认:
1.随州市公安局《立案决定书》,证明本案于2014年9月16日立案。
2.《刘飞跃到案经过》《刘飞跃到案经过的说明》证明:刘飞跃于2016年11月17日被公安机关传唤到案。
3.随州市公安局从刘飞跃家申扣押的台式电脑两台及手机一部。上述两台台式电脑系刘飞跃用于运营"民生观察网",手机系其使用。
4.随州市公安局调取证据通知书、搜查证及所附调取证据清单、鉴定聘请书,协助查询财产通知书、协助冻结财产通知书等法律文书证明:公安机关查询、调取、扣押、冻结物证、书证、财产以及委托鉴定等侦查活动的情况。
5.公安机关出具的户籍材料,证明刘飞跃的身份情况。
针对被告人及其辩护人提出的辩解及辩护意见,根据查明的事实和证据,本院评判如下:
1.关于湖北省出版物审读中心出具的审读报告是否应当采信的问题。经查,湖北省出版物审读中心承担全省图书、报刊、音像制品、电子及网络出版物内容的审读、审听、审看等工作,其作出的审读报告可以作为证据使用。审读报告与所审读的文章内容相一致,且得到被告人刘飞跃供述的印证,应当予以采信。刘飞跃关于审读意见与漫画本身的抽象性不相符,境外媒体采访不是系统的看法的辩解及其辩护人关于审读意见大部分是对被告人主观意图的推测和认定,不应采信的辩护意见均不能成立,本院不予采纳。
2.关于被告人刘飞跃是否存在煽动颠覆国家政权的犯罪故意的问题。经查,刘飞跃创办"民生观察网",撰写发表"非暴力"系列文章,传播颠覆国家政权的思想,提出颠覆国家政权的方式方法;通过发表"中国维稳与人权""被精神病与人权"的年度报告及利用谣言和敏感事件发表评论文章、组织策划发表漫画、海报,诽谤、攻击国家机关,传播有损于国家政权和社会主义制度的言论;接受境外媒体采访,诋毁国家制度,可见其煽动颠覆国家政权的主观故意明显。
3.关于被告人刘飞跃是否与境外机构、组织勾结的问题。经查,《项目计划(申请)书》《经费申请表》《项目计划成果报告书》、银行交易记录等证据证明,刘飞跃多次向台湾民主基金会、中国人权捍卫者(美国)、美国民主基金会等境外机构、组织申报项目,申请资金资助并用于运营"民生观察网"等非法活动:多次接受境外媒体采访,诽谤、诋毁我国政治制度和司法制度,攻击我国国家政权和社会主义制度,上述行为足以认定其与境外机构、组织相勾结。故刘飞跃提出的"接受境外资金是与境外组织正常合作"的辩解及其辩护人提出的"本案不构成与境外组织勾结的从重情节"的辩护意见均不能成立,本院不予采纳。
4.关于是否对社会和他人造成危害和后果的问题。在案证据证明,刘飞跃非法经营网站,利用网站发表文章、漫画、海报等数量大,持续时间长,犯罪方式多,多次接受境外媒体采访,造谣、诽谤我国政府,与境外机构、组织相勾结,以攻击我国政府换取境外资金资助,主观恶性深,社会危害性大。故其辩护人提出的"缺乏被告人对社会和他人造成危害和后果方面的证据"的辩护意见不能成立,本院不予采纳。
本院认为,被告人刘飞跃租賃境外服务器,非法创办经营网站,在网站上发表大量文章、漫画、海报等,并向境内外众多互联网用户推送,接受境外媒体采访,抹黑国家机关,攻击宪法所确立的基本政治制度,煽动颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度,其行为已构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪。公诉机关指控的犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分,罪名准确,本院予以确认。刘飞跃与境外机构、组织相勾结,实施煽动颠覆国家政权犯罪活动,依法应当从重处罚。刘飞跃犯罪持续时间长、涉及事实多、犯罪方式多样,且已形成了系统的"非暴力"理论,应当依法予以惩处。刘飞跃虽对指控的事实不持异议,但其并未真诚认罪悔罪。刘飞跃用于犯罪的电脑主机二台、手机一部,依法应当予以没收。本院根据其犯罪事实、性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度及其认罪态度,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第二款、第一百零六条、第一百一十三条第二款、第五十五条第一款、第五十六条第一款、第六十四条、第六十七条第三款的规定,判决如下:
一、被告人刘飞跃犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑五年,剥夺政治权利三年,并处没收个人财产人民币101万元 (刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的,羁押一日折抵刑期一日,即从2016年11月18日起至2021年11月17日止)。
二、公安机关扣押被告人刘飞跃的电脑主机二台、手机一郎,依法予以没收。
如不服本判决,可在接到本判决书的第二日起十日内通过本院或直接向湖北省高级人民法院提出上诉。书面上诉的,应递交上诉状正本一份,副本二份。
审判长李海运
审判员李文
审判员王琼
二○一九年一月二十九日
书记员王昆
书记员邓议收
