Translation: Huang Xuqin and Wang Jianbing Inciting Subversion Indictment

On June 14, 2024, the Twitter account "Free Huang Xueqin & Wang Jianbing 释放雪饼" (@FreeXueBing)  posted a copy of the last two pages of the court judgement in the trial of Huang Xueqin (黄雪琴)  and Wang Jianbing (王建兵): https://x.com/FreeXueBing/status/1801482149326971326. According to that document:

• Wang was found guilty of inciting subversion of state power and was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment, three years deprivation of political rights, and confiscation of personal property in the amount of RMB 50,000.
• Huang was found guilty of inciting subversion of state power and was sentenced to five years imprisonment, four years deprivation of political rights, and confiscation of personal property in the amount of RMB 100,000.

As of the publication of this post, the remainder of the court judgment was not publicly available. It is reasonable to assume that the PRC government ordered the judgment to be censored, as it has previously done with many other court judgments involving prosecutions for political speech in recent years. For more on that see "Censorship of Court Judgments in the PRC."

People's Procuratorate of Guangzhou, Guangdong
Indictment
Su Procuratorate Criminal Indictment (2022) No. Z11

Defendant Huang Xueqin, Female, born [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL], citizen I.D. No. [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL], Han ethnicity, masters student education level, household registration location [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]. On September 20, 2021 she was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou on suspicion of committing the crime of subversion of state power. On October 27 of the same year this Office authorized her arrest for the crime of inciting subversion of state power, and she was arrested by the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou on the same day.

Defendant Wang Jianbing, male, born [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL], citizen I.D. No. [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL], Han ethnicity, undergraduate education, household registration location [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL], temporarily residing at Xingang West Road 149 Room 202, Guangzhou Haizhu District. On September 20, 2021 he was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Guangdong on suspicion of committing the crime of subversion of state power. On October 27 of the same year this Office authorized his arrest for the crime of inciting subversion of state power, and he was arrested by the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou on the same day.

The investigation of this case was concluded by the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou, and defendants Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing were suspected of having committed the crime of inciting subversion of state power, and on March 25, 2022 it was transferred to this office for prosecution. After this Office docketed the case, on March 28, 2022 it notified the defendants of their right to retain defense counsel, and in accordance with the law the defendants were interrogated, the opinions of defense counsel were heard, and all case materials were reviewed. During this period the case was referred back to the investigating agency twice for supplemental investigation.

A review in accordance with the law ascertained:

Since 2019, on multiple occasions defendant Huang Xueqin posted inciting articles and statements on Internet platforms and social media outside the national borders that distorted and attacked our country's government, attacked and denigrated our country's political system, and advocated an ideology that subverted state power. In March 2021, while defendant Huang Xueqin was participating in a certain foreign news online meeting, she made public inciting statements that attacked and denigrated our country's State regime.

From May 2020 to February 2021, defendant Huang Xueqin was recruited by foreign organizations to participate in online training courses on "non-violent movements." Knowing that these courses contained content that incited subversion of our country's State regime, he nevertheless introduced and lured others to participate, and during the training he assisted with taking attendance and playing courseware, actively assisting in the "non-violent movement" training activities.

From December 2020 to May 2021, defendant Huang Xueqin used foreign video conferencing software to organize and offer "Ten Lessons" project training, using major domestic and foreign events, social movements, etc. as content to incite participants to be dissatisfied with our country's State regime.

After graduating from university, defendant Wang Jianbing repeatedly joined foreign online groups such as the "China Jasmine Revolution Volunteer Corps" and "June 4 Massacre Memorial Hall" with the purpose of subverting our country's State regime, and on multiple occasions posted or forwarded false statements and articles attacking our country's political system and government on foreign social media and online platforms. From May to October 2020, defendant Wang Jianbing received online course training on "Non-Violent Movements" while studying in England.

Since November 2020, defendants Wang Jianbing and Huang Xueqin, together with their co-defendant Chen Xiang (handled in a separate case), used foreign communication software to publish and compile information and regularly convene multiple people to organize gatherings at defendant Wang Jianbing's rental residence, Room 202, No. 149, Xingang West Road, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, and use the opportunity of discussing social topics to incite participants to be dissatisfied with our country's State regime.

On September 19, 2021, the public security agency apprehended defendants Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing near the rental residence of defendant Wang Jianbing.

Evidence determining the aforementioned facts is as follows:

1. Physical evidence such as cash and bank cards;
2. Documentary evidence such as household registration materials, and the process of how the defendant came into police custody;
3. Witness testimony such as [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL];
4. Statements and justifications of defendants Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing;
5. Forensic opinions such as the forensic report (DNA) No. (2021) 01818) of Suihai Company;
6. Crime scene investigation, inspection, identification and other records;
7. Audio-visual materials and electronic data such as courseware and online collected data.

This Office finds defendants Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing disregarded the laws of the State and incited subversion of state power and the overthrow the socialist order by manufacturing rumors, defamation, and other means, and their actions constitute the commission of an offense under the provisions of Article 105(2) of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China." The criminal facts are clear, the evidence is reliable and copious, and they should bear criminal liability for committing the crime of inciting subversion of state power. A public prosecution is filed in accordance with the provisions of Article 176 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," and it is requested that sentence be passed in accordance with the law.

Respectfully submitted.

Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong

Procurator [OBSCURED BY SEAL]
Procurator's Assitant [OBSCURED BY SEAL]

March 19, 2022

 广东省广州市人民检察院
起诉书
穗检刑诉[2022]Z11号

被告人黄雪琴,女,[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]出生,公民身份号码[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]汉族,硕士研究生文化程度,户籍所在地[OBSCUREDINORIGINAL],因涉嫌颠覆国家政权罪,于2021年9月20日被广东省广州市公安局刑事拘留,同年10月27日经本院以煽动颠覆国家政权罪批准逮捕,同日被广东省广州市公安局逮捕。

被告人王建兵,男,[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]出生,公民身份号码[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL],汉族,大学本科文化程度,户籍所在地[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL],暂住地广州市海珠区新港西路149号202房。因涉嫌颠覆国家政权罪,于2021年9月20日被广东省广州市公安局刑事拘留,同年10月27日经本院以煽动颠覆国家政权罪批准逮捕,同日被广东省广州市公安局逮捕。

本案由广东省广州市公安局侦查终结,以被告人黄雪琴、王建兵涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪,于2022年3月25日向本院移送起诉。本院受理后,于2022年3月28日告知被告人有权委托辩护人,依法讯问了被告人,听取了辩护人意见,审查了全部案件材料。期间,退回侦查机关补充侦查二次。

经依法审查查明:

自2019年以来,被告人黄雪琴多次在境内外网络平台、社交媒体上发布歪曲、攻击我国政府的煽动性文章和言论,攻击、诋毁我国政治制度,宣扬颠覆国家政权的思想。2021年3月,被告人黄雪琴在参加某境外新闻线上会议时,公开发表攻击、诋毁我国国家政权的煽动性言论。

2020年5月至2021年2月,被告人黄雪琴受境外组织人员纠集,参与“非暴力运动”网课培训,在明知该课程含有煽动颠覆我国国家政权内容的情况下,仍介绍,拉拢他人参加,并在培训过程中协助点名、播放课件等,积极协助开展“非暴力运动”培训活动。

2020年12月至2021年5月,被告人黄雪琴利用境外视频会议软件组织、开设“十堂课”项目培训,以境内外重大事件、社会运动等为内容,煽动参加人员对我国国家政权的不满。

被告人王建兵大学毕业后,先后加入具有颠覆我国国家政权目的的“中国地茉莉花革命志愿军团中国茉莉花革命志愿军团”“六四大屠杀纪念馆”等境外网络群组,并多次在境外社交媒体和网络平台上发布或转发攻击我国政治制度与政府的不实言论和文章。2020年5月至10月,被告人王建兵在英国学习期间接受“非暴力运动”网络课程培训。

2020年11月起,被告人王建兵、黄雪琴伙同同案人陈祥(另案处理)利用境外通联软件发布聚会信息,定期召集多人在被告人王建兵租住处广州市海珠区新港西路149号202房等地组织聚会,借讨论社会话题之机,煽动参加人员对我国国家政权的不满。

2021年9月19日,公安机关在被告人王建兵租住处附近被告人黄雪琴、王建兵抓获。

认定上述事实的证据如下:

1.现金、银行卡等物证;
2.户籍材料、到案经过等书证;
3.[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]等证人证言;
4.被告人黄雪琴、王建兵的供述和辩解;
5.穗海公司)鉴(DNA)字(2021)01818号鉴定书等鉴定意见;
6.勘验、检查、辨认等笔录;
7.课件、网络在线提取数据等视听资料、电子数据。

本院认为,被告人黄雪琴、王建兵无视国家法律,以造谣、诽谤及其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度,其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第二款,犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分,应当以煽动颠覆国家政权罪追究刑事责任。根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百七十六条的规定,提起公诉,请依法判处。

此致

广东省广州市中级人民法院

检察官[OBSCURED BY SEAL]
检察官助理[OBSCURED BY SEAL]

2022年3月19日

Translation: The Notes That Led to Journalist Shi Tao's Imprisonment

 On April 27, 2005, the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha, Hunan sentenced Shi Tao (师涛), director of the editorial department at the Hunan Contemporary Business News Publishing House, to ten years imprisonment for disclosing a state secret. Specifically, the court said:

[F]ollowing a routine article review and pre-editorial meeting, deputy editors-in-chief surnamed Wang and Yang of the Hunan Contemporary Business News Publishing House again assembled the persons responsible for the headline news, mobile hot-line, editorial, and other departments, to participate in a specialized meeting. In this specialized meeting Wang verbally passed on a summary of the important contents of the top secret state secret, "Notice Regarding Current Stability Work" (Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11) of the Communist Party of China Central Committee General Office and the State Council General Office, and stressed that this document was top secret, and it was not permitted to take notes on or spread it. Defendant Shi Tao, however, secretly took notes on this summary of important contents. Between 7:00 p.m. in the evening of that same day and 2:00 a.m. the following morning, defendant Shi Tao in his office used his personal electronic mailbox [INTENTIONALLY DELETED]@yahoo.com.cn to transmit the notes he had secretly taken of the summary of the main contents of the aforementioned Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11 to the electronic mailbox [INTENTIONALLY DELETED]@aol.com of Hong Zhesheng, one of the organizers of the "Asia Democracy Foundation" located in New York, USA, and editor-in-chief of the foreign website "Democracy Forum" and the electronic periodical "Democracy Newsletter," and provided "198964," as the provider's alias. At the same time, he asked Hong Zhesheng to think of a way to disseminate it as quickly as possible, but not to use Shi Tao's name. On that day the summary of the important contents of the aforementioned Party General Office Document (2004) No. 11 provided by the signatory "198964" was distributed on "Democracy Forum," and afterwards it was also redistributed by foreign websites such as "Boxun" and the "Chinese Democracy and Justice Party."

A full translation of the court judgment (师涛刑事判决书, (2005)长中刑一初字第 29 号) can be found in "State Prosecutions of Speech in the People's Republic of China: Cases Illustrating the Application of National Security and Public Order Laws to Political and Religious Expression" (中華人民共和國政府對言論的訴追：有關國家安全及公共秩序相關法律適用於政治及宗教言論的案例彙編), available for free download at www.feichangdao.com.

Below is a translation of the version of Shi's notes published on the Boxun website on April 22, 2004 at https://news.boxun.com/news/gb/china/2004/04/200404220629.shtml.

Summary of Document No. 11 of the Central Office of the Communist Party of China (VI) State Office ("Notice Regarding Current Stability Work")

Provided by 198964

On April 20, China's Propaganda Department urgently conveyed to all news agencies the document No. 11 from the Central Office and the State Office, the content of which is the "Notice Regarding Current Stability Work.” The summary is as follows:

1. Analysis of the current situation:

(1) This year marks the 15th anniversary of "6.4", and some overseas pro-democracy activists are more active, and they plan to take action to break through the blockades during the "6.4" anniversary, and prepare to forcibly break through the blockades;
(2) On the issue of liberalization, it is mainly about denying the leadership of the Communist Party, denying the socialist system, engaging in so-called "civil learning," and some hostile forces politicizing criminal cases;
(3) "Falun Gong" cult members are engaging in sabotage activities;
(4) The dissemination of various harmful information on the Internet;
(5) Mass incidents are relatively prominent, mainly manifesting around issues such as demolition and petitioning;
(6) Overseas hostile forces are using religious and other channels (printed materials, the Internet) to win over young people, or conduct academic activities in schools, help students, etc., to engage in illegal activities;
(7) The Hong Kong issue.

The focus is on "6.4", about "Falun Gong," and about “mass incidents."

2. All departments at all levels should take preventive measures:

(1) Resolutely prevent pro-democracy elements from breaking through obstacles and getting inside the borders;
(2) Strictly prevent various activities;
(3) Strictly prevent hostile elements from using the Internet to engage in activities;
(4) Strictly prevent the occurrence of mass incidents;
(5) Strictly prevent the "Falun Gong" cult organization from engaging in sabotage;
(6) Strictly guard the safety of key departments and personnel;
(7) Strictly guard against various factors that affect stability and unity.

3. Five tasks to be paid close attention to at present:

(1) Adhere to the correct theory and sense of responsibility;
(2) Effectively strengthen intelligence work and grasp the situation of various activities;
(3) Adhere to the correct orientation of public opinion, effectively prevent sabotage by foreign hostile elements, and resolutely refrain from making any remarks that are inconsistent with the policies of the central authorities;
(4) Highlight key points and do a good job of prevention and control in a targeted manner;
(5) Reduce mass petitions.

(At the same time, you should pay attention to contacts between overseas pro-democracy activists and individual editors and reporters of domestic media. Once discovered, report it immediately.)

中共中办(六)国办11号文件摘要(《关于当前稳定工作的通知》)

198964提供

4月20日,中国的宣传部们紧急向各新闻单位传达中办和国办的11号文件,内容是《关于当前稳定工作的通知》,摘要如下:

一、关于当前形势的分析:

(一)今年是“6.4”15周年,境外一些民运分子比较活跃,他们准备在“6.4”纪念日期间采取闯关行动,准备强行闯关;
(二)关于自由化的问题,主要是否定共产党领导,否定社会主义制度,搞所谓的“民间学习”,还有一些敌对势力把刑事案件政治化;
(三)“法轮功”邪教分子搞破坏活动;
(四)互联网上各种有害信息的传播;
(五)群体事件比较突出,主要表现在拆迁、上访等方面;
(六)境外敌对势力利用宗教等渠道(印刷品、互联网),拉拢青少年,或在学校里开展学术活动、助学等等,搞非法活动;
(七)香港问题。

重点是关于“6.4”、关于“法轮功”、关于群体事件”。

二、各级各部门要做好防范措施:

(一)坚决制止民运分子闯关入境;
(二)严密防范各种活动;
(三)严密防范敌对分子利用互联网搞活动;
(四)严密防范群体事件的发生;
(五)严密防范“法轮功”邪教组织搞破坏;
(六)严密防范重点部门和人员的安全;
(七)严密防范一些影响安定团结的因素。

三、当前要狠抓的五项工作:

(一)坚持正确的理论和责任意识;
(二)切实加强情报工作,掌握各种活动情况;
(三)坚持正确的舆论导向,有效地防范境外敌对分子的破坏,坚决不发任何和中央政策不一致的任何言论;
(四)突出重点,有针对性地做好防范控制工作;
(五)减少群体性上访。

(同时要注意境外民运分子与境内媒体个别编辑、记者的联系,一旦发现,立即报告。)
 

Translation: New York Times v. Sullivan with PRC Characteristics

Intermediate People's Court of Yulin, Shaanxi

Administrative Decision

(2020) Shaan 08 Administrative Final No. 521

Translator's Summary: The court found that police did not violate Yuan's rights when they subjected him to administrative detention for reposting an article to his personal social media accounts that police determined defamed a Communist Party cadre. The court held that as a journalist Yuan had a duty to verify the contents of the article.

Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial) Yuan Jianmeng, male, born [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED], 1982, Han ethnicity, born in Taiyuan, Shanxi, residing in Yingze District, Taiyuan.

Entrusted representative Zhang Jinzhen is a lawyer at the Shanxi Wenying Law Firm.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial) Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division.Address: Shaanxi Yulin, Huancheng North Road, Hengshan District, Unified Social Credit Code: 1161080001******.

Legal representative He Guoyu, director.

Person in charge of the court appearance Lu Jianjiang, deputy director.

Entrusted representative Luo Bin, a police officer at the Division's Legal Department.

Entrusted representative Hui Hao, a police officer at the Division's cyber security brigade.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial) Public Security Bureau of Yulin. Address: Shaanxi Yulin, No. 4, Fushi Road, Yuyang District. Unified Social Credit Code: 11610800016*******.

Legal representative Qiu Zuman, Director.

Entrusted representative Zhang Hao and Wang Long are police officers at the Bureau's Legal Department.

In relation to a public security administrative punishment case, appellant Yuan Jianmeng did not accept the People's Court of Yuyang, Yulin's (2019) Shaan 0802 Administrative First Instance No. 70 administrative judgment, and filed an appeal with this Court. After this Court docketed the case, it formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and tried this case. The trial has now concluded.

In his lawsuit appellant Yuan Jianmeng requested the court in the trial of first instance:

1. Rescind the Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision rendered by defendant Public Security Office of Hengshan on January 29, 2019;

2. Rescind the Yu Public Reconsideration Decision (2019) No. 11 reconsideration decision rendered by the Public Security Bureau of Yulin on April 28, 2019; and

3. The litigation costs in this case be born by defendant No. 2.

The court in the original trial ascertained at trial that: Plaintiff Yuan Jianmeng was a reporter for the Shanxi Newspaper Group's Development Herald New Horizons Weekly. On January 25, 2019, the plaintiff did, without undertaking any verification, repost an article with the title "The 'Big Knife Brigade' In Hengxing Township, Did the King of the District Committee Really Serve the People?" from the Wechat public account "Brilliant City Recommendations" to his own registered Sina Weibo blog "Understanding Chang'an Street" and also pushed it to his personal Weibo account "Understanding Baiwan Zhuang," where it was clicked on over 1,300 times. This constitutes illegal defamatory facts.

In accordance with Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law," on January 29, 2019, defendant Public Security Office of Hengshan rendered the Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision, imposing a punishment on the plaintiff of eight days administrative detention. The plaintiff did not accept this, and applied to the defendant Public Security Bureau of Yulin for reconsideration. On April 28, 2019 that office rendered the Yu Public Reconsideration Decision (2019) No. 11 reconsideration decision, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 28(1)(i) of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Reconsideration Law"), sustained the aforementioned Administrative Punishment Decision rendered by the defendant Public Security Office of Hengshan. The plaintiff still did not accept this, and filed a lawsuit with this Court, raising the aforementioned claims.

The court in the original trial held that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law," the public security agency of the local people's governments at or above the county level are responsible for the administration of public security within their administrative area. The jurisdiction of public security cases are stipulated by the public security department of the State Council. Article 9 of the "Procedures for the Handling of Administrative Cases by Public Security Agencies" of the Ministry of Public Security stipulates that administrative cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the public security agency in the place where the illegal act occurs. Hengshan District is the primary place where the consequences of the offense in this case occurred, which is under the jurisdiction of the Public Security Division of Hengshan. Therefore, that office has the statutory authority to investigate and handle violations of public security administration that are implicated in this case.

Article 12 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law" stipulates that if someone is dissatisfied with a specific administrative action of a working agency of a local people's governments at or above the county level, the individual may choose to apply for administrative reconsideration to the people's government at the same level as the department, or apply for administrative reconsideration to the competent department at the next higher level. The Public Security Bureau of Yulin, as the upper-level competent department of the Public Security Division of Hengshan, has the statutory authority to accept the plaintiff’s administrative reconsideration application, and to conduct a corresponding review and processing of administrative actions made by the Public Security Division of Hengshan.

The point of dispute in this case is whether or not the appellant's conduct constitutes a fabrication of facts to defame a third party under Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." This Court interprets what is meant by the illegal act of "a fabrication of facts to defame a third party" as that offense is set forth in Article 246 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" "(hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal Law"), and with reference to the provisions of Article 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Defamation Through Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation").

According to Article 1 of the "Interpretation" and the identified actions of the plaintiff that have been punished, the key to resolving the point of dispute in this case lies in whether the plaintiff, when reposting the article with the content about Wang Xiaoli, acted in a matter that consistent with the second paragraph of that article: "with clear knowledge that facts are fabricated that will harm the reputation of a third party." In this regard, the plaintiff claimed that the evidence of the second defendant was not sufficient to meet the clear knowledge requirement, and the plaintiff verified the authenticity of the article by looking up the source on the Internet. The second defendant argued that the plaintiff was a journalist and had a higher duty of verification with respect to reposting content, and failing to fulfill that duty amounts to having clear knowledge.

This Court finds that clear knowledge is the subjective mental state of the actor, and includes both "knew" and "should have known." The defendant’s evidence on facts did not show that the plaintiff knew exactly that the content of Wang Xiaoli in the reposted article was fabricated, so it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff "should have known." "Should have known" is a conjecture as to the plaintiff's subjective attitude. It must be comprehensively judged based on various evidentiary materials, including the information that was disseminated, as well as the identity, occupation, and life experience of the actor.

First, the content about Wang Xiaoli that was posted was "Wang Chengbao long oppressed the masses and harmed one party, under the protective umbrella and the inaction of the Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao…" and "The Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao...served as a protective umbrella for underworld forces." Those are charges that Wang Xiaoli is suspected of serious crimes, but suspicions of citizens' crimes have to be based on investigations and determinations made by relevant State law enforcement agencies in the fulfillment of their authorized duties. If the plaintiff fails to verify with relevant departments and there is no judgment from law enforcement agencies in the reposted article, then on the basis of common legal knowledge one could recognize that the authenticity of this charge is unreliable.

Second, the plaintiff is a journalist. According to Article 18 of the "Administrative Measures for Journalist Accreditation," which stipulates the professional standards of journalists, "Journalists who use journalist accreditation to engage in news gathering activities shall abide by laws and regulations and journalistic professional ethics, and ensure that news reports are true, comprehensive, objective, and fair. They shall not compile and distribute false reports,  publish false news, or conceal news facts that should be reported." He should have a higher level of awareness and judgment regarding the authenticity and objectivity of the information published, so he has a greater ability to recognize the baselessness of the charges against Wang Xiaoli in the forwarded article. Although the plaintiff claimed that his forwarding behavior was not an act done his professional capacity, this fact does not affect his cognitive ability, and the defense is not sustained.

Finally, the plaintiff admitted that the blog account he used to repost the article was registered at his place of work, which also indicates that the plaintiff had a higher duty of caution in disseminating information through this account.

In summary, if the plaintiff has the capability and qualifications to verify the charge of the suspected crime that he reposted, but does not use basic verification methods, it can be determined that he should have known that the charge was not true.
Defendant Public Security Office of Hengshan lawfully reached the same conclusion based on the evidence collected during the administrative punishment process.

After receiving the reconsideration application from the plaintiff, the Public Security Bureau of Yulin fulfilled the procedures of acceptance, notification response, and verification, and ultimately rendered a reconsideration decision and served it in accordance with the law.

It was ascertained at trial that the Bureau’s administrative reconsideration procedure complied with the law and was not improper, and this determination was sustained by the court. The plaintiff's request to revoke the defendant's reconsideration decision lacked corresponding basis, and the court did not sustain it.

Accordingly, after discussion and decision by the court's adjudicative committee, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 69 and 79 of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment was: All of plaintiff Yuan Jianmeng's claims were rejected. The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan would be borne by plaintiff Yuan Jianmeng.

Appellant Yuan Jianmeng did not accept the aforementioned judgment and appealed making the following requests:

1. Rescind the judgment in the trial of first instance, and render a judgment rescinding the Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision and the Yu Public Reconsideration Decision (2019) No. 11 reconsideration decision rendered by the appellees.

2. All litigation fees to be borne by the defendant in the original trial承担.

Facts and Reasoning:

1. The facts determined in the judgment of the trial of first instance lacked evidentiary support. At 7:55 pm on January 25, 2019, appellant found the article titled "The 'Big Knife Brigade' In Hengxing Township, Did the King of the District Committee Really Serve the People?" while browsing the WeChat public account "Brilliant City Recommendations." Appellant the reposted the article on his Sina Weibo blogs "Understanding Chang'an Street" and "Understanding Baiwan Zhuang," and it was subsequently clicked on and viewed by others. Appellant was not the original author of the article involved. He just reposted an existing article from a website to his own blog, and he conducted searches on Baidu and other websites before collecting it on the blog to confirm that it was an article that had already been publicly disseminated, reposted, and transmitted, and that it was information known to the public-at-large. He had already fulfilled the duty of verification of the reposted article involved in the case, and Beijing Online, Zhejiang Online, domestic news and other websites, as well as the "Democracy and Law" magazine, had also reported some of the facts described in the article.

Therefore, appellant does not have a subjective motive to intentionally infringe on the reputation of others. The court of first instance, however, inferred the existance of appellant's subjective intent based on his identity as a journalist. This is contrary to legal common sense.

Everyone is equal before the law, and the law does not expressly stipulate that citizens who are journalists must have the obligation to verify when reposting and collecting articles. The court of first instance committed an error when it applied different legal treatment based on a citizen's identity.

In addition, the judgment in the original trial clearly determined that "the defendant's evidence about facts did not show that the plaintiff knew exactly that the content about Wang Xiaoli in the reposted article was fabricated." Appellee, as an administrative organ, had the legal obligation to produce evidence of illegal conduct. It is obviously not in accordance with laws and regulations for appellee to determine that appellant violated the law and impose administrative punishment when evidence was insufficient. Furthermore, the court in the trial of first instance cannot use a citizen's identity to infer that the appellee's administrative punishment was legal

2. The judgment in the trial of first instance applied the law incorrectly. Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Defamation Through Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases" stipulate that the fabrication of facts to defame a third party must be "with clear knowledge that facts are fabricated that will harm the reputation of a third party." This stipulation makes it clear that the subjective aspects of the illegal conduct must be intentional. The evidence provided by appellee clearly proves that appellant checked this article on other websites before reposting. Appellant fulfilled his duty of verification for that article, and subjectively there existed no intent to infringe on the reputation of others and no knowledge that there were fabricated false facts, and appellant did not anticipate the result. Intent means knowing subjectively and hoping that a result will occur. It is obvious that there is an inconsistency between the appellant's subjectivity and objectivity, and it does not constitute an intentional violation of law. The court of first instance's finding that the appellant "should have known" was a conjecture regarding the subjective attitude of the appellant.

Appellant believes that "should know" is what the individual "should have known" according to an individual's age, occupation, social life experience level, etc. Where an individual "should have known" but did not actually do not know, at most it can only constitute careless negligence, and not intent with clear knowledge. Where an actor should have known but there is insufficient evidence to prove their knowledge, it should not be regarded as what the individual "should have known."

The court of first instance only determined that the appellant "knew or should have known" based on  his identity as a journalist. It only inferred that the appellant had the capability and qualifications to verify the article he is suspected of having reposted in violation of the law, but failed to adopt basic verification measures, from the fact that he registered a blog and an account at his place of work. From the foregoing it incorrectly concluded the appellant should have known that the subject of the charges were untrue. Appellant doesn't know Wang Xiaoli, has never been to Shaanxi, and lacks the basic qualifications to conduct a verification as far as geography and interpersonal relationships are concerned. What's more, Appellant only reposted and collected on his own blog, and did not subjectively deliberately spread or disseminate. As far as that article is concerned, appellant in fact subjectively did not know it to be false, and appellee has no evidence proving what exactly the appellant knew, and therefore it should not be regarded as something he "should have known."

The court in the trial of first instance made reference to the provisions of Article 18 of the "Administrative Measures for Journalist Accreditation," but the object of these administrative measures applies to journalists in their use of their press cards to engage in news interviews and news broadcasts. It does not specifically regulate individual journalists who collect articles on their own blogs in their personal capacity. The court of first instance's application of the law was inappropriate.


The Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision rendered by the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division and the Yu Public Reconsideration Decision (2019) No. 11 reconsideration decision rendered by the Public Security Bureau of Yulin have no legal basis. In accordance with the provisions of Article 70(2) of the Administrative Litigation Law, the people's court should rule to rescind the administrative acts of the Appellee.

Appellee Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division argues:

1. The facts determined by the court in the trial of first instance were clear and the evidence was copious. Appellant Yuan Jianmeng was a reporter for the Shanxi Newspaper Group's Development Herald New Horizons Weekly. On January 25, 2019, he did, without undertaking any verification, repost an article with the title "The 'Big Knife Brigade' In Hengxing Township, Did the King of the District Committee Really Serve the People?" from the Wechat public account "Brilliant City Recommendations" to the Sina Weibo blog "Understanding Chang'an Street" registered and used by him, and also pushed it to his personal Weibo account "Understanding Baiwan Zhuang," where it was clicked on 1,168 and 183 times, respectively. Yuan Jianmeng, as someone who worked as a journalist, spread the unverified information on a blog and a Weibo account that greatly affected the normal work and life of the Hengshan District Communist Party Committee Secretary Wang Xiaoli himself.

2. Yuan Jianmeng disseminated fact that he clearly knew harmed the reputation of third party but that had yet to be proven to be factual through an investigation. His actions constitute defamation. Yuan Jianmeng reposted an article with the title "The Big Knife Brigade"In Hengxing Township, Did the King of the District Committee Really Serve the People??" that made a connection between "The Big Knife Brigade," which was suspected of committing crimes, and Wang Xiaoli, the Hengshan District Party Committee Secretary. His goal in doing so was grab eyeballs and increase clicks. The content in the article "Wang Chengbao long oppressed the masses and harmed one party, under the protective umbrella and the inaction of the Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao…" and "The Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao...served as a protective umbrella for underworld forces" were charges that Wang Xiaoli was suspected of committing severe crimes.

Whether a citizen is suspected of a crime has to be based on investigations and determinations made by relevant State law enforcement agencies in the fulfillment of their authorized duties. Yuan Jianmeng failed to verify anything with relevant departments and there were no opinions from law enforcement agencies in the reposted article. He merely searched for an article titled "The Big Knife Brigade" on websites such as Baidu. Having naturally concluded that the contents of the article had been publicized by others, and had been reposted and disseminated, he naturally concluded that the content of this article was common knowledge among the public, and reposted this article on the Sina Weibo blog that he personally used and registered and his personal Weibo account.

An adult member of the general public can recognize that the authenticity of the charges against Comrade Wang Xiaoli in the article are unreliable based on common legal knowledge. As a journalist, Yuan Jianmeng had the duty to verify and identify the information he published and reposted, and he should have a higher level of awareness and judgment as to the authenticity and objectivity of information that he disseminates. He had a greater ability to recognize the baselessness of of the charges against Wang Xiaoli.

Yuan Jianmeng had the capability and qualifications to verify the suspected crimes charged in the article he reposted, but he failed to employ basic verification methods, and from this it can be determined that he should have known that the content of those charges was untrue. His act of reposting unverified information that damaged the reputation of a third party corresponds with the fabrication of facts to defame a third party in the offense of defamation in Article 246 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" as interpreted in Article 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Defamation Through Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases."

3. Our division applied the law correctly in this case, and the specific administrative penalties imposed were appropriate, fair. and just.  On January 25, 2019, Yuan Jianmeng did, without undertaking any verification, repost and disseminated an untruthful article, and his actions were suspected of being defamatory. Because his illegal actions did not constitute the commission of an offense under the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," on January 29, 2019 our division subjected Yuan Jianmeng to eight days administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China," and delivered him to the Hengshan District Detention Center to execute it on the same day.

In summary, the facts in the Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision rendered by our division are clear, the evidence is conclusive and copious, the law was applied correctly, and the procedures were lawful.

The judgment rendered by the court in the trial of first instance rejecting the appellant's claims was reasonable and lawful.

It is requested that the court in the trial of second instance reject the appeal in accordance with the law and uphold the judgment in the original trial.

Defendant Public Security Bureau of Yulin argued:

1. The facts of appellant's illegal actions facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, and the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division applied the law correctly, employed lawful proceedures, and applied appropriate punishment. The facts determined by the court in the trial of first instance were clear, and the evidence was copious.

2. The procedures of our bureau in rendering the administrative reconsideration decision were lawful, and the law was applied correctly. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 23 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China," on March 26, 2019 our bureau accepted Yuan Jianmeng's administrative reconsideration application in which he maintained he did not accept the Heng Public (Cyber Security) Administrative Punishment Decision (2019) No. 67 administrative punishment decision rendered by the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division on January 29, 2019, and in accordance with the law notified the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division to respond and submit relevant materials.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China," after the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division sent the case files and written responses to our bureau, the police from the legal department of our bureau reviewed the case. On April 28, 2019, after legal department completed its review, the person in charge of the city's public security bureau convened the Law Enforcement Management Committee to discuss and study the matter, and determined that the facts regarding the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division's handling of the case were clear, the evidence was copious, the procedures were lawful, and the law was applied correctly. It rendered a decision to sustain, and in accordance with the law, mailed the administrative reconsideration decision to appellant Yuan Jianmeng.

In summary, the administrative penalty decision rendered by the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division and the administrative reconsideration decision rendered by our bureau have clear facts, copious evidence, lawful procedures, and correctly applied laws. The judgement in the trial of first instance had clear facts and correctly applied laws. It is requested that the appeal be rejected and the judgment in the original trial be upheld.

During the trial of second instance appellant Yuan Jianmeng produced a screenshot of a web page in order to prove: There existed actual facts relevant to the case, which were affirmed with the signatures and fingerprints of ordinary people. Appellant had fulfilled his duty of verification, and it should be deemed authentic content.

The opinion of appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division with respect to the evidence examined is: The time of the screenshot report is not clear, and the portion that is clearly visible is not related to the article the appellant reposted. The villagers' fingerprints cannot prove the authenticity of the content. The authenticity should be have been acknowledged by an official agency, and journalists should go to the scene to verify the authenticity of news. It does not acknowledge the probative value of the evidence.

The opinion of appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yulin with respect to the evidence examined is: It does not acknowledge the authenticity, relevance, and probative value of the evidence.

This Court certifies the aforementioned evidence as follows: The content contained in the screenshot was not issued by a statutory authority. Moreover, the content contained in the screenshot is not consistant with the content of the article reproduced by Appellant, and it is insufficient to substantiate the authenticity of the content of the article reproduced by Appellant. It is also insufficient to prove that appellant fulfilled his duty of verification, and it is not accepted as probative.

The facts ascertained in the trial of second instance were consistent with the facts ascertained at the trial of first instance, and are affirmed by this Court.

This Court finds: The point of dispute in this case is whether or not the appellant's conduct constitutes a fabrication of facts to defame a third party under Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." With respect to this, pursuant to the provisions of Article (1) of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Defamation Through Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases" (Judicial Interpretation(2013) No. 21), if the conduct of an actor involves fabricated facts that damage the reputation of others which are disseminated on information networks, it may be regarded as fabricating facts to defame others. In determining the authenticity of information, the disseminator shall bear the necessary burden of proof, especially in circumstances where the disseminated information may have an adverse effect on others and the public interest. This is the boundary for citizens' freedom of speech, and it is also the boundary for citizens to exercise their rights of supervision and criticism. It is also necessary to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of others, social stability, and public order and fair practice.

According to the facts ascertained in this case, on January 25, 2019, the appellant reposted an article with the title "The 'Big Knife Brigade' In Hengxing Township, Did the King of the District Committee Really Serve the People?" from the Wechat public account "Brilliant City Recommendations" to the Sina Weibo blog "Understanding Chang'an Street" registered and used by him, and also pushed it to his personal Weibo account "Understanding Baiwan Zhuang," where it was clicked on over 1,300 times. The reprinted article alleged that "Wang Chengbao long oppressed the masses and harmed one party, under the protective umbrella and the inaction of the Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao…" and "The Secretary of the Hengshan District Committee, Wang Hao...served as a protective umbrella for  underworld forces." The dissemination of the aforementioned information would obviously lower the reputation and social evaluation of the government agencies and personnel involved. When publishing the aforementioned assertions, however, appellant did not provide any authoritative corroborating determinations rendered by law enforcement agencies such as supervisory agencies, judicial agencies, prosecutorial agencies, etc. During the investigation by the public security agency and subsequent litigation, appellant also failed to provide probative evidence on which to base a judgment. Under these circumstances, the information released by him cannot be said to be true, and it is difficult to establish the reason why he believes that he has fulfilled his obligation to verify the content of the reposted content. Appellant should bear the corresponding adverse consequences for his own behavior.

Based on the facts it had ascertained, appellee Public Security Bureau of Yulin, Hengshan Division determined that Appellant’s behavior constituted a defamation, and in accordance with Article 42(2) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" it imposed an administrative penalty of five days detention.2 There is nothing improper in its determination of the facts, its application of the law, or the degree of punishment it imposed.

The Public Security Bureau of Yulin reconsideration upholding the punishment decision was correct.

In summary, appellant’s claims lack a factual and legal basis, and the original judgment is rejecting appellant’s claims was correct, and is sustained by this Court.

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 89(1) of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:

The appeal is rejected, and the judgment in the original trial is upheld.

The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan in the trial of second instance shall be borne by appellant Yuan Jianmeng.

This judgment shall be the final judgment.

Chief Adjudicator　　Ma Yurong
Adjudicator　　Wang Jing
Adjudicator　　Liu Hongmei

May 29, 2020

Clerk　　Kou Yanyan

 陕西省榆林市中级人民法院

行政判决书

（2020）陕08行终52号

上诉人（原审原告）原建猛，男，1982年 [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]出生，汉族，山西省太原市人，住太原市迎泽区。


委托代理人张晋珍，山西文英律师事务所律师。

被上诉人（原审被告）榆林市公安局横山分局。住所地：陕西省榆林市横山区环城北路,统一社会信用代码：1161080001******。

法定代表人贺国钰，局长。

出庭负责人鲁建江，副局长。

委托代理人罗斌，系该局法制大队民警。

委托代理人惠浩，系该局网络安全保卫大队民警。

被上诉人（原审被告）榆林市公安局。住所地：陕西省榆林市榆阳区肤施路4号。统一社会信用代码：11610800016*******。

法定代表人邱祖满，局长。

委托代理人张皓、王龙，系该局法制支队民警。

上诉人原建猛因治安行政处罚一案，不服陕西省榆林市榆阳区人民法院（2019）陕0802行初70号行政判决，向本院提起上诉。本院受理后，依法组成合议庭审理了本案。现已审理终结。

上诉人原建猛向一审法院起诉请求：一、撤销被告横山公安分局2019年1月29日作出的横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定书；二、撤销被告榆林市公安局2019年4月28日作出的榆公复决〔2019〕11号复议决定书；三、本案诉讼费用二被告承担。

原审法院经审理查明：原告原建猛为山西报业集团发展导报新视界周刊记者。2019年1月25日，原告在未经核实的情况下，将微信公众号“城市精彩推荐”上的题为《“大刀队”横行乡里，区委王效力真的为民效力了吗？》的文章转载在自己注册的新浪博客“长安街知事”并同步推送至其个人微博账号“百万庄知事”，点击量达到1300多次，构成诽谤违法事实。被告横山公安分局根据《治安处罚法》第四十二条第（二）项之规定，于2019年1月29日作出横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定，对原告处以行政拘留八日的处罚。原告不服，向被告榆林市公安局申请复议，该局于2019年4月28日作出榆公复决〔2019〕11号复议决定书，依据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》（以下简称《行政复议法》）第二十八条第一款第（一）项之规定，维持了被告横山公安分局作出的前述行政处罚决定书。原告仍不服，向本院提起诉讼,提出前述诉讼请求。

原审法院认为，依据《治安管理处罚法》第七条的规定，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治安管理工作。治安案件的管辖由国务院公安部门规定。公安部《公安机关办理行政案件程序规定》第九条规定，行政案件由违法行为地的公安机关管辖。横山区系本案违法行结果主要发生地，属横山公安分局管辖地，故该局对涉案违反治安管理的行为具有进行调查、处理的法定职权。

《行政复议法》第十二条规定，对县级以上地方各级人民政府工作部门的具体行政行为不服的，由申请人选择，可以向该部门的本级人民政府申请行政复议，也可以向上一级主管部门申请行政复议。榆林市公安局作为横山公安分局的上一级主管部门，具有受理原告的行政复议申请，针对横山公安分局作出的行政行为进行相应审查并进行处理的法定职权。

本案的争议焦点在于原告转载文章的行为是否构成《治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第（二）项规定的捏造事实诽谤他人。对该违法行为的含义，本院参照《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（以下称《解释》）第一条对《中华人民共和国刑法》（以下称《刑法》）第二百四十六条规定的诽谤罪中“捏造事实诽谤他人”的解释。

根据《解释》第一条和已查明的原告被处罚的行为，解决本案争议焦点的关键在于原告在转发文章时对其中关于王效力的内容是否符合该条第二款：“明知是捏造的损害他人名誉的事实”。对此，原告称二被告证据不足以证明该要件，且原告通过网络检索出处的方式核实了文章的真实性。而二被告辩称原告是记者，对转载内容有更高的核实义务，但未尽该义务，属于明知。本院认为，明知是行为人的主观心态，包括“知道”和“应当知道”两种情形。被告关于事实方面的证据中没有显示原告确切知道转发文章中关于王效力的内容系被捏造，故需要审查原告是否“应当知道”。“应当知道”是对原告主观态度的推测，必须依据各方面的证据材料，综合被传播的信息、行为人的身份、职业、生活经历等多方面的因素，综合评判。首先，被传播的王效力的内容为“王成宝长期欺压群众、为害一方，而他背后的保护伞，横山区委书记王效力的不作为……”、“横山区委书记王效力……充当黑恶势力的保护伞”，是对王效力的涉嫌严重犯罪行为的指控，而公民的犯罪嫌疑需要以国家相关执法部门的职权行为作为调查和认定的前提，原告在不向相关部门核实，且被转发文章中亦无执法部门判定意见的情况下，根据一般法律常识能够认识到此种指控的真实性不可靠。其次，原告是记者，参照《新闻记者证管理办法》第十八条“新闻记者使用新闻记者证从事新闻采访活动，应遵守法律规定和新闻职业道德，确保新闻报道真实、全面、客观、公正，不得编发虚假报道，不得刊播虚假新闻，不得徇私隐匿应报道的新闻事实”对记者职业准则的规定，其应当具有对所传播信息的真实性、客观性更高的认知水平和判断能力，故对被转发文章中对王效力指控的不真实性有更强的辨识能力。虽原告称其转发行为非职务行为，但此节事实对其认知能力并无影响，该抗辩不成立。最后，原告承认其转发文章所用博客账户在其单位注册，该情节同样表明原告通过该账户传播信息有更高的谨慎义务。综上，原告有能力和条件对其转发的涉嫌犯罪的指控进行核实的情况下，而未采用基本的核实手段，可以判定其应当知道该指控不真实。被告横山公安分局依据其在行政处罚程序中搜集的证据作出相同判断合法。

榆林市公安局在接到原告的复议申请后，履行了受理、通知答复、核查等程序，最终作出复议决定并依法送达，经审查该局履行行政复议程序符合法律规定，并无不当，本院予以支持。原告要求撤销被诉复议决定的请求事项缺乏相应依据，本院亦不予支持。

据此，经本院审判委员会讨论决定，依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十九条、第七十九条之规定，判决：驳回原告原建猛的全部诉讼请求。案件受理费50元，由原告原建猛负担。

上诉人原建猛不服上述判决，上诉请求：一、撤销一审判决，并判决撤销被上诉人作出的横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定书和榆公复决〔2019〕11号复议决定书。二、本案诉讼费由原审被告承担。事实与理由：一、一审判决认定事实缺少证据支持。2019年1月25日晚上19点55分，上诉人在浏览微信公众号“城市精彩推荐”网站时发现了题为《“大刀队”横行乡里，区委王效力真的为民效力了吗？》的文章，于是上诉人将该文转载在自己的新浪博客“长安街知事”和“百万庄知事”，后被人点击查看。上诉人并非涉案文章的原创者，只是将网站上已有的文章转载于自己博客之中，并在收藏博客之前已在百度等网站上进行搜索，证实早已被人公开发表，已被转发、传播的文章，是大众所知的信息，对涉案文章的转载已尽到了核实义务，而且北京在线、浙江在线、国内新闻等网站以及《民主与法制》杂志也曾对该文章中所叙述部分事实进行过报道，因此，上诉人在主观方面不具有故意侵害他人名誉的动机，但原审法院根据上诉人是记者身份推断上诉人主观存在故意有违法律常识。法律面前人人平等，法律也并未明文规定记者身份的公民转载收藏文章必须有核实义务，原审法院依据公民身份，适用法律上差别对待是错误的。而且原审判决中已明确认定：“被告关于事实方面的证据中没有显示原告确切知道转发文章中关于王效力的内容系被捏造”，被上诉人作为行政机关，对于该违法行为有举证的法定义务，被上诉人在证据不足的情况下认定上诉人违法并给予以行政处罚显然不符合法律规定，一审法院更不能运用公民身份推断判决被上诉人行政处罚行为合法。二、一审判决适用法律错误。《治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第（二）项规定和《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》的捏造事实诽谤他人必须是“明知是捏造的损害他人名誉的事实”，该规定明确了违法行为主观方面必须是故意。被上诉人提供的证据中明显证明上诉人在转发之前在其它网站上查阅有此文章，上诉人对该文章已尽到了核实义务，主观不存在故意侵害他人名誉，也不知道是捏造的虚假事实，对于造成的结果上诉人并未预知到。故意是指主观方面知道，也希望结果的发生。显然上诉人主观方面与客观方面不一致，不构成故意违法。原审法院认定上诉人“应当知道”是对上诉人主观态度的推测。上诉人认为“应当知道”是按照行为的年龄、职业、社会生活经验水平等“本应知道”，对于“本应知道”但实际上确不知道的，至多也只能构成疏忽大意的过失，而非明知的故意。对于行为人本应知道但无充分证据证明其知道的，不应认定为“应当知道”。原审法院只是以上诉人是记者身份认定“知道或应当知道”，并以上诉人在单位注册博客、账号，就推断上诉人有能力和条件对其转发的涉嫌犯罪的文章进行核实的情况下，而未采用基本的核实手段，断定上诉人应当知道所指控不真实是错误的。上诉人不认识王效力，也从未去过陕西省，从地理和人际关系上均不具备基本的核实条件。更何况上诉人只是转发收藏于自己博客中，并不是主观故意散布或传播。对于该文章上诉人主观上确实不知其为虚假，而且被上诉人确无证据证明上诉人确切知道，故不应当认定为“应当知道”。一审法院参照《新闻记者证管理办法》第十八条的规定，但该管理办法适用对象是记者使用记者证从事新闻采访刊播新闻的规定，并末对记者个人以个人名义收藏文章到自己博客行为作具体规定，一审法院明显适用法律不当。榆林市公安局横山分局横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定书和榆林市公安局作出的榆公复决〔2019〕11号行政复议决定书没有法律依据，依照行政诉讼法第七十条第二项的规定，人民法院应当判决撤销被上诉人作出的行政行为。

被上诉人榆林市公安局横山分局辩称：一、一审法院认定事实清楚，证据充分。上诉人原建猛系山西报业集团发展导报新视界周刊记者。2019年1月25日，原建猛在未经核实的情况下，将微信公众号“城市精彩推荐”上的题为《“大刀队”横行乡里，区委王效力真的为民效力了吗?》的文章转载在自己注册使用的新浪博客“长安街知事”并同步推送至其个人微博账号“百万庄知事”，点击量分别为1168次和183次。原建猛作为一名新闻工作者，将未经核实的信息发布在博客和微博账号上进行扩散，给中共横山区委及王效力本人正常工作、生活造成较大影响。二、原建猛明知是未经查证属实的损害他人名誉的事实仍然进行传播，其行为构成诽谤。原建猛转载的题为《“大刀队”横行乡里，区委王效力真的为民效力了吗?》的文章将涉嫌违法犯罪的“大刀队”与横山区委书记王效力联系到一起，以达到博人眼球增加点击量的目的。文章中“王成宝长期欺压群众、为害一方，而他背后的保护伞，横山区委书记王效力的不作为……”；“横山区委书记王效力……充当黑恶势力的保护伞”等内容，是对王效力的涉嫌严重犯罪行为的指控。公民有无犯罪嫌疑需要国家执法部门的职权行为作为调查和认定的前提。在未向有关部门核实，且被转发文章中无执法部门判定意见的情况下，原建猛仅仅是在百度等网站上进行搜索标题为“大刀队”的文章，就当然认为该文章中的内容被人公开发表，已被转发、传播，当然认为该篇文章中的内容是大众所知的信息，将该篇文章转载在自己注册使用的新浪博客和其个人微博账号上。一般的成年大众根据一般法律常识都能认识到文章中对王效力同志指控的真实性不可靠。原建猛作为一名新闻工作者，有对自己发表、转发的信息核查辨认的义务，应当具有对所传播信息的真实性、客观性更高的认知水平和判断能力，故对被转发文章中对王效力指控的不真实性有更强的辨识能力。原建猛在有能力和条件对其转发的涉嫌犯罪的指控进行核实的情况下，未采用基本的核实手段，可以判定其应当知道该指控内容不真实，其转发未经查实的损害他人名誉信息的行为符合《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条对《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百四十六条规定的诽谤罪中捏造事实诽谤他人的解释。三、我局办理本案适用法律正确，作出的具体行政处罚适当，公平、公正。2019年1月25日，原建猛将未经核实的不实文章进行转载扩散，其行为涉嫌诽谤。因其违法行为尚未触犯《中国人民共和国刑法》，2019年1月29日，我局根据《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对原建猛给予行政拘留八日的处罚，当日送达横山区拘留所执行。综上所述，我局作出横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定，事实清楚，证据确凿充分，适用法律正确，程序合法。一审法院作出驳回上诉人诉讼请求的判决合理合法。请求二审法院依法驳回上诉，维持原判。

被告榆林市公安局辩称：一、上诉人违法行为事实清楚、证据确凿，榆林市公安局横山分局适用法律正确、程序合法、处罚适当，一审法院认定事实清楚、证据充分。二、我局作出行政复议决定程序合法，适用法律法规正确。根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第十七条、第二十三条之规定，我局于2019年3月26日受理原建猛不服榆林市公安局横山分局2019年1月29日作出的横公（网安）行罚决字〔2019〕67号行政处罚决定提起的行政复议申请，依法通知榆林市公安局横山分局答复和提交相关材料。根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第二十二条之规定，榆林市公安局横山分局将案卷材料和书面答复送往我局后，我局法制支队民警对该案进行阅卷审查，2019年4月28日，法制支队审查后，经市公安局负责人主持召开执法管理委员会议研究，认为榆林市公安局横山分局办理此案认定事实清楚，证据充分，程序合法，适用法律正确，作出维持决定，并依法将行政复议决定书邮寄送达上诉人原建猛。综上，榆林市公安局横山分局作出的行政处罚决定和我局作出的行政复议决定，事实清楚，证据充分，程序合法，适用法律正确，一审判决认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，请求驳回上诉，维持原判。

上诉人原建猛在二审期间提举了网页截图一份，用于证明：确实有案涉事实存在，有普通民众签字按手印确认。上诉人已尽核实义务，应为真实内容。

被上诉人榆林市公安局横山分局对该份证据的质证意见为：截图报道时间看不清楚，能看清楚的部分与上诉人转载文章没有关联性，村民按手印不能证明内容的真实性，真实性应经过官方认可，且新闻记者应当对新闻的真实性去现场核实。对其证明目的不予认可。

被上诉人榆林市公安局对该份证据的质证意见为：对证据的真实性、关联性、证明目的均不予认可。

本院对上述证据认证如下：截图所载内容并非法定有权机关发布，且截图所载内容与上诉人所转载文章的内容不一致，不足以证实上诉人所转载文章内容的真实性，亦不足以证明上诉人已尽核实义务，对其证明目的不予采纳。

二审经审理查明的事实与一审一致，本院予以确认。

本院认为：本案的争议焦点在于上诉人的行为是否构成《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第四十二条第二项规定的捏造事实诽谤他人。对此，参照《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（法释〔2013〕21号）第一条第一项之规定，行为人的行为如具备捏造损害他人名誉的事实，在信息网络上散布这一特征，即可认定为捏造事实诽谤他人。而在信息真实性的判定上，应当由散布者承担必要的证明责任，特别是所散布信息对他人和公共利益可能造成不良影响的情况下，更是如此。这是公民言论自由的边界，也是公民行使监督、批评权利的界限，更是维护他人合法权益、社会稳定及公序良俗所必须。根据本案查明的事实，上诉人于2019年1月25日将微信公众号“城市精彩推荐”上的题为《“大刀队”横行乡里，区委王效力真的为民效力了吗？》的文章转载在自己注册的新浪博客“长安街知事”并同步推送至其个人微博账号“百万庄知事”，点击量达到1300多次。该转载文章指称“王成宝长期欺压群众、为害一方，而他背后的保护伞，横山区委书记王效力的不作为……”；“横山区委书记王效力……充当黑恶势力的保护伞”等情形，上述信息的散布显然会对所涉政府机关及人员的名誉及社会评价造成贬损。然而上诉人在发布上述论断性信息的同时，却并未提供监察机关、审判机关、检察机关等执法部门发布的权威认定予以佐证，在公安机关调查及之后的诉讼过程中，上诉人也未提供据以作出论断的有效证据。在此情况下，其发布的信息难谓真实，其认为自己对所转载内容已尽核实义务的理由亦难以成立，上诉人应当对自己的行为承担相应的不利后果。被上诉人榆林市公安局横山分局基于查明的事实，认定上诉人的行为构成诽谤，进而根据《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，对其作出拘留五日的行政处罚，在事实认定、法律适用及量罚幅度方面，均无不当。榆林市公安局复议维持该处罚决定正确。综上，上诉人的诉请缺乏事实根据与法律依据，原审判决驳回上诉人的诉讼请求正确，本院予以维持。据此，依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第八十九条第一款第一项之规定，判决如下：

驳回上诉，维持原判。

二审案件受理费50元，由上诉人原建猛负担。

本判决为终审判决。

审判长　　马玉荣

审判员　　王　静

审判员　　刘红梅

二〇二〇年五月二十九日

书记员　　寇艳艳

 

 

COVID-19 Series: People Silenced and Punished by the Chinese Government

1. Individuals Detained for Sharing Information Online About the  COVID-19 Outbreak

 Throughout January 2020 China's government continued to punish people for sharing information online about COVID-19. Here are some examples:

Police Report

 

Recently, during the nationwide fight against the novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic, Wang Doe, Liu Doe, and Wang Doe #3 fabricated and spread rumors on the Internet and were subjected to administrative detention by the police.

On January 23, Wang Doe (female, 35 years old, from Shapingba District) spread rumors in a friends  circle that "Chongqing Shapingba, Jiangbei District, and Yubei District has imposed controls." On the same day, Liu Doe (male, 26 years old, from Tongliang District) spread a rumor that "Panxi and Shimahe areas in Jiangbei have been closed off by the police" in a WeChat group. An investigation found that Wang Doe and Liu Doe fabricated and spread rumors based on hearsay in order to attract people's attention, and created panic. They were subjected to administrative detention by the Nan'an and Jiangbei police, respectively. On January 24, Wang Doe #3 (female, 27 years old, from Shapingba District) saw information related to government departments' prevention and handling of the epidemic on the Internet, and fabricated and spread rumors out of context to attract people's attention, causing a pernicious influence. She was subjected to administrative detention by the Yongchuan police.

The police reiterated that the Internet is not a place outside the law, and public security agencies will investigate and deal with illegal activities involving fabricating and spreading rumors and disrupting public order. It is hoped that the majority of Internet users will not believe or spread rumors, jointly maintain a good online environment, and unite and fight the epidemic together.

Source: Screenshot of the Chongqing Public Security official Weibo Account from "Three people spread rumors of the epidemic and were administratively detained by Chongqing police" [3人散布疫情谣言，被重庆警方行政拘留], January 25, 2020, https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2020_01_25_533127.shtml.

Information Bulletin

 

On November 23, 110 received a police report saying that someone had posted information in a WeChat group to deliberately exaggerate the number of new coronavirus pneumonia infections in the country and this city. On January 24, the Jinnan Branch of the Public Security Bureau apprehended the suspect Gao Doe (female, 34 years old, Tianjin). Gao confessed to fabricating information and spreading it in WeChat groups. Now Gao has been subjected to five days administrative detention in accordance with the law. 

 

The public security agency reiterated that the Internet is not a place outside the law, and every citizen is responsible for their speech and must abide by national laws and regulations. Public security organs will resolutely investigate and punish those who openly spread rumors. Internet users are requested not to believe in or spread rumors, and work together to keep cyberspace  clean.

 

January 24, 2020

 

Source: Screenshot of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau WeChat Public Account from "Woman who spread false information about new pneumonia on the Internet was administratively detained for 5 days" [女子在网络上散布新型肺炎不实信息 被行政拘留5日], January 25, 2020, https://m.chinanews.com/wap/detail/zw/gn/2020/01-25/9069293.shtml.

2. Doctor Li Wenliang [李文亮]

Source: Baidu search result on the day Dr. Li Wenliang died.

 

On December 31, 2019, the Hubei government posted the following announcement on its website (http://www.hubei.gov.cn/zxjy/rdhy/201912/t20191231_1822539.shtml):

Wuhan Municipal Health Commission Notice on the Pneumonia Outbreak: Initially Identified as Viral Pneumonia, No Human-to-Human Transmission

Release time: 2019-12-31 14:09 Source: Wuhan Municipal Health Commission

Recently, some medical institutions found that many cases of pneumonia were connected to the South China Seafood Market. After receiving reports, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission immediately carried out case searches and retrospective investigations related to South China Seafood Market in the city’s medical and health institutions. Twenty-seven cases have been found, of which 7 are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are in stable and controllable condition, and 2 cases are expected to be discharged in the near future. The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed infiltrating foci of both lungs. At present, all cases have been treated in isolation, follow-up investigation and medical observation of close contacts are underway, and hygienic investigation and environmental sanitation treatment of the South China Seafood Market is underway.

Wuhan City organized consultations with clinical medicine, epidemiology, and virology experts from Tongji Hospital, the Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Wuhan Institute of Virology,the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention. So far, no obvious person-to-person transmission has been found in the investigation, and no medical staff infection has been found. At present, the detection of the pathogen and the investigation of the cause of infection are underway.

Viral pneumonia is more common in winter and spring, and the spread can be sporadic or explosive. The main clinical manifestations are fever, body aches, a small number of breathing difficulties, and lung infiltration. Viral pneumonia is related to the virulence of the virus, the route of infection, and the age and immune status of the host. Viruses that cause viral pneumonia are influenza viruses. The others are parainfluenza viruses, cytomegaloviruses, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses. The diagnosis depends on pathogenic tests, including virus isolation, serological tests, and virus antigen and nucleic acid tests. The disease is preventable and controllable, for prevention maintain indoor air circulation, avoid closed public places and crowded places with poor air circulation, and wear masks when going out. Clinically, symptomatic treatment is the main treatment, and bed rest is required. If you have the above symptoms, especially if the fever persists, you should go to a medical institution in a timely manner. (Wuhan Municipal Health Commission)  

It appears there were two versions of this notice posted on the Hubei government website. The other version, posted at http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/dtyw/201912/t20191231_1822343.shtml, was no longer available as of December 8, 2020. That version was identical to the one shown above, with the following exceptions:

• It was posted at 13:38 on December 31, 2019.
• The title was "Wuhan Municipal Health Commission Notice Regarding the Status of Our City's Ongoing Pneumonia Outbreak." [武汉市卫健委关于当前我市肺炎疫情的情况通报]
• The reference to the "Wuhan Municipal Health Commission" in the second sentence was the "Municipal Health Commission."

Source: CCTV News [ 央视新闻] official Weibo, December 31, 2019, https://m.weibo.cn/status/4455560046857254

At 5:38 pm on January 1, 2020, the Wuhan Public Security Bureau published the following on its official Sina Weibo:

[8 rumor spreaders were investigated and dealt with in accordance with the law] Recently, some medical institutions in our city found that they had received multiple cases of pneumonia, and the Municipal Health Commission issued a report on this. However, some Internet users published and forwarded false information on the Internet without verification, causing adverse social effects. After investigation and verification, the public security agencies summoned eight individual who violated the law and dealt with them in accordance with the law. The police reminds everyone that the Internet is not a place outside the law. Publishing information and speech on the Internet should comply with laws and regulations. The police will, in accordance with the law, investigate and deal with illegal acts of fabricating, publishing, and spreading rumors and disrupting social order, and will not tolerate them. It is hoped that the majority of Internet users will abide by relevant laws and regulations, and will not fabricate rumors, believe rumors, or spread rumors, and will build a harmonious and clean cyberspace together.

Source: David Paulk, Head of News at China's state sponsored media outlet SixthTone, https://twitter.com/davidpaulk/status/1212717577614442498

 At 8:11 pm the same day the Hubei government reposted that information on their website.

At 11:40 am on January 2, 2020, China's official state television news station broadcast this information nationwide.

Later that evening, government sponsored television news outlets in various provinces featured the story as well.

At 10:09 pm on January 02, 2020, China's state sponsored media outlet SixthTone published an English language report titled "8 Accused of ‘Spreading Rumors’ Amid Wuhan Pneumonia Outbreak." According to that report: 

When Sixth Tone called the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission on Thursday, a staff member said she did not know when the first infections were reported. Staff at the provincial and municipal disease control centers said it was “inconvenient” to comment. Several users on microblogging platform Weibo responded angrily in the comments section under the police notice. 'People spread rumors precisely because the authorities didn’t respond in a timely manner — so how can we be blamed?' one user wrote. 'Don’t I have the right to know the truth, be afraid, and try to save myself?'

In a series of tweets between January 2 and January 6, David Paulk, head of news at SixthTone, reported that that story had been "pulled" shortly after it was published.

Source: https://twitter.com/davidpaulk/status/1212720708339433480

At 10:19 am on January 31, 2020, David Paulk, head of news at SixthTone, tweeted that that article had in fact been "censored."

Source: https://twitter.com/davidpaulk/status/1223068148183728129

 

That article originally appeared at http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005033/8-accused-of-spreading-rumors-amid-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak. It was archived by the Internet Archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200103063023/http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005033/8-accused-of-spreading-rumors-amid-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak. 

At 12:14 pm on January 31, 2020, Dr. Li Wenliang posted the following on his personal Sina Weibo (xiaolwl - https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4466768535861595):

Hello everyone, I am Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital. On December 30th, I saw a patient's test report that detected a high-confidence positive indicator of the SARS coronavirus. In order to remind my classmates to pay attention and protect themselves, and because my classmates are also clinicians, I posted news stating that "7 cases of SARS were confirmed" in a [WeChat] group. After the news was sent, on January 3rd, the Public Security Bureau found me and I signed a letter of reprimand. I have been working normally since then. After receiving patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia, I started to have cough symptoms on January 10, fever on the 11th, and was hospitalized on the 12th. At that time, I was still thinking about why it was reports were still saying that there was no human-to-human transmission, and there was no infection among medical workers. Later, I was admitted to the ICU. I had a nucleic acid test previously, but the results never came out. After undergoing treatment, I was tested again recently, and my nucleic acid was negative, but I still have difficulty breathing and cannot be active. My parents are also in the hospital. In the ward, I also saw the support and encouragement from many Internet users, and my mood became somewhat lighter. Thanks for everyone's support. I want to clarify here that I have not had my license revoked. Please rest assured that I will actively cooperate with the treatment and strive to be discharged early! Wuhan, Wuhan Central Hospital.

大家好，我是武汉市中心医院眼科医生李文亮。12月30日，我看到一份病人的检测报告，检出SARS冠状病毒高置信度阳性指标，出于提醒同学注意防护的角度，因为我同学也都是临床医生，所以在群里发布了消息说“确诊了7例SARS”。消息发出后，1月3日，公安局找到我并签了训诫书。之后我一直正常工作，在接诊了新冠病毒肺炎患者后，1月10号我开始出现咳嗽症状，11号发热，12号住院。
 那时候我还在想通报怎么还在说没有人传人，没有医护感染，后来住进了ICU，之前做了一次核酸检测，但一直没出结果。经过治疗最近又进行一次检测，我的核酸显示为阴性了，但目前仍然呼吸困难，无法活动。我的父母也在住院中。在病房里，我也看到很多网友对我的支持和鼓励，我的心情也会轻松一些，谢谢大家的支持。在此我想特别澄清，我没有被吊销执照，请大家放心，我一定积极配合治疗，争取早日出院！ 武汉·武汉市中心医院

His post included two photos of the documents referred to in his post - the medical report, and the reprimand letter.

 The reprimand letter read as follows:

Zhongnan Precinct, Public Security Bureau of Wuchang, Wuhan

Letter of Reprimand

Wu Public (Central) No. (20200103)

Reprimandee    Li Wenliang_Gender Male_Birth Year and Month [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]
ID Number and Type [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]
Current Address (Household Registration Location) Wuhan [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]
Work Unit Wuhan Central Hospital

Illegal Act(s) (Time, Location, Participants, Number of Participants, Issues Reported, Consequences, etc.) On December 30, 2019, published false statements about 7 cases of SARS confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market in the WeChat group "[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]."

You are hereby issued a warning and reprimand in accordance with the law with respect to the illegality of your untruthful remarks on the Internet. Your behavior seriously disrupted social order. Your behavior has exceeded the boundaries of what is legally permitted and violated the relevant provisions of the Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China. This was an illegal act!

The public security agency hopes that you will actively cooperate in this matter, obey the advice of the Civil Police, and stop the illegal activities to date. Can you do it?

Answer: Yes

We hope you will calm down and reflect carefully, and we solemnly admonish you: If you adhere stubbornly to your own opinions, refuse to repent, and continue to engage in illegal activities, you will be punished by the law! Do you understand what is being said?

Response: Understand

Reprimandee: Li Wenliang
Reprimander: [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]
January 3, 2020

Work Unit: [Seal of the Zhongnan Precinct, Public Security Bureau of Wuchang, Wuhan]

 

武汉市公安局 武昌分局 中南路街派出所

训诫书

武公(中)字(20200103)

被训诫人            李文亮_性别男_出身年月[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]

身份证号各类及号码     [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]

 现住址(戶籍所在地)         武汉市[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]

工作单位            武汉市中心医院

违法行为(时间、地点、参与人、人数、反映何问题、后果等)          2019年12月30日在微信群"[OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]"发表有关华南水果海鲜市场确诊7例SARS 的不属实的言论。

现在依法对你在互联网上发表不属实的言论的违法问题提出警示和训诫。你的行为严重扰乱了社会秩序。你的行为已超出了法律所允许的范围,违反了《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》的有关规定,是一种违法行为!

公安机关希望你积极配合工作,听从民警的规劝,至此中止违法行为。你能做到吗?

答: 能

我们希望你冷静下来好好反思,并郑重告诫你:如果你固执己见,不思悔改,继续进行违法活动,你将会受到法律的制裁!你听明白了吗?

答: 明白

被训诫人:  李文亮

训诫人:  [OBSCURED IN ORIGINAL]

2020年1月3

工作单位: [武汉市公安局 武昌分局 中南路街派出所]

 

On January 27, 2020, the state sponsored new outlet "The Paper" [澎湃新闻] published an article titled "A doctor in Wuhan was reprimanded for sending false information about the epidemic to a group, and was isolated after 11 days after being infected" [武汉一医生疑群内发不实疫情信息被训诫，11天后感染被隔离]. The screenshot on the left shows the article as it was archived by the Internet Archive on January 27, 2020. The screenshot on the right was taken on January 28, 2020, and shows that that URL was displaying a message saying "This article has been taken down." 

In an interview with Caixin, Li Wenliang had this to say about the reprimand:

Li Wenliang: It was the same night (December 31) at 1:30 in the morning when the screenshot was released. The Wuhan Health Commission had a meeting overnight. I was mainly called in by the leaders of our hospital to ask about the situation. After I went to work at dawn, I was interviewed by the Hospital Supervision Department again. I still asked about my situation, the source of the news, and whether I realized my mistake. After all that I didn't expect the police would come looking for me. On January 3, they called me to go to the police station to sign the "Letter of Reprimand". I had never dealt with the police before. I was also very worried. If I didn’t sign, I was afraid that I would not allowed to leave. I went through the process and signed it. I didn't tell my family about it. At that time, there was a lot of pressure, and I was worried about punishment by the hospital, which would affect my future job prospects. Later, a classmate of mine found out and helped introduce me to a journalist. I talked with the journalist directly about the situation.
 
Caixin Reporter: The police made their first report on January 1, saying that eight rumormongerss had been summoned, and you were called to the police station on January 3? Does this mean that you were  one of those eight people being dealt with?
 
Li Wenliang: This is not clear. I am not sure. What you said is possible. I just want to get well soon.
 
Caixin Reporter: The "Letter of Reprimand" given to you by the police you spread false statements on the Internet. At that time, some people believed you were spreading rumors. How do you see it?
 
Li Wenliang: I don't think it was rumormongering, because the report clearly stated it was SARS. And I just wanted to remind my classmates to pay attention, and I had no desire to cause a panic. . . .
 
Caixin Reporter: Since you don't think it was rumormongering, have you ever thought about going through judicial channels to ask for an explanation?
 
Li Wenliang: No, the judicial system may be very troublesome. I don't want to make trouble with the Public Security Bureau. I am afraid of trouble. Everyone knows that the truth is most important. . . .
 
Caixin Reporter: On January 28, the Supreme Court issued a commentary on the official account on whether the punishment of eight “rumormongers” in Wuhan was appropriate. You may be among these eight people. What thoughts did you have when you saw it?
 
Li Wenliang: After reading the Supreme Court's article, I felt greatly relieved and was not too worried about what the hospital would do. I think that a healthy society should not have only one voice, and I don't agree that public power power should be used to interfere excessively.

 

李文亮：就是这个截图传出去那天夜里（12月31日）凌晨一点半，武汉卫健委连夜开会，我主要是被我们医院领导叫过去询问情况。天亮上班后，我又被医院监察科给约谈了，还是问我情况，问消息来源，问事情经过和是否认识到错误。后边我也没想到警察会找我。1月3日，他们打电话叫我去派出所签《训诫书》，以前也没和警察打过交道，我当时也很担心，不签的话怕不能脱身，我去了走完流程就签字走了。这事我也没给家里人说，当时压力比较大，担心医院处罚，影响以后工作晋升之类的。后来我一个同学知道了，帮忙介绍了记者，我直接跟记者说了这些情况。
 

财新记者：警方第一次通报是在1月1日，称当时已传唤八名造谣人员，而你是在1月3日被叫去派出所的？这是不是说你是这八人之外被处理的人？

 

李文亮：这个就不清楚了，我不能确定，你说的也有可能，我现在只想早日康复。
 

财新记者：警方给你的《训诫书》上写的是在互联网上发表不实言论，当时还有人觉得你造谣，你怎么看？
 

李文亮：我觉得不算造谣，因为报告写得清清楚楚是SARS。而且我只是想提醒同学注意，并不想引起恐慌. . . 。
 

财新记者：既然不认为是造谣，那你想过以后会不会走司法途径来要个说法？
 

李文亮：没有，司法途径恐怕很麻烦，我不想跟公安局找麻烦，我很怕麻烦。大家知道真相更重要，平反对我而言不那么重要了，公道自在人心。. . . .
 

财新记者：1月28日，最高法院在公号发了一篇武汉八名“造谣者”处罚是否得当的评论文章。你可能是这八人之外的人，当时你看到后有什么想法？
 

李文亮：看到最高法院的文章后，我心里放松了许多，不太担心医院的处理了。我觉得一个健康的社会不该只有一种声音，不同意利用公权力过分干预。

See, "Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia 'Whistleblower' Li Wenliang: 'Truth is Most Important'" [新冠肺炎“吹哨人”李文亮：真相最重要], Caixin, February 7, 2020, http://china.caixin.com/2020-02-07/101509761.html

 

In an interview with the New York Times, Li Wenliang had this to say about the reprimand:

 

Dr. Li: If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.

NYT: How did you feel when the police accused you of spreading rumors?

Dr. Li: The police believed this virus was not confirmed to be SARS. They believed I was spreading rumors. They asked me to acknowledge that I was at fault. I felt I was being wronged, but I had to accept it. Obviously I had been acting out of good will. I felt very sad seeing so many people losing their loved ones.

 

答：如果官方提前公布疫情信息我想会好很多。应该跟（更）公开透明。
问：警方训诫您的时候他们有没有说为什么在自己的同学微信群里面分享这样的信息是错误的，是造谣呢？他们认为到底哪里您做错了？他们当时怎么说的？
答：（警方）认为不能确定是SARS，认为我造谣，让我认识错误。
问：您当时是什么感受？您觉得您错了吗？
答：觉得比较委屈，但是只能接受。明明出于好意，而且报告上写的很清楚。

 

See,  "He Warned of Coronavirus. Here’s What He Told Us Before He Died" [对话疫情“吹哨人”：李文亮医生生前采访实录], New York Times, February 7, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/asia/Li-Wenliang-china-coronavirus.html, https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20200208/li-wenliang-china-coronavirus.

 

At 12:57 am on February 7, 2020, the state sponsored Global Times tweeted that Li Wenliang was under emergency treatment.

 

Source: https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1225463450354110466

Both of the screenshots below were taken around 1:20 am on February 7, 2020. The screenshot on the left shows that a search for "political emergency treatment" [政治性抢救] returned results that included the hashtag "Li Wenliang passed away" [李文良去世]. The screenshot on the right shows that a search for "Li Wenliang political emergency treatment" [李文良 政治性抢救] returned no results.

 

At 2:58 am on February 7, 2020 the Wuhan Health Commission published an announcement online that Li Wenliang had passed away. 

 

 

The screenshot below was taken at 11:16 am on February 7, and shows the hashtag "Li Wenliang passed away" [李文良去世] was at #21 on Sina Weibo's trending keywords list.

 

This screenshot shows Baidu search results for Li Wenliang's phrase "a healthy society should not have only one voice" [一个健康的社会不该只有一种声音] on February 8, 2020. The top result is a post on Baidu's on PostBar [贴吧] social media platform. 

The screenshot on the left below was taken on February 8, 2020, and shows that first Baidu search result as it appeared at that time. The screenshot on the right below was taken on February 9, 2020, and shows the same URL now displays a notice saying "Very sorry, this post has been deleted."

The screenshot on the left below shows Baidu search results for "Li Wenliang" as they appeared on February 9, 2020. The screenshot on the right shows the search results for "Li Wenliang" as they appeared on February 15, 2020. The search results outlined in red are identical, and appeared to have remained unchanged throughout that period. The search results were all from sources under the direct control of the central government in Beijing.

The screenshot on the left below shows the search results for "Li Wenliang" as they appeared on February 14, 2020. The screenshot on the right below shows the search results for "Li Wenliang" as they appeared on Qihoo on the same day. Search results outlined in the same came are from the same source.

On March 4, 2020, Liu Xiaoming, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom, posted the following on his Twitter account regarding Li Wenliang: "China has made efforts to ensure transparency. We try our best to be open and responsible, which is praised by WHO. There’s no such a thing as China cracking down on people who gave away information."

 

Source: https://twitter.com/AmbLiuXiaoMing/status/1235355698776678401

 

On March 11, 2020, the state sponsored media outlet Caixin published a report in English that stated:

 

A Central Hospital department head blamed authorities for endangering lives by spreading false information."The false information released by the relevant departments — claiming the disease was controllable and would not spread from human-to-human — left hundreds of doctors and nurses in the dark, doing all they could to treat patients without knowing about the epidemic," the department head told Caixin. "And even when they fell ill, they could not report it. They could not alert their colleagues and the public in time despite their sacrifice. This is the most painful loss and lesson." 

See: "Update: Wuhan Doctors Say Colleagues Died in Vain Amid Official Cover-Up," Caixin, March 11, 2020, https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-03-11/wuhan-doctors-say-colleagues-died-in-vain-amid-official-coverup-101526650.html.

3. Lawyer Chen Qiushi [陳秋實]

Chen Qiushi obtain his PRC law license in 2016 and was an attorney at the LongAn Law Firm in Beijing (隆安律师事务所).

Archived version of Chen Qiushi's bio from his law firm's website. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190904025810/http://www.longanlaw.com/professionals/9337.html/

 

At 12:34 am on January 25, 2020, Chen Qiushi posted on Twitter that he was in Wuhan, and included a video of him saying: "I will use my lens to personally witness and record all the real situations that happen during this disaster prevention and quarantine process in Wuhan" [我会用我的镜头来亲自见证和记录武汉这次防灾检疫过程中所有发生的真实情况]. 

 

Source: https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1220746744146755584

 

Over the next several days Chen Qiushi posted images and videos of what was happening in Wuhan. For example, he posted this at 6:23 pm on February 4, 2020:

 

We have collected enough evidence to prove that Wuhan's medical care, first aid, and funeral services have been overloaded. In the future, I will not shoot and track death and cremation information. Because everyone should already have passed judgment in their hearts, I really can't bear to disturb the deceased again and again. Please rest in peace~~

 

Source: https://twitter.com/chenqiushi404/status/1224639698586357762

 

On February 7, 2020 a video titled "[Posted Seeking Help on Behalf of Others] Chen Qiushi's mother calls on Wuhan netizens to find Qiushi's whereabouts! We lost contact with citizen reporter Chen Qiushi after he went to Fangcang Hospital" [【求助代发】陈秋实妈妈呼吁武汉网友寻找秋实下落！公民记者陈秋实去方舱医院后失联] was posted on Chen Qiushi's Youtube channel.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7MVfqVM0Ag

These screenshots show that on February 9, 2020, Baidu began censoring search results for "Lawyer Chen Qiushi" [陈秋实律师]. The screenshot on the left was taken on the morning of February 9, and shows Baidu returned 140,000 results. The screenshot on the right was taken in the evening of the same day, and shows Baidu only returning 28 search results.

 

4. Beijing University Legal Scholar He Weifang [贺卫方]

Source: https://business.sohu.com/s2004/zhishifenzi50.shtml - Image shows He Weifang (bottom right hand image) listed as one of "50 Public Intellectuals Who Influence China" [ 影响中国的公共知识分子50人] published in the September 2004 edition of the Southern People Weekly [南方人物周刊]

 

On February 17, 2020, images of a hand-written note signed by He Weifang, Director of Peking University Judicial Research Center, began appearing on social media platforms and websites in China. Here are the images.

The title of the note was "Can This Heavy Toll Be Exchanged for Freedom of the Press?"[惨重的代价能否换来新闻自由?]. Some excerpts:

 

He [Xi Jinping] first issued verbal instructions on January 7 and written instructions on January 20, and he issued "clear demands" on January 22. On the first day of the first lunar month of the Gengzi year, that is on January 25, the Politburo Standing Committee convened to "re-study, re-deploy, and re-mobilize" to fight the epidemic, and decided to establish a central leadership team for the epidemic.

Let us not mention that January 7 was already a month into the outbreak of the epidemic, or that it is difficult to understand what the content of the deployment and mobilization was. Here is a shocking fact: the content of the statements made on January 7 concerning the Wuhan epidemic seems to have been handled by the official media in the manner of "retain it within the walls of the imperial palace and do not publicize it," and  the outside world was left completely unaware. Was the speaker aware that he had been "blocked," or that it was inappropriate to let the public know? After all is said and done, the root of the matter lies in a lack of freedom.

If newspapers and television stations in Wuhan and Hubei could report the epidemic freely and responsibly, why should they rely on this bureaucratic system of mutual blame? Why do so many people in Wuhan and the whole country get infected and suffer such misfortune? !

Alas, I've said enough. I hope this painful price can make those in authority realize: Without freedom of the press, not only is are the lives of the people made difficult, but there is no trust in the government, much less modern governance capabilities and systems.

他最早发出指示是在1月7日，1月20日作出批示，1月22日又发出“明确要求”。庚子年正月初一，即1月25日，再召开政治局常委会对抗击疫情“再研究、再部署、再动员”，并决定成立中央应对疫情领导小组。

我们姑且不说1月7日已经是疫情爆发一个月之后，也难以理解部署、动员的内容究竟如何，一个令人震惊的事实是：1月7日讲话涉及武汉疫情的内容似乎被官媒作了“留中不发”的处理，外界根本无从知晓。讲话者是否知道他遭到了“屏蔽”，抑或讲的内容不适合让公众知道？说到底，根子在于无自由。

如果武汉、湖北的报纸、电视可以就疫情进行自由而负责的报导，何至于要依赖这相互诿责的官僚体系？何至于武汉以及全国要这么多的人受感染、遭厄运？！

唉，不多说了。但愿这惨痛的代价能够让手握权柄者醒悟：没有新闻自由，就不仅生民多难，而且政府亦无信，更谈不上现代化的治理能力与体系。

The screenshot below was taken on February 20, 2020, and shows that a search for the title of He's letter on Sina Weibo returned no content.

The screenshot on the left below was taken in the afternoon of February 20, 2020, and shows that the first page of Baidu results included 10 results, and the first result was a web page about He's letter (outlined in blued). The screenshot on the right was taken later that same day, and shows that the first page of Baidu results included only nine results, and the first result had been removed.

The screenshot on the left below was taken in the afternoon of February 20, 2020, and shows that a search for the URL for the first Baidu result retrieved the relevant web page. The screenshot on the right was taken later that same day, and shows a search for that URL returned no results.

 

The screenshot below was taken on February 27, 2020, and shows that the relevant web page was still available, even though Baidu was no longer displaying it in its search results.

The screenshots below were taken in January 2015, and show that at that time:

• A search on Baidu web search for "He Weifang" returned over 4 million results, including results from social media (blog.sina.com.cn) and foreign (wikipedia.org) websites (outlined in blue).
• A search on Baidu Zhidao for "He Weifang" returned over 292,000 results.
• Baidu users had established a PostBar (Tieba) forum on "He Weifang."

The screenshots below were taken in December, 2020, and show that at that time:

• A search on Baidu web search for "He Weifang" returned over 700,000 results, with no results from social media or foreign websites.
• A search on Baidu Zhidao for "He Weifang" returned no results.
• Baidu has banned users from establishing a PostBar (Tieba) forum on "He Weifang." 
  

5. Tsinghua University Legal Scholar Xu Zhangrun [许章润]

Source: Screenshot of Xu Zhangrun's bio page from Tsinghua University's website

 

On February 4, 2020, an essay titled "When Fury Overcomes Fear" [愤怒的人民已不再恐惧] by Tsinghua University law professor Xu Zhangrun appeared online. Some excerpts (translation by Geremie R. Barmé, https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/viral-alarm-when-fury-overcomes-fear):

Unlimited government budgets have funded technological developments that are turning China into a mega data totalitarian state; we are already subjected to a 1984 style of total surveillance and control. This state of affairs has enabled what could be called “WeChat terrorism” which directly targets the country’s vast online population. Through the taxes the masses are, in fact, funding a vast Internet police force dedicated to overseeing, supervising, and tracking everyone and all of the statements and actions they author. The Chinese body politic is riven by a new canker, but it is an infection germane to the system itself. As a result, people live in a state of constant anxiety; they are keenly aware that the Internet terrorism is by no means merely limited to personal WeChat accounts being suspended or shut down entirely, nor to the larger enterprise of banning entire WeChat groups. Everyone knows that the online terror may readily escape the virtual realm to become overtly physical: That is when the authorities use what they have learned online to send in the police in real-time. Widespread anxiety leads to relentless self-censorship; people are beset by nagging fears about what inexplicable punishment may suddenly befall them.

As a result, the potential for meaningful public discussion is stifled. By the same token, the very channels of communication that should in normal circumstances exist for the dissemination of public information are choked off, and a meaningful, civic early-warning system that could play a crucial role at times of local or national emergency is thereby outlawed. In its place we have an evolving form of military tyranny that is underpinned by an ideology that I call “Legalistic-Fascist-Stalinism”, one that is cobbled together from strains of traditional harsh Chinese Legalist thought wedded to an admix of the Leninist-Stalinist interpretation of Marxism along with the “Germano-Aryan” form of fascism.

 

因其动用奠立于无度财政汲取的科技手段，这便形成了“1984”式“大数据极权主义”。缘此而来，其“微信恐怖主义”直接针对亿万国民，用纳税人的血汗豢养着海量网警，监控国民的一言一行，堪为这个体制直接对付国民的毒瘤。而动辄停号封号，大面积封群，甚至动用治安武力，导致人人自危，在被迫自我审查之际，为可能降临的莫名处罚担忧。由此窒息了一切公共讨论的思想生机，也扼杀了原本应当存在的社会传播与预警机制。由此，“基于法日斯主义的军功僭主政治”渐次成型，却又日益表现出“组织性失序”和“制度性无能”，其非结构性与解结构性。

 

The screenshots below were taken on February 5, 2020, and show the following results of a search for the title of Xu Zhangrun's essay on China's top three search engines:

• Baidu: No results.
• Qihoo: Results restricted to a white list of about 10 websites under the control of the central government, none of which are related to Xu Zhangrun's essay.
• Sogou: Results restricted to a white list of about 10 websites under the control of the central government, none of which are related to Xu Zhangrun's essay.

 

 

The screenshots below were taken in  July, 2018, and show that a search for "Xu Zhangrun" on Baidu returned over 200,000 results, including results from social media websites (like blog.sina.com.cn) and non-government run websites (like aisixiang.com).

The screenshots below were taken in December 2020, and show that a search for "Xu Zhangrun" on Baidu returned over 57,000 results, with no results from social media websites or non-government run websites. Instead, Baidu has restricted results to a white list of about 10 websites under the control of the central government.

6. Former Lawyer Xu Zhiyong [许志永]

Soucre: "Mr. Fashion"  [时尚先生] official blog, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20090809125245/http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47404fc70100efcv.html

Xu Zhiyong was a lecturer at the Beijing University of Post and Telecommunications and was one of the founders of the civil society groups Open Constitution Initiative ("Gong Meng" 公盟) and the Chinese News Citizens' Movement (中国新公民运动). In the August 2009 edition of China's Esquire Magazine [时尚先生] Xu said:

 

I hope that our country can be a free and happy one. No person need betray their conscience. Everyone needs only rely on their talent and character to find their position in life. A simple and happy society, where the goodness of humanity may find its apex, and its malice finds its nadir, where honesty, trust, kindness, and helping one another becomes commonplace, where there is not so much anger and anxiety, and there is a pure smile on every face.

我希望我们是个自由、幸福的国家。每个人不需要违背良心，只要靠自己的才能和品德就可以找到合适的位置；一个简单而幸福的社会，人性的善得到最大的张扬，恶得到最大的抑制；诚实、信用、友爱、互助将成为我们生活的常态，没有那么多烦恼和愤怒，每一个人脸上是纯真的笑容。 

On February 4, 2020, Xu Zhiyong published an open letter dated January 20 entitled "A Written Admonishment Urging Retirement" [劝退书]. Some excerpts:

The first infected person appeared on December 1, 2019; by the end of the month Wuhan’s hospitals were full of them. Yet the local police intimidated the eight doctors who tried to raise the alarm and CCTV set about “dispelling rumors.” These acts of connivance were aimed at preventing the truth from getting out. By January 12, 2020 at the latest, when the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published details of the genetic makeup of the virus, you should have been completely aware of what was going on but you continued to delay releasing information about the actual situation. Your prevarication led to an unconfined and explosive spread of what is now a nationwide epidemic. The lessons of 2003 are right there in front of your eyes. Do you really mean to tell us that you are completely out of touch and lacking any sensitivity to these facts?

2019年12月1日出现感染者，12月底武汉医院已经爆满，公安训诫恐吓八位医生，央视辟谣，官家合谋封杀真相。至少1月12日国家疾病预防控制中心公布病毒基因组时，您应该已知，却迟迟不批准公开真相，致疫情爆发举国灾祸。2003前车之鉴近在眼前，您就一点敏感性没有？

Translation: Geremie R. Barmé, https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/dear-chairman-xi-its-time-you-go.

 

On February 15, 2020 Xu Zhiyong was taken into detention by Chinese authorities.

 

The screenshot on the left below was taken on January 2, 2020, and shows that a search for "Xu Zhiyong" returned over 230,000 results, including results from social media (blogchina.com, Sina Weibo) and foreign (canadainternational.gc.ca) websites. The screenshot on the right below was taken on January 3, 2020, and shows the same search on Baidu returns only 84 results, all from about 10 websites operated by the central government.

More coverage of Xu Zhiyong on this blog can be found here:

• Sina Weibo Censors Call to Release Those Who Called for Disclosure of Officials' Assets: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/06/sina-weibo-censors-call-to-release.html
• Xu Zhiyong Detained (Again), China's Web Sites Censor It (Again): http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/07/xu-zhiyong-detained-again-chinas-web.html
• After Lawyer Xu Zhiyong is Detained His Baidu Encyclopedia Entry Disappears: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/07/after-lawyer-xu-zhiyong-is-detained-his.html
• China's Web Sites Censor Searches for Information on Lawyer Xu Zhiyong's Detention: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/07/chinas-web-sites-censor-searches-for.html
• China's State Media Talks About Xu Zhiyong, While China's Social Media Bans Discussion: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/08/chinas-state-media-talks-about-xu.html
• Xu Zhiyong Sentenced to 4 Years Imprisonment - A Chronicle of Recent Related Censorship: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/xu-zhiyong-sentenced-to-4-years.html

7. Businessman Ren Zhiqiang [任志强]

Source: Phoenix News

Prior to 2013 Ren Zhiqiang was a member of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. On February 15, 2015, the websites of several mainland China news outlets published an article entitled "Ren Zhiqiang: Our Government Basically Does Not Care About Protecting Private Property" (任志强：我们的政府根本就不想保护私有财产). Some excerpts:

GDP is falling. Why is it some are some investments moving abroad? Besides us, are others also investing abroad? So what are the reasons underlying falling private investment? Perhaps the main reasons are that the government has no credibility, violates its contracts, and appropriates private property. In addition, the government puts excessive emphasis on the gun and the knife and opposes Western value systems. The winds of the Cultural Revolution are picking up again. Furthermore, when it comes protecting private property, they talk about rule of law, when in fact the rule of law they emphasize is the power of government.

GDP不下降。为什么这一部分投到外面去了呢？除了我们以外，是不是还有别的部分也投到外面去了？所以民间投资下降的背后原因是什么？原因可能是政府没有信誉，违约和占用了民间资产的比例很大。另外是政府过度强调了枪杆子和刀把子，反对西方的价值观，文革之风又起来了。还有就是对于私有产权的保护，说是法治，但是实际上在强调了法治的时候是政府强势。

The article was deleted from those websites, and for the next several years Ren Zhiqiang's ability to publish on PRC based websites was gradually restricted and he became of target of the Party and the government. See:

• Weibo Big V Ren Zhiqiang Expresses Concern About Direction of Party's Ideology Campaign, Gets Censored - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2015/02/weibo-big-v-ren-zhiqiang-expresses.html
• State Media Deploys Blogger to Counter Criticisms From Lawyers, College Dean, and Big V Businessman About Ideology Campaign - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2015/02/state-media-deploys-blogger-to-counter.html
• Cyberspace Administration of China Orders Websites to Shut Ren Zhiqiang's Accounts - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2016/02/cyberspace-administration-of-china.html
• Party Puts Ren Zhiqiang on One Year Probation for Online Posts - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2016/05/party-puts-ren-zhiqiang-on-one-year.html

In early March, 2020 an essay attributed to Ren Zhiqiang began circulating online. Here are some excerpts from the untitled essay:

The reality shown by this epidemic is that the Party defends its own interests, the government officials defend their own interests, and the monarch only defends the status and interests of the core. Precisely this type of system is capable of a situation where only the ruler’s order is obeyed with no regard for the people. When the epidemic had already broken out, they wouldn’t dare admit it to the public without the king’s command. They wouldn’t dare announce the facts of the matter, and instead used the method of catching and criticizing “rumors” to restrict the spread of truth, resulting in the disease’s uncontainable spread. . . . 

China’s ruling party concealed the cause of the outbreak, then using the power of the entire country, followed up by sealing a city, deceiving the trust of the WHO, and winning international praise. But, it was harder to again deceive the Chinese people caught in the epidemic. Those who live in a democratic country with freedom of speech perhaps don’t know the pain of the lack of a free press and free expression. But Chinese people know that this epidemic and all the unnecessary suffering it brought came directly from a system that strictly prohibits the freedom of press and speech.  

这次疫情中可以看到的现实是，党在维护党的利益，官在维护官的利益，君则只是在维护一尊的核心地位与利益。正是这种体制造成了，只听君命而不顾民情的情况。当疫情已经发生时，却不敢在没有君令的情况下，向民众公布疫情。不敢公布事实与真相，反而用抓批“谣言”的方式，限制和阻止真相的传播，才造成了不可控制的传播。. . . .

中国执政党用隐瞒前期疫情暴发的原因，靠后续封城的举国之力，骗取了世卫组织的信任，并赢得了国际的称赞。但身历其中的中国人却难以再次欺骗。生活在言论自由的民主国家的人，也许并不知道没有新闻自由与言论自由的痛苦，但中国人知道这次疫情的暴发和所引发的一切本不应出现的痛苦，都来自于这个严禁新闻自由与言论自由的体制。

Translation: China Digital Times - https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/03/translation-essay-by-missing-property-tycoon-ren-zhiqiang/. A full translation can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200408113951/http://credibletarget.net/notes/RZQ.

Ren Zhiqiang was detained on March 12, 2020, and sentenced to 18 years in prison on September 22, 2020, for financial crimes.

The screenshot below on the left was taken on March 15, 2020, and shows that a search for "Ren Zhiqiang" on Baidu returned over 13 million results, mostly from websites licensed by, but not under the direct control of, the government (such Phoenix, Netease, and Tencent). The screenshot on the right was taken on March 16, 2020, and shows that the same search returns over 13,000 results, and all of the organic search results are from about 10 websites under the direct control over the central government (The People's Daily and China Radio International).

8. Zhang Zhan [张展]

 

On December 28, 2020, a court in Beijing sentenced Zhang Zhan to four years imprisonment for disturbing the peace in a public venue based on the following:

[D]uring the critical period of Wuhan's prevention and control of the novel coronavirus infectious pneumonia epidemic, defendant Zhang Zhan in her capacity as a witness repeatedly used WeChat, "Twitter" (Tui Te), "YouTube" (You Guan) and other Internet media to indiscriminately fabricate and publish documentary and commentary articles and information in text, video, and other formats to distort the circumstances of Wuhan's prevention and control of the novel coronavirus infectious pneumonia epidemic. In addition, she accepted interviews with foreign media Radio Free Asia and The Epoch Times and thereby led to a large number of relevant false information to be spread on domestic and foreign information networks, newspapers ,and magazines, which in fact caused a large number of Internet users to view, comment, and forward. It confused viewers and caused severe disruption of public order, and her actions constitute the commission of the crime of disturbing the peace.

被告人张展在武汉市防控新型冠状病毒感染肺炎疫情的关键期间，以亲历者的身份多次通过微信、“twitter”(推特)、“YouTube”(油管)等网络媒介以文字、视频等方式肆意编造、发布内容为歪曲武汉市防控新型冠状病毒感染肺炎疫情情况的记录性、评论性文章及信息并以此接受境外媒体“自由亚洲电台”、“大纪元”的采访，导致相关虚假信息在境内外信息网络、 报刊媒体上大量散布，并实际引发大量网民观看、评论、转发， 混淆视听，造成公共秩序严重混乱，其行为已构成寻衅滋事罪。 

See: Translation: Judgment in the Case of Citizen Journalist Zhang Zhan's Reporting on the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in Wuhan, https://blog.feichangdao.com/2021/01/covid-zhang-zhan-wuhan-journalist-judgment.html. 

The screenshot below was taken on December 30, 2020, and shows that a search on Baidu for "Zhang Zhan" returned three results relevant to Zhang's conviction - two from Netease (which were deleted within 48 hours) and one from Phoenix News - a copy of a Sina Weibo post by Hu Xijin, editor of the state sponsored Global Times, titled "Western Political and Public Opinion Powers Please Stop Your Continued Harming of Zhang Zhan" [请西方政治和舆论力量不要再继续害张展了]. 

That post was almost identical to Hu's op-ed that appeared on the Global Times' website a few hours later in Chinese and English:

•  单仁平：西方迷惑并无情消费了这名滋事者 - https://opinion.huanqiu.com/article/41IrGgElmbW
• West fools and ruthlessly exploits so-called ‘citizen journalist’ Zhang Zhan - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202012/1211382.shtml

Some excerpts from the English language editorial:

Zhang went to Wuhan as a "citizen journalist" in February. There, she published her so-called independent reports on social media platforms both at home and abroad. In October 2019, she publicly supported the protest in Hong Kong against the then already withdrawn anti-extradition bill and was temporarily detained for holding an umbrella that read: "The Communist Party of China should step down."

Western public opinion appreciates her values and her "bravery." But I believe she will hit the dead end of the Chinese legal framework if she keeps doing this for long. 

. . . .

In fact, during Wuhan's lockdown, many journalists were there reporting the real situation. Various kinds of videos were constantly released by ordinary residents on social media platforms. Since late January, the information surrounding Wuhan has been fairly adequate. With so many people writing and photographing the real situation, some of these works directly led to relevant officials being held accountable. Meanwhile, some of the articles and photos got the situation wrong, sparking fierce controversy. But apart from the online squabble, none led to serious consequences.

Why was Zhang the only one sentenced to 4-year imprisonment for picking quarrels and provoking trouble? I hope she can get out of what the Western ideology instilled in her mind.