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

According to the China.org.cn website (which is operated under the auspices of China’s State Council Information Office):

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

Thanks to his sacrifice, his squad won the ensuing battle.

Source: http://www.china.org.cn/china/60th_anniversary_people/2009-09/17/content_18547200.htm

According to the same website:

On March 13, 1988, a major forest fire broke out in Shimian County and [Lai Ning] (赖宁) and his classmates went to help with the fire-fighting efforts. The students were passing a still-smoldering area of forest on the way home that evening when a gust of wind rekindled the flames. Lai, who was at the back of the group was caught in the blaze and died.

Source: http://www.china.org.cn/china/60th_anniversary_people/2009-09/17/content_18547259.htm

On May 22, 2013, Sun Jie (孙杰) posted the following on his "Exercise Book" (Zuoyeben - 作业本) Sina Weibo account :

Because Qiu Shaoyun lay on a bonfire without moving, in the end the restaurant customers refused to pay the bill for something only cooked on one side. They all said that Lai Ning's barbecue was better.
由于邱少云趴在火堆里一动不动最终食客们拒绝为半面熟买单，他们纷纷表示还是赖宁的烤肉较好

Sun was well known blogger on Sina Weibo (known in Chinese parlance as a “Big V,” and at the time of the post he had over 6,030,000 followers. Before being deleted the following day, Sun’s post was reposted 662 times, liked 78 times, and commented on 884 times.

In April, 2015, beverage maker Jia Duo Bao (加多宝) was holding an "appreciation" event at its "Jia Duo Bao Cold Tea 2014 Sales Team Awards" it posted over 300 "Thank You" posters on the "Jia Duo Bao Campaign" weibo, thanking others including the news media, commercial partners, consumers, and certain famous figures, including Sun. Jia Duo Bao’s “Thank You” to Sun was posted on April 16 and read as follows:

Many thanks @ExerciseBook, congratulations on the popularity of your barbecue. As makers of cold tea, we support you becoming the CEO of a barbecue stand, 100,000 bottles to open shop, walk the talk ^_^#ManyThanksCampaign#.
多谢@作业本，恭喜你与烧烤齐名。作为凉茶，我们力挺你成为烧烤摊CEO，开店十万罐，说到做到^_^#多谢行动#

That same day Sun posted a public response on his "Exercise Book" account:

Many thanks for the 100,000 bottles, I will certainly open the barbecue shop, only I haven't fixed which day. But regardless, everyone who leaves a message here will get a free drink when they enter the store!!!
多谢你这十万罐，我一定会开烧烤店，只是没定哪天，反正在此留言者，进店就是免费喝！！！

According to the state sponsored Global Times, Jia Duo Bao posted an apology on April 17 and Sun posted an apology on his “Exercise Book” account on April 25.

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

On October 19, 2016, China's Supreme People's Court published a piece on its website entitled "People's Courts Come to the Defense of the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain' and Other Model Cases Involving the Right of Human Dignity of Heroic Figures" (人民法院依法保护“狼牙山五壮士”等英雄人物人格权益典型案例). The Supreme People’s Court summarized the outcome of the lawsuits as follows:

In the first instance judgment the Beijing Daxing District People's Court held that, according to the provisions of Article 2 of the "Tort Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 69 of the "Supreme People's Court Explanation Regarding Applying the 'Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China'," and Article 3 of the "Supreme People's Court Explanation Regarding Certain Issues  Relating to the Determining Compensation Responsibility for Mental Suffering in Civil Infringement," the interest in personal dignity that the martyr Qiu Shaoyun accrued during his life will continue to receive legal protection. As a close relative of Qiu Shaoyun, Que Shaohua had the right to file a lawsuit. the statements published by Sun Jie equated "the martyr Qiu Shaoyun bravely sacrificing his life on the fire" to "barbecue only cooked on one side," and this derogated and insulted the personal dignity of the martyr Qiu Shaoyun. This constituted an intentional tort, and as the statements were rapidly spread through a public Internet platform, it created a severe social impact, simultaneously damaging the public's nationalist and historical sentiments and harming the public interest. It also caused emotional harm to the relatives of the martyr Qiu Shaoyun.

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

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

However, because Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao proactively deleted the original statements, and therefore could only eliminate the impact of the consequences caused by their infringement by formally apologizing and eliminating the influence. It was held: Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao shall publicly issue a notice of formal apology within three days of the judgment becoming effective, said notice to be published for five days. Sun Jie and Jia Duo Bao shall bear joint liability to compensate Qiu Shaohua for one yuan for emotional suffering. After the first instance judgment neither party appealed. 

北京市大兴区人民法院一审认为，根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第三条、《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》第六十九条以及《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》第三条之规定，邱少云烈士生前的人格利益仍受法律保护，邱少华作为邱少云的近亲属，有权提起本案诉讼。孙杰发表的言论将“邱少云烈士在烈火中英勇献身”比作“半边熟的烤肉”，是对邱少云烈士的人格贬损和侮辱，属于故意的侵权行为，且该言论通过公众网络平台快速传播，已经造成了严重的社会影响，伤害了社会公众的民族和历史感情，同时损害了公共利益，也给邱少云烈士的亲属带来了精神伤害。虽然孙杰发表的侵权言论的原始微博文章已经删除且孙杰通过微博予以致歉，但侵权言论通过微博已经被大量转载，在网络上广泛流传，已经造成了严重的社会影响，因此，应在全国性媒体刊物上予以正式公开道歉，消除侵权言论造成的不良社会影响。加多宝公司发表的案涉言论在客观方面系与孙杰的侵权言论相互呼应且传播迅速，产生较大负面影响；主观上，加多宝公司在其策划的商业活动中应尽到审慎的注意义务，加多宝公司应当对孙杰发表的影响较大的不当言论进行审查而未审查，存有过错，因此，亦应承担侵权责任。但是，由于孙杰和加多宝公司已经主动删除原始侵权言论，因此只能通过赔礼道歉、消除影响的方式消除侵权所造成的后果，判决：孙杰、加多宝公司于判决生效后三日内公开发布赔礼道歉公告，公告须连续刊登五日；孙杰、加多宝公司连带赔偿邱少华精神损害抚慰金1元。一审判决后，双方当事人均未上诉。

The Supreme People’s Court website went on to explain why this was a “Model Case”:

This is a model case of malicious defamation and insult of a national hero and revolutionary martyr and harming their interests in personal dignity. What makes this case special is that first a famous Internet user maliciously insulted and defamed a national hero, and then a commercial company made use of the unlawful statements to maliciously drive up the efficacy of a commercial promotion. The combination of these two actions formed a single damaging outcome.

The judgment in this case is worthy of praise in the following ways: 

First, in its analysis of the infringing statements, it linked the context in which they were made to the publication and public reaction to them, and recognized that the infringing parties were objectively malicious and the harmful consequences.  

Second, in grasping collective infringement of multiple parties, it focused its analysis on the connections between the multiple statements and their interaction, correctly grasping the commonality between the subjective relationship among the parties and the harmful consequences.

Third, in terms of the nature of the liability, it recognized the joint liability between multiple infringing parties. 

Fourth, in terms of the form of the liability, based on the fact that the infringing parties had  deleted the infringing statements, it held they bore a responsibility to formally apologize and provide compensation for emotional suffering, and this form of liability was appropriate.

This judgment safeguarded the legal rights and interests of a national hero and revolutionary martyr, and serves as a clear warning that it is a tortious act to insult and defame the personal dignity of a national hero and revolutionary martyr and engage in malicious commercial speculation to obtain unlawful benefits. 

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

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

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

Those two articles questioned the official version of events that took place during World War II, which are summarized on the website of China’s State Council Information Office as follows:

In 1941, during the Sino-Japanese war, a group of five Communist soldiers were able to deceive the advancing Japanese army and drew them up to the slopes of Langya Mountain. The Japanese, thinking they were besieging the main army, lost valuable time and troops trying to eliminate them. When the five heroes ran out of bullets, they jumped off the cliffs. Three of them died but two could hang by a tree branch, survived and could recount the story. In the mean time, the Chinese main force could escape and regroup.

Hong’s impetus for writing those two articles appears to have been the detention of Zhang Guanghong (张广红) for posting the following on his Sina Weibo on August 27, 2013:

Teacher Yuan Tengfei was filming the movie of the screenplay "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain, and when Mr. Geng went to the location to understand the situation, the locals said: These five were just a few straggling soldiers of the Eighth Road Army, and after they got here they wanted to eat and drink, and if you showed any reluctance they beat you. Because a few of them held guns, the locals didn't dare give offense. Afterwards some people came up with an idea, and secretly to the Japanese of their whereabouts. The Japanese then came along and surrounded them, and the locals intentionally steered the five to flee down a dead end path."

老师袁腾飞拍‘狼牙山五壮士’电影编剧，邢某去当地了解实情，村民说：这五人只不过是几个散兵游勇土八路，来村里后要吃要喝，稍不如意就打人。由于几人手上有枪，村民们也不敢惹。后来有人想出了个办法，偷偷地把他们的行踪告诉日本人。日本人就来围剿了。村民故意引5人绝路逃跑。

The day after Zhang posted this, the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau Yuexiu District Division detained him, and on August 30, 2013, it issued an order that Zhang would be subjected to seven days of administrative detention in accordance with the provisions of Articles 25(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." That article provides:

Anyone who commits any of the following acts shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days, and may be concurrently fined 500 yuan. If the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained 5 days or less or be fined not more than 500 yuan: 1. Intentionally disturbing public order by spreading any rumor, giving false information about the situation of any risk, epidemic disease or emergency, or by any other means . . . .

有下列行为之一的，处五日以上十日以下拘留，可以并处五百元以下罚款；情节较轻的，处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款：（一）散布谣言，谎报险情、疫情、警情或者以其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的；……。

At the time of his detention, several state sponsored media outlets reported on the matter. For example, on August 31, 2013, the state sponsored Southern Metropolitan Daily published an article in its print edition entitled “Yue Police: Internet User Detained for Defaming the Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain” (穗警方：网民污蔑狼牙山五壮士被拘). Some excerpts:

A search by a Southern Metro reporter indicated that this was not the first time this information had appeared online. As early as 2007, Internet users had already posted this information on Baidu’s PostBar forum, and this kind of information was posted many times thereafter, but the posters’ identities could not be confirmed.

南都记者搜索发现，这一信息并非首次出现在网络，早在2007年，就已经有网友在百度贴吧上发布过此消息，同样的消息此后又曾多次被发布，但发帖者的身份无法确认。

Similarly, on September 1, 2013, the state sponsored Beijing Youth Daily publishes an article in its print edition entitled “An Internet User in Guangzhou is Detained for Spreading Rumors About the “Five Heroes” (广州一网民涉嫌散布“五壮士”谣言被拘留). Some excerpts:

In March 1996, a news report entitled "Five Great Men, One Insignificant One - There Were Six Men at Wolf Tooth Mountain" caused a momentary stir, with the article outlining that there were six people doing battle on Wolf Tooth Mountain that year, with five jumping and one surrendering and being killed. The report was republished by quite a few newspapers and magazines.
On July 18, 2007, an Internet user posted an article on Baidu's PostBar forum entitled "The Truth About the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain Who Plummeted to Death in Their Prime." Quite a few Internet users followed and responded trying to further understand this heretofore unknown "story."
On December 14, 2011, the author of a post on Baidu's PostBar forum entitled "Here is the Real Truth About the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain!" wrote that "In 1985 I once followed a work team though the mountainous areas of Wolf Tooth Mountain in Guantou Village in Yi County for half a year doing a survey of the situation in the countryside. I was fortunate to hear an old man offer a different description of the story of the Five Heroes."

1996年3月，—篇名为《五人重于泰山，—人轻于鸿毛———狼牙山有六人》的通讯轰动—时，文中记述称当年狼牙山上作战的共有6人，5人跳崖、1人投敌被杀，这条通讯曾被不少报刊转载。
2OO7年7月18日，有网友在百度贴吧里发布名为《被吹得夭花乱坠的狼牙山五壮士的真相》的文章，不少网友跟帖回复试图进—步了解鲜为人知的“故事”。
2O11年12月14日，百度贴吧里—篇名为《狼牙山五壮士的真相原来是这样!》的帖子里作者写道:“1985年我曾随—个‘上山下乡’工作组在狼牙山所在地的易县管头乡做过半年的农村状况调查工作，有幸聆听了—位老先生对五壮士故事的另—种描述。”

After his release Zhang sued the Yuexiu District Public Security Bureau in the Guangzhou Yuexiu District People's Court demanding compensation for wrongfully imprisoning him. That court found in favor of the Yuexiu District Public Security Bureau.

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

Errors of Fact:

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

Errors of Law:

Article 25 of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law” requires intent, and therefore the Public Security Bureau had the burden to demonstrate:

• Zhang himself fabricated and spread rumors.
• The rumor's content was shocking enough to trigger a public panic and cause chaos.
• Zhang had an intent to disrupt public order.

On May 20, 2015, the Intermediate People’s Court rejected Zhang’s appeal saying:

The Appellee [Public Security Bureau] believed that the Appellant [Zhang] used the Internet to publish false stories about the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" to distort the image of revolutionary martyrs, thereby causing harmful effects online, and that this constituted the act of spreading rumors and disturbing public order, and therefore imposing punishment in this case accorded with the aforementioned provisions.

被上诉人认为上诉人利用网络发布了虚构的“狼牙山五壮士”故事，歪曲革命烈士形象，在网络上造成了不良影响，构成散布谣言、扰乱公共秩序的行为，对其作出涉案处罚，符合上述规定。

Court Judgment: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=56361ea5-4a0c-47d6-a112-21270b5dd4fb

Supreme People's Court Website: No Liability for Inappropriate Speech Directed at Historical Nihilists

On October 19, 2016, China's Supreme People's Court published a piece on its website entitled "People's Courts Come to the Defense of the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain' and Other Model Cases Involving the Right of Human Dignity of Heroic Figures" (人民法院依法保护“狼牙山五壮士”等英雄人物人格权益典型案例). 

This blog previously summarized two of the four cases discussed in the article:

• A Dispute Wherein Huang Zhong and Hong Zhenkuai Sue Mei Xinyu for Infringing Their Right to Reputation
• A Dispute Wherein Huang Zhong and Hong Zhenkuai Sue Guo Songmin for Infringing Their Right to Reputation

See: Courts Hold Referring to Historical Nihilists as "Sons of Bitches" is Not Defamatory

The SPC website article began by going over the facts of each case, which are summarized here:

• In its November 2013 edition the journal Yanhuang Chunqiu (炎黄春秋) published an article entitled “Inconsistent Details in the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain” (狼牙山五壮士”的细节分歧). The article was authored by Hong Zhenkuai (洪振快) and edited by Huang Zhong (黄钟).
• On November 23, 2013, Mei Xinyu (梅新育) posted the following statement on his verified Sina Weibo:

"What is motivating the editors and writers at 'Yanhuang Chunqiu'? Couldn't dig up a turnip to eat during a time of war? Is it too polite to say these kinds of writers and authors are sons of bitches?"
《炎黄春秋》的这些编辑和作者是些什么心肠啊？打仗的时候都不能拔个萝卜吃？说这样的作者和编辑属狗娘养的是不是太客气了？

• The same day, Guo Songmin (郭松民) reposted Mei’s post and added the following comment on his verified Sina Weibo:

Oppose historical nihilism, if nothing is done about this gang of sons of bitches its a joke!
反对历史虚无主义，不动这帮狗娘养的就是笑话！

• In March 2014, Huang and Hong sued Mei and Guo for defamation in separate lawsuits. Huang and Hong lost.

The SPC website article then provided the following explanations for why these cases were “model.”

Mei Xinyu

This case is a model case of infringement of the right to reputation arising from weibo statements evaluating a third party's article. What makes this case a model case is that the defendant's statements were evaluations and criticisms directed at an article by the plaintiffs regarding the historical heroic figures and historical events of the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain." Whether or not the defendant's statements exceeded necessary bounds of propriety and infringement upon their personal dignity implicates several factors such as:

• the matters related in the article published by the plaintiffs;
• the degree to which the plaintiffs could have foreseen the criticisms and assessments of third parties that the article they published would trigger, and the duty of tolerance that they should bear as a result;
• the subjective circumstances under which the defendant published their statements;
• whether or not the statements led to the public holding a lower opinion of the plaintiffs.

These are the major factors to be considered when determining whether the defendant's actions constitute an infringement, and are also the major and difficult issues in cases involving infringement of the right to reputation.

In this case, from the People's Court's analysis of the significant historical meaning of the historical figures and historical incidents implicated in the content of the plaintiff's article, it believed that the plaintiffs bore a relatively high duty of tolerance toward the statements triggered by the article, and relatively correctly defined the duty of care the plaintiffs bore for their own statements. Considering such aspects as the defendant's subjective motivation in publishing their statements and the targets of their criticism, as well as method by which those in the public who read their statements received information and made their assessments of the plaintiffs, the court held that while the defendant's statements were inappropriate, they did not constitute an infringement of rights. This was an accurate and comprehensive application of current law which balanced a party's freedom to act with the safeguarding of the legal rights and interests of others.

本案是微博言论评价他人文章所引发的名誉权侵权的典型案例。本案的典型之处在于，被告的言论，系对原告所发表的关于“狼牙山五壮士”这一历史英雄人物及其历史事件的文章作出的评价和批评。被告的言论是否超出必要的限度、其妥当性以及是否侵害他人人格，涉及到原告所发表文章涉及的事项、原告对于所发表文章所引发他人批评或评价的预见程度和应当负有的相应的容忍义务，以及被告所发表言论的主观状态、其言论是否导致原告社会评价降低等因素，均为被告是否构成侵权的重要考量因素，也是名誉权侵权案件中的重点和难点问题。本案中，人民法院从原告所发表文章的内容以及其涉及的历史人物及其历史事件的重大历史意义分析，认为原告对于该文所引发的言论具有较高的容忍义务，较为准确地界定了原告对于自己言论的注意义务；从被告发表言论的主观动机以及其言论所批评的对象、受众从其言论中获得信息的方式以及受众由此对原告所作出的社会评价等方面，认定被告并未构成侵权的同时，指出其言论亦有不当之处，在准确、全面适用现行法的同时，更是贯彻了侵权法平衡行为人的行为自由与保护他人合法权益的原则。

Guo Songmin

This case arose from the same article that triggered the case in which Huang Zhong and Hong Zhenkuai sued Mei Xinyu for infringing on their right to reputation. In this case, when the People's Court analyzed whether or not the defendant committed an infringement, it stressed that the people's heroes, heroic deeds and their spirit represented by the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" have become an important component of the common historical memory of the Chinese people, as well as an important aspect of the Chinese sentiment and spiritual world. The article published by the plaintiffs casts doubts upon the public consensus and mainstream value system, and they should have foreseen the assessments that it would trigger, and they should bear a relatively high duty of tolerance. 

At the same time, the court also conducted a comprehensive evaluation of various facets including the overall new developments brought about by tolerance of statements on Internet media and the social media tools of the Internet era, as well as the subjective nature of, the cause-and-effect relationship of, and damages arising from, the defendant's statements.

本案与黄钟、洪振快诉梅新育名誉权侵权案系由同一文章所引发的关联案件。在本案中，人民法院在分析被告是否构成侵权时，强调以“狼牙山五壮士”为代表的民族英雄、英雄事迹以及其精神，已经成为中华民族共同历史记忆和中华民族感情及精神世界的重要内容。原告所发表文章对前述社会共识及主流价值观提出质疑，就应当预见到其可能引发的评价，亦应负有较高的注意义务。同时，结合网络媒体及互联网时代的社交媒体工具对言论容忍度带来的新变化，以及被告的言论在主观、因果关系以及损害后果方面等因素作出综合评价。应该说，这一判决准确把握了侵权法在互联网时代的新发展，妥当界分了对立言论之间的相互关系。

Baidu, Sina, News Websites Censor Discussion of Retired Soldiers' Protest in Beijing

On October 12, 2016, the state sponsored Global Times published an article entitled “China Vows to Address ‘Challenges Facing Veterans' After Protest.” Some excerpts:

China's military authorities on Wednesday pledged to continue addressing the difficulties facing some military veterans, after over 1,000 of them gathered outside a military building to protest their dismissal.

China's Ministry of National Defense confirmed the gathering with the Global Times in a statement sent by its Information Bureau on Wednesday, saying that in recent years some veterans have been facing personal and employment problems, and that they have appealed with letters and calls.

The statement said that the Communist Party of China, the State Council--China's Cabinet--and the Central Military Commission care about veterans and pay high attention to solving their problems.

. . . .

More than 1,000 protesters marched and chanted in front of China's defense ministry Tuesday, the latest apparent demonstration by soldiers as the world's largest standing military modernizes and downsizes. Two demonstrators told Associated Press that they were veterans who wanted the government to address military pensions.

"They protested because they don't have a job after serving a long period of time in the army, some for a dozen years," Liu Feiyue, editor of the website Minsheng Guancha, which monitors civil rights issues, was quoted as saying in the report.

The Global Times published a Chinese language version in its print edition, but there was no indication that the Global Times posted the Chinese language version on its website. These screenshots show that the article was being deleted from other websites where it had been reposted.

 The Chinese language version was entitled “Retired Soldiers’ Rights Defense Issues Should Be Objectively Assessed” (退伍军人维权问题应得到客观评估).  Besides the differing titles, other differences between the English and Chinese versions included:

• The English version said specified the location as "China's defense ministry." The Chinese version said it happened "in front of a military affairs leadership agency" (军事领导机关前);
• The English version said that "more than 1,000 protestors marched and chanted." The Chinese version said "several hundred retired soldiers gathered" (数百名退伍军人聚集).
• The English version said "Two demonstrators told Associated Press that they were veterans who wanted the government to address military pensions." The Chinese version said foreign media were unable to determine what the demonstrators' demands were (关于他们的诉求，和他们都是哪个年代退伍的，外媒说法不一).

These screenshots show that Sina Weibo began censoring searches for “Retired Soldiers Petition” (退伍军人上访) on October 12.

These screenshots show that on October 13 Baidu deleted a question from its Knowledge (Zhidao 知道) platform.

 

The question read: “Yesterday over 2,000 retired soldiers assembled in Beijing” (昨天北京聚集了2000多名退伍军人).

The answers were:

• “Haven’t heard of it” (没听说啊)
• “Never seen people in China march” (从没见过中国有人游行)
• “Its said the government deducted their medical expenses and other charges, many are former leaders” (说政府克扣他们的医疗费用还有其他什么费，好多还是以前领导的)

Original URL: http://zhidao.baidu.com/link?url=kqehCnXAHS_R3Difdoxiia_ymCB1i0neJvwoC-Wij-2WvnajK6QY4yf4zpkxjn7W4V-s0T4VxpQNMvQ9YvuxnarV26Y8KWpB6BgEWAepS7W

These screenshots were taken on October 13, and show that Baidu had banned users from establishing PostBar (贴吧 Tieba) forums on the subjects of “Retirees” (退伍) and “Soldiers” (军人).

Courts Hold Referring to Historical Nihilists as "Sons of Bitches" is Not Defamatory

Also from this Blog:

• Baidu Censors Diary of Du Daozheng - Former Head of China's Book Censorship Agency 
• Baidu and Sina Censor Information About Yanhuang Chunqiu Magazine and Former Editor Du Daozheng

In its November 2013 edition the journal Yanhuang Chunqiu (炎黄春秋) published an article entitled “Inconsistent Details in the 'Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain” (狼牙山五壮士”的细节分歧). The article was authored by Hong Zhenkuai (洪振快) and edited by Huang Zhong (黄钟). Some excerpts:

Article as it appeared on
Yanhuang Chunqiu Website

The story of the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" is a famous one, and because it has been included in grade school literature textbooks for decades, on could say that it is known to all. The official version of the story can seen in this representative account published by Xinhua Beijing on June 16, 2005 and on the following day in the People's Daily:

In August 1941, the invading Japanese army assembled a force of over 70,000 soldiers at the northern front to launch a devastating "major mopping up" of the Beiyue and Pingxi bases in the Puchaji border region. On September 25, about 3,500 Japanese troops lay siege to Wolf Tooth Mountain area in Southwest Yi County, intending to annihilate the Eighth Road Army and the local Party-Government organs. The Seventh Brigade of the First Division of the Puchaji military district received orders to divert to provide a defensive screen for the Party-Government organs, troops, and general public. After completing the mission and while preparing to withdraw, Ma Baoyu and four other soldiers of the Sixth Platoon remained behind to act as a rear guard, providing cover for the entire battalion's shift. They remained steadfast and calm, and through their courage and advantageous use of geography launched a counter-attack, launching several attacks that pushed back the Japanese puppet-soldiers, killing and wounding about 90 people. 

The following day, in order to prevent the Japanese puppet-soldiers from discovering the direction their company had taken, they undertook a fighting retreat, leading the Japanese puppet-soldiers up the blind alley of Qipanluo Summit on Wolf Tooth Mountain. The Japanese puppet-soldiers, mistakenly believing they were closing the pincers on the main force of the Eighth Road Army, launched sudden attack. 

The five heroes did not flinch and fought back valiantly. When they had exhausted their ammunition they fought back with rocks, fighting steadfastly until sundown.
Faced with the inexorable advance of the Japanese puppet-soldiers, they chose to die rather than surrender. They destroyed their rifles and, without looking back, leaped off a cliff dozens of meters above the ground.  

Ma Baoyu, Hu Delin, and Hu Fucai died heroically for their country. Ge Zhenlin and Song Xueyi by dint of sheer luck escaped death when they became entangled in the trees.

This version has been used continuously for decades, but it has also been the constantly called in to question. For example, during the Great Cultural Revolution the Red Guards expressed doubts about how Ge Zhenlin and Song Xueyi escaped injury when jumping off a cliff.

On July 9, 1994, the Changjiang Daily published an article pointing out that at that time, that there were six, not five, people in Sixth Platoon, and that junior soldier was killed while defecting.

On August 11, 1995, the Yangcheng Evening News published another article claiming that the five heroes jumping off the cliff was "three jumped and two slid away," and while Ma Baoyu and two others jumped off the cliff, Ge Zhenlin and Song Xueyi managed to survive by "sliding down the cliff" and thereby getting caught by the trees.
. . . .
Once we dig deeply into the details of the accounts of the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain," we discover that the aforementioned participants did, at different times and different places, provide descriptions that contain many inconsistencies and contradictions.

For the same incident there may exist several contradictory accounts that may not comport with the facts, or there may be one such account that does actually comport with the facts. But it is not possible that all such accounts can simultaneously comport with the facts. Therefore, historians continue their in-depth research and discussion into the truth of the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain."

“狼牙山五壮士”是一个著名故事，因为被编入小学语文课本并沿用数十年，可谓尽人皆知。该故事的官方版本，可以新华社北京2005年6月16日电、次日《人民日报》刊登的文章为代表：

1941年8月，侵华日军华北方面军调集7万余人的兵力，对晋察冀边区所属的北岳、平西根据地进行毁灭性“大扫荡”。9月25日，日伪军约3500余人围攻易县城西南的狼牙山地区，企图歼灭该地区的八路军和地方党政机关。晋察冀军区第1军分区某部第七连奉命掩护党政机关、部队和群众转移。完成任务撤离时，留下第六班马宝玉等5名战士担负后卫阻击，掩护全连转移。他们坚定沉着，利用有利地形，奋勇还击，打退日伪军多次进攻，毙伤90余人。次日，为了不让日伪军发现连队转移方向，他们边打边撤，将日伪军引向狼牙山棋盘陀峰顶绝路。日伪军误认咬住了八路军主力，遂发起猛攻。5位战士临危不惧，英勇阻击，子弹打光后，用石块还击，一直坚持战斗到日落。面对步步逼近的日伪军，他们宁死不屈，毁掉枪支，义无反顾，纵身跳下数十丈深的悬崖。马宝玉、胡德林、胡福才壮烈殉国；葛振林、宋学义被山腰树枝挂住，幸免于难。

这个版本已经沿用了几十年，但也不断受到质疑。比如，文革中，红卫兵对葛振林、宋学义跳崖而未遇难表示怀疑。

1994年7月9日，《长江日报》刊登了一篇文章，提出当时六班不是5个人，而是6个人，还有一位副班长，投敌被杀。

1995年8月11日，《羊城晚报》又刊登了一篇文章，称五壮士跳崖是“三跳二溜”，马宝玉等三人跳崖牺牲，葛振林、宋学义是“顺着崖壁溜了下去”，所以被树木挂住，得以生还。
. . . .
当我们深入“狼牙山五壮士”有关叙述的细节时，就发现上述人员在不同时间、不同场合下的陈述存在诸多互相矛盾之处。而对于同一件事，相互矛盾的描述可能都不符合事实，也可能有一个符合事实，但不可能同时都符合事实。因此，对于“狼牙山五壮士”的真相，还有待历史学家的深入研究和探讨。

At around 1:00 in the afternoon on November 23, 2013, a Sina Weibo user using the pseudonym "Baodike" posted the following on their weibo:

Yanhuang Chunqiu: The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain Once Harvested the Masses' Radishes 

炎黄春秋：狼牙山五壮士曾拔过群众的萝卜

Bodike’s post excerpted content from the aforementioned article.

The same day, Mei Xinyu (梅新育) reposted Baodike's weibo and added  the following statement on his verified Sina Weibo:

"What is motivating the editors and writers at 'Yanhuang Chunqiu'? Couldn't dig up a turnip to eat during a time of war? Is it too polite to say these kinds of writers and authors are sons of bitches?"

《炎黄春秋》的这些编辑和作者是些什么心肠啊？打仗的时候都不能拔个萝卜吃？说这样的作者和编辑属狗娘养的是不是太客气了？

The same day, Guo Songmin (郭松民) reposted Mei’s post and added the following comment on his verified Sina Weibo:

Oppose historical nihilism, if nothing is done about this gang of sons of bitches its a joke!
反对历史虚无主义，不动这帮狗娘养的就是笑话！

In March 2014, Huang and Hong sued Mei and Guo in separate lawsuits. Huang and Hong lost in the lower courts and appealed. The Mei appeal was heard by the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court, and the Guo appeal was heard by the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court.

• Mei Xinyu Decision: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=1948cf02-52fd-49de-9f34-3f1abac646b7
• Guo Songmin Decision: http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=2b8e457c-de61-4c3b-8eb2-422619996231

Both Mei and Guo admitted writing the posts and offered a similar defense. Namely, they claimed that their criticisms were not directed at Huang and Hong personally, but should instead be viewed as legally-protected expressions of a defense against those who would cast doubt on official version of what happened on Wolf Tooth Mountain. The First Intermediate People’s Court summarized Guo’s position as follows:

Guo Songmin read and reposted another user’s weibo about "Yanhuang Chunqiu: The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain Once Harvested the Masses' Radishes," he then proceeded to critique those historical nihilists who would attempt to slander and sully martyrs of the Anti-Japanese War, defame the People's heroes, and violate social norms.
Guo Songmin believes there should be no tolerance for blasphemy of revolutionary martyrs,  no tolerance for insults of the People's heroes, and that every citizen has a duty and a responsibility to safeguard public morality and People's righteousness. 

郭松民是在阅读并转发了其他网民关于“炎黄春秋：狼牙山五壮士曾拔过群众的萝卜”的微博后，针对那些试图污蔑、玷污抗日英烈，丑化人民英雄，侵害社会公德的历史虚无主义者进行的评价。
郭松民认为，革命先烈不容亵渎，人民英雄不容玷污，每个公民都有自觉维护社会公德，维护人民大义的义务和责任。法院应依法驳回黄钟、洪振快的全部诉讼请求。

Both courts upheld the lower courts’ findings in favor of Guo and Song, and denied Huang's and Hong’s requests for relief.

In doing so, both courts upheld the defendants’ claim that it was unclear whether their posts were directed at Huang and Hong personally. As the First Intermediate People’s Court put it:

Looking at the content of the Weibo at Issue, it was an expression of Guo Songmin's evaluation of the historical nihilists' outright rejection of everything in mainstream ideology, and it neither mentioned anyone by name nor carried implication that it was directed at Huang Zhong or Hong Zhenkuai.
从涉诉微博内容来看，是郭松民针对历史虚无主义这一社会思潮一贯否定性评价的表达，并未指名道姓，也不存在以影射方式暗指黄钟、洪振快的情形。

The First Intermediate People’s Court went on to imply that, even if Guo had mentioned Huang and Hong by name, his speech would have been protected:

While on its face the "Details" article was an investigation into the details surrounding specific heroic deeds during the history of China's War of Resistance Against Japan, it was in fact a reevaluation of the historical position and historical actions of the the War of Resistance as represented by these heroic actions, in particular the people's united front to oppose Japan that was lead by the Chinese Communist Party.
. . . .
One should say that this article did, to a certain extent and to a certain degree, hurt the nationalist and historical feelings of the public. And given the significance of this, as the writer and editor of this article Huang Zhong and Hong Zhenkuai should have foreseen that this article might engender commentary, response, and criticism, even public reaction, and therefore owe a relatively high duty of tolerance thereto. 

然而，《细节》一文虽然在形式上是对我国抗日战争史中的一个具体英雄事迹细节的探究，但它实质上是对这起英雄事迹所代表的抗战史尤其是中国共产党领导下的抗日民族统一战线的历史地位和历史作用的再评价。
. . . .
应该说，该文在一定范围和一定程度上伤害了社会公众的民族和历史情感。在此意义上，黄钟、洪振快作为该文的作者和编辑，应当预见到该文所可能产生的评价、回应、批评乃至公众的反应，并因此对后者负有较高的容忍义务。

The Second Intermediate People’s Court followed the First Intermediate People’s Court in finding that Huang and Hong “owed a relatively high duty of tolerance” given that:

Inappropriate statements and critiques of these heroes and heroic events will hurt the nationalist feelings of the general public, and are extremely likely to evoke the dissatisfaction, and even strong language, from the general public.
对这些英雄人物和英雄事迹的不当言论和评价，都将会伤害社会公众的民族感情，极易引发社会公众的不满甚至严词批评。

Both courts’ judgments gave similar descriptions of the events surrounding the “Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain.” Here is the First Intermediate People’s Court’s version:

The victory of the Chinese people in the War of Resistance Against Japan was China's first comprehensive victory against an invading foreign enemy in modern times. The central role played by the Chinese Communist Party was key to China's victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan. The Eighth Road Army's "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" were a heroic group formed in the War of Resistance Against Japan, and are one of the prominent examples of how the people of China will not succumb to force and are willing to give their lives for their country. The spirit of fearless sacrifice and unyielding commitment to national integrity that they displayed became the precious spiritual treasure of the collective historical memory of the Chinese people.  

中国人民抗日战争胜利，是近代以来中国抗击外敌入侵的第一次完全胜利。中国共产党的中流砥柱作用是中国人民抗日战争胜利的关键。八路军“狼牙山五壮士”是抗日战争中产生的英雄团体，是中国人民不畏强暴，以身殉国的杰出代表之一。他们所展现出的大无畏牺牲精神和坚贞不屈的民族气节已经成为中华民族的共同历史记忆和宝贵精神财富。

The phrase “prominent examples of how the people of China will not succumb to force and are willing to give their lives for their country” (中国人民不畏强暴，以身殉国的杰出代表) used by the Court is identical to a phrase used by Xi Jinping in a 2014 speech commemorating the 69th anniversary of the “Chinese people’s victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan.” The text of the speech was published by Xinhua under the title “The Chinese People’s Eyes Are Clear, and Will Not Tolerate a Single Grain of Sand” (中国人民的眼睛里决容不下沙子). In that speech President Xi said:

Heroic groups, such as the Eighth Road Army's "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain,” the New Fourth Army’s “Liulaochuang Company,” the Eight Women Warriors of the Northeast United Resistance Army, and the 800 Heroes of the Guomindang Army were prominent examples of how the people of China will not succumb to force and are willing to give their lives for their country. This is what is known as “Steadfast to the end, they could not be daunted. Their bodies were stricken, but their souls have taken Immortality” 

八路军“狼牙山五壮士”、新四军“刘老庄连”、东北抗联八位女战士、国民党军“八百壮士”等众多英雄群体，就是中国人民不畏强暴、以身殉国的杰出代表。正所谓“诚既勇兮又以武，终刚强兮不可凌。身既死兮神以灵，魂魄毅兮为鬼雄。”

The latter quotation is from the poem “Battle” (國殤) attributed to Qu Yuan (屈原), and the translation is from Arthur Waley’s “A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems.” 

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

Actor Sun Haiying's Weibo shortly before it was shuttered.

December 14, 2014,  Red Flag Manuscript published an article by Li Yanyan (李艳艳 - whom it
identified as "with the Humanities division of Beijing Union University" - 北京联合大学) entitled "Some Tendencies That Must Be Addressed In Order to Safeguard Weibo's Ideological Security" ( 维护微博意识形态安全必须纠正的几种倾向). Some excerpts:

1. Guard Against Deception by Western Ideology Bundled Within "Universal Values" on Weibo
. . . .
Analysis of data on public sentiment research shows that some Big V's on Weibo lack an appreciation of the importance of the threat represented by the infiltration of the ideology of Western developed countries. Some even rely on foreign forces, blindly echoing them, and publicly insult leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and the Socialist system on their Weibo, repeatedly throwing up provocative topics to attack the government and incite social antagonism.

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

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

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

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

December 16, 2014, the Global Times published an editorial entitled “Public Opinion Divisions Reflected in Party Media.” Some excerpts:

In one of its recent articles, Hongqi Wen'gao, or Red Flag Manuscript, a political periodical, singled out for criticism some big Vs, which refers to verified Weibo users who have more than 500,000 followers. It poured scorn on "a renowned economist," "a famous actor," and "a real estate tycoon who has over 20 million followers," accusing them of slandering the Party's leadership. The article stirred up public opinion, and it was inferred by some Net users that the anonymous targets of criticism by the journal are respectively Mao Yushi, Sun Haiying and Ren Zhiqiang.

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

But at the same time, they faced some uncertainties. For instance, they risk being criticized by media outlets such as Hongqi Wen'gao. In such circumstances, they have nothing to complain about. They have influence in the sphere of public opinion, so they could refute Hongqi Wen'gao and its supporters, defend themselves or feel proud of being crowned "anti-Party."

December 26, 2014, the Global Times published an editorial by "Wang Xiaoshi" (王小石 - the Global Times did not provide any background on the author) entitled "America Hopes to Topple China, and Sun Haiying is Their Third Kind of Weapon" (美国欲扳倒中国 孙海英属第三种武器). Some excerpts:

There are currently three main kinds of weapons deployed in America's ideological war for hearts and minds to "topple China." the first kind is the universal values (which are fundamentally American values) which prior to 2013 were trumpeted throughout the two public opinion venues of the traditional media and the Internet. But the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia was an ally of America, and the double standards exemplified by proclaiming "human rights is more important than sovereignty" to support color revolutions, while violently suppressing the Occupy Wall Street movement show that universal values is a joke, and the Chinese people saw through it.

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

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

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

更让人震惊的是，伴随着孙海英信教的深入，他的微博上越来越多抹黑、诋毁中国共产党、毛泽东甚至抹杀中国历史文明的内容。例如：1.“我国的执政者无论遇到何等大的事，只要用一种极端的方法来指导人的思想和工作就行了——以阶级斗争为纲。”(2014.12.18)
. . . .
如此种种，警示我们新时期国家安全环境面临着极为严峻的挑战。披着基督教外衣的境外背景NGO已经在宗教信仰自由的名号下发起了意识形态心战，在社会基层以及舆论场上跟国家政权明目张胆地争夺民心。

September 17, 2015, the Global Times published an editorial by its editor-in-chief Hu Xijin (胡锡进 - writing under the name Shan Renping (单仁平)) entitled "Those Who Curse the Mainstream Shouldn't Hope to Act the Mainstream, What's the Point" (骂主旋律者非要演主旋律，何必). Some excerpts:

Based on information published online on the 11th, CCTV has dropped the war film "8848" starring Sun Haiying, leading to some heated discussions. Sun Haiying took to his own Weibo to express his strong dissatisfaction, while many Internet users expressed their support for CCTV's actions.

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

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

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

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

央视没有公开谈论取消播出《8848》的缘由，但是互联网上的各种分析认为，这与孙海英在微博上的激烈言论有关。如果是这样的话，那么央视的做法恐怕算不上意外。
. . . .　　
这不是自由不自由的问题。孙一直自由发言，作为基督徒他经常在微博上“传教”，也没有受限。

December 2015, the Cyber Administration of China organized meetings at the offices of China’s major website operators to “study the spirit of the Communiqué of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee.” For example, according to a report on the CAC website, on December 11, 2015, a meeting was held in Baidu’s offices, with over 100 Baidu employees in attendance. At the meeting it was “stressed that as a focal point of the State’s cyberspace  work, Baidu should be attentive to the work of the National Cyberspace System” (强调百度作为国家网信工作的重点单位，应着眼全国网信系统工作大局).

February 25, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China published an announcement entitled "The Results of the 2015 National Cyberspace System Law Enforcement's Raising the Flag and Unsheathing the Sword are Clear" (2015年全国网信执法举旗亮剑成效明显). Some excerpts:

According to statistics, during the entire year [of 2015] the national cyberspace system scheduled meetings with 820 illegal website operators over 1,000 times, and in accordance with the law cancelled the ICP licenses and registrations and shut down serious violators involving 4,977 websites, and shut down 2,260,000 various sorts of illegal accounts.
. . . .
With respect to outstanding issues that arose involving illegal online information content, the CAC arranged talks with Sina, Netease, Baidu, Sohu, Miaopai, etc., and this produced a significant social impact. As regards outstanding issues with harmful operating behavior by Internet enterprises, such as Baidu offering its "Hemophilia Forum" for sale, and other commercial operations where management was in chaos, meetings were held with officials at Baidu, and they were urged to undertake comprehensive correction and reform.
. . . .
With respect to various outstanding problems with news websites, weibo, weixin, search engines, forums, PostBar, etc, the CAC launched five comprehensive campaigns including the "Clean Web 2015," "Fix Borders 2015," "Purify Sources 2015," "Autumn Wind 2015," and "Seedling Protection 2015" to continuously cleanse the web of all kinds of illegal harmful information such as obscene pornography.

据统计，全国网信系统全年依法约谈违法违规网站820余家1000余次，依法取消违法违规网站许可或备案、依法关闭严重违法违规网站4977家，有关网站依法关闭各类违法违规账号226万多个。
. . . .
国家网信办就网络信息内容违法违规突出问题先后约谈新浪、网易、百度、搜狐、秒拍等，产生强烈社会反响；针对互联网企业不良经营行为突出问题，如百度贴吧出卖“血友病吧”，商业化运作管理混乱等突出问题，约谈百度公司负责人，督促其全面整改；
. . . .
针对新闻网站、微博、微信、搜索引擎、论坛、贴吧等各环节突出问题，国家网信办还开展了“净网2015”“清源2015”“固边2015”“秋风2015”“护苗2015”5个网上专项整治行动，持续清理网上淫秽色情低俗等各类有害信息。

February 26, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China published an announcement on its website entitled "CAC Continues to Strike Hard Against Illegal Behavior" (国家网信办持续重拳打击网上违法违规行为). Some excerpts:

Relevant websites shut down the accounts of several online Big V's such as @Luoyameng, @ActorSunHaiying, @WangYajunShanghai, @RongJián2001, @WenShanwa, @Jiyun, and @DaPengViewsTheWorld, on the grounds that they disregarded their social responsibilities, abused their personal influence, and on many occasions did engage in the behavior of posting illegal information online that opposed the basic principles affirmed in the Constitution, harmed the honor and interests of the nation, and spread rumors causing social disorder.

针对少数网络名人无视社会责任，滥用自身影响力，在网上多次发布反对宪法所确定的基本原则、损害国家荣誉和利益以及造谣传谣、扰乱社会秩序等违法违规信息的行为，有关网站依法关闭@罗亚蒙、@演员孙海英、@王亚军上海、@荣剑2001、@文山娃、@纪昀、@大鹏看天下等网络大V账号。

On February 27, 2016, the state sponsored Global Times published a report entitled “CAC Closes 580 ‘Misleading’ Social Media Accounts.” Some excerpts:

China's cyberspace administration authority shut down 580 social media accounts which "misled the public" or "violated regulations," including the accounts of several Internet celebrities, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) said on Friday.
. . . .
Among the big Vs, a term which refers to verified Weibo users who have more than 500,000 followers, who have been shut down are famous actor Sun Haiying, an editor of a Henan-based news website hnr.cn and a Beijing art center manager.

Sun has been the center of public criticism several times for making "disrespectful" comments about former leader Mao Zedong and for condemning homosexuality.

This screenshot was taken on February 28, 2016, and shows that a search on Sina Weibo for accounts with "Sun Haiying" in the name returned a censorship notice.

Baidu and Sina Censor References to "King Zhao" and "The Zhao Family"

On December 30, 2015, the state sponsored The Paper published an article entitled “Army Paper Provides Detailed Explanation of Xi Jinping’s Keyboard that Posted the Weibo: A Custom R&D Platform That Can Post Using a Mouse and Keyboard” (军报详解习近平键盘发微博：自主研发平台，鼠标回车键都可发).  That article cited a Weibo post on the People Liberation Army’s verified Sina Weibo account that showed what it claimed to be the computer Xi used, which had both a keyboard and mouse when Xi was not at the computer, but no mouse when Xi was at the computer.

 These screenshots show that December 30, 2015, Sina Weibo began censoring search results for “King Zhao’s Return” (赵王回车).

According to a response to the question “What is the meaning of the Current Event King Zhao’s Return?” (政治时事赵王回车是什么意思) posted on Baidu Knowledge (a Q&A product):

A few days ago the King of Zhao was on an inspection tour, and he pressed the return key, making a post on Weibo, and this became headlines in all the mainstream media.
If you can’t use the return key to post on Weibo, its because you are not a member of the family Zhao. 

前几天赵王视察时，按了一下回车键，发了一条微博，上了所有主流媒体的头条啊。
回车不能发微博的，因为你不是赵家人。

 Both the question and the answer were subsequently deleted.

On December 21, 2015, a user named “yingwenlee” posted an article on Baidu’s Encyclopedia (Baike 百科) entitled “The Zhao Family” (赵家人). Some excerpts:

The original form of "Zhao Family" was Grandpa Zhao as penned by Lu Xun, symbolizing the upper classes, which in reality was a general reference to bureaucrats, the rich and powerfull, well-placed cadres and their families and children.
. . . .
Some Internet users have analyzed this saying that China's capitalist market is a four-tiered structure: households, bankers, tycoons, and the Zhao Family.
. . . .
Behind every tycoon there is a boss, and these ultimate bosses that are bigger than the tycoons are commonly referred to "members of the Zhao family."
. . . .
On December 19, 2015, an essay entitled "Distinctly Terrifying Thoughts on the Vanke Baoneng Dispute: Barbarians at the Gate, Family Zhao Behind the Curtain" received over 100,000+ hits, and turned the focus of conversation to the "members of the Zhao family."

“赵家人”，其原型是鲁迅先生笔下的赵庄赵太爷，象征上层阶级，现实中泛指高级官僚、富豪、体制内干部以及家属子女等。
. . . .
有网友分析称，中国的资本市场是一个四层结构：散户、庄家、财阀、赵家人。
. . . .
而财阀背后，各有各的老板，这个比财阀还大的终极大老板，通常被称之为“赵家人”。
. . . .
2015年12月19日，一篇题为《细思极恐的万科宝能之争：门口的野蛮人，背后的赵家人》的文章，获得了“10万+”的点击率，把舆论焦点引向了“赵家人”。

These screenshots show that on the evening of January 4 a user named “huore520” deleted the section of the article discussing the Vanke/Baoneng article and removed all discussion of class, tycoons, and bosses. When huore520 was through editing, the article contained only references to the original Lu Xun text.

This screenshot was taken on January 4, and shows Baidu was censoring search results for “Zhao Family” (赵家人).

China's Major Social Media Platforms Censor Searches for "Coup"

These screenshots were taken on March 4, 2014, and show that Baidu was telling users who searched for PostBar (Tieba 贴吧) forums on "Coups" (政变):

Apologies, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, this forum cannot be opened at this time.
抱歉，根据相关法律法规和政策，本吧暂不开放。

Sina Weibo, and Tencent Weibo were telling their users:

In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, search results have not been displayed.
根据相关法律法规和政策，搜索结果未予显示 。

2014 Year in Review: Top 10 Examples of Free Speech With Mainland Chinese Characteristics

Xu Zhiyong and the New Citizens Movement

• 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
• Sina Weibo Censors "Liang Xiaojun" - Name of Lawyer Detained at Xu Zhiyong's Trial - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/sina-weibo-censors-liang-xiaojun-name.html
• Global Times Says Ok to Advocate New Citizens' Movement, Constitutionalism, While Baidu Bans Forums on Those Topics - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/global-times-says-ok-to-advocate-new.html
• Baidu Censors Results for Xu Zhiyong's Closing Statement to the Court - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/baidu-censors-results-for-xu-zhiyongs.html

• Wife's Letter to Xu Zhiyong Disappears From Sina Weibo - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/wifes-letter-to-xu-zhiyong-disappears.html
• Global Times Says Xu Zhiyong Verdict Prompts Debate, While Sina Weibo Censors “Why We Believe He is Innocent” - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/global-times-says-xu-zhiyong-verdict.html
• As Two More New Citizens Movement Participants Are Convicted, Baidu and Sina Begin Censoring "New Citizens Movement" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/02/as-two-more-new-citizens-movement.html
• After Court Affirms Xu Zhiyong’s Conviction, New Citizens Movement Web Site Disappears From Baidu Search Results - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/after-court-affirms-xu-zhiyongs.html

Lawyers, Scholars, and Activists

Ilham Tohti

Uighur Scholar Ilham Tohti Detained, Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Ilham" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/uighur-scholar-ilham-tohti-detained.html

Xue Funshun

Baidu, Sina, and Tencent Begin Censoring Name of Activist Son and His Dead Father - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/02/baidu-sina-and-netease-begin-censoring.html

Cao Shunli

• Hours After Cao Shunli Reportedly Dies in Custody, Baidu and Tencent Begin Censoring Her Name - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/hours-after-cao-shunli-reportedly-dies.html

• United Nations Statement on Cao Shunli Disappears From Baidu's Search Results - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/united-nations-statement-on-cao-shunli.html

Pu Zhiqiang

• Chinese Police Arrest Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, Baidu Shuts Down Forum on “Pu Zhiqiang” - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/chinese-police-arrest-lawyer-pu.html

• Global Times: Lawyers Need to Learn Their Place, China Prohibits Commemorating June 4, 1989 - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/global-times-lawyers-need-to-learn.html
• People on Sina Weibo With Profile Photos of Cute Young Women Agree: Civil Rights Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang is Guilty and Should Be Punished - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/people-on-sina-weibo-with-profile.html
• Around Time Zhou Yongkang's Investigation is Announced, Baidu Begins Censoring Name of Civil Rights Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/08/around-time-zhou-yongkangs.html

Liu Ping

Liu Ping Convicted of "Using an Evil Cult to Undermine Law Enforcement" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/liu-ping-convicted-of-using-evil-cult.html

The 25th Anniversary of the Clearing of Tiananmen Square

• 2014 Tiananmen Censorship Season Begins On Sina Weibo With "Return to Tiananmen" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/02/2014-tiananmen-censorship-season-begins.html
• 25 Years After Tiananmen, Baidu’s Wikipedia Has No Article For "1989" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/25-years-after-tiananmen-baidus.html
• Baidu Bans PostBar Forums on “64” and “1989” - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/baidu-bans-postbar-forums-on-64-and-1989.html
• As the 25th Anniversary of June 4, 1989 Nears, Baidu Censors "198964" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/as-25th-anniversary-of-june-4-1989.html
• Baidu Censors "Return to Tiananmen" As the 25th Anniversary of June 4, 1989 Nears - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/baidu-censors-return-to-tiananmen-as.html
• Baidu Censors Name and Images of Tiananmen Tank Man As the 25th Anniversary of June 4, 1989 Nears - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/baidu-censors-name-and-images-of.html
• Baidu Censors "June 4th" As the 25th Anniversary of June 4, 1989 Nears - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/baidu-censors-june-4th-as-25th.html

• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Tiananmen" and "25 Years Ago" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-tiananmen.html
• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring “Hu Yaobang” As 25th Anniversary of the Clearing of Tiananmen Square Nears - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/05/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-hu-yaobang.html
• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Block Tanks" and "Victoria Park" Day Before the 25th Anniversary of the 1989 Clearing of Tiananmen Square - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-block-tanks.html
• On the 25th Anniversary of the Clearing Of Tiananmen Square, Sina Weibo Began Censoring "Today" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/on-25th-anniversary-of-clearing-of.html

• Baidu Japan: 800+ Results for "25 Years Ago Tiananmen," Baidu China: Zero - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/baidu-japan-800-results-for-25-years.html
• Watch as Baidu Implements Censorship of "Tiananmen 25th Anniversary" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/watch-as-baidu-implements-censorship-of.html

Protests Around China

• Sina Weibo Censors Searches for Yangzhuang Coal Mine Strike in Feicheng, Shandong - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/sina-weibo-censors-searches-for.html
• Baidu And Tencent Begin Censoring Searches for "Maoming PX" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/baidu-and-tencent-begin-censoring.html
• State Media Says Reports of Tanks Bound for Maoming False, Baidu Censors "Maoming Tanks" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/state-media-says-reports-of-tanks-bound.html
• China’s Weibos and News Sites Censor Information About Shoe Factory Strike in Dongguan - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/chinas-weibos-and-news-sites-censor.html

Hong Kong Protests

• As June 22 Hong Kong Referendum Approaches, Sina Weibo Censors "622 Referendum" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/06/as-june-22-hong-kong-referendum.html
• Baidu Censors "July 1 Big March" On Day Tens of Thousands March in Hong Kong - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/07/baidu-censors-july-1-big-march-on-day.html
• On Eve of Student Strikes, Sina Weibo Censors "Hong Kong Boycott Classes" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/on-eve-of-student-strikes-sina-weibo.html
• On First Day of Hong Kong Student Class Boycott, Sina Weibo Censors "Boycott Classes" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/on-first-day-of-hong-kong-student-class.html

• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Hong Kong Police" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-hong-kong.html
• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Hong Kong Tear Gas" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-hong-kong_28.html
• Sina Weibo Begins Censoring "Hong Kong Students," "Scholarism," and "Joshua Wong" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/sina-weibo-begins-censoring-hong-kong_29.html
• Baidu Begins Censoring "Scholarism," "Hong Kong Students" and "Hong Kong Tear Gas" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/09/baid-begins-censoring-hong-kong.html

• Baidu Starts Censoring "Occupy Central," Then Removes Censorship Notice (But Appears To Keep Censoring) - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/10/baidu-starts-censoring-occupy-central.html
• Baidu Resumes Censorship of "Occupy Central" - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/10/baidu-resumes-censorship-of-occupy.html

Corruption of China's Senior Leaders

• Sina and Baidu Censor Information About "Old Tigers": Retired Senior Officials Targeted in Corruption Investigations - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/sina-and-baidu-censor-information-about.html
• How Does Baidu Decide an Online Forum is Legal or Illegal? Murong Xuecun vs. Xu Caihou - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/07/how-does-baidu-decide-online-forum-is.html

The Wealth of China's Political Elite

Watch Website of International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Disappear From Baidu - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/02/watch-website-of-international.html

• Qihoo and Sina Weibo Censor Searches Related to Report on Offshore Holdings of China's Elite - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/02/qihoo-and-sina-weibo-censor-searches.html

• Sina Weibo Censors Searches About Alibaba's IPO and China's Princelings - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/07/sina-weibo-censors-searches-about.html

Conflicts Within the Party

• Watch: Reports of Wang Qishan Complaining About Formalistic Speeches Disappear - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/watch-reports-of-wang-qishan.html

• Official's Warning About Threat Posed by Party Cadres' Work Style Gets Censored - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/officials-warning-about-threat-posed-by.html
• Changbaishan Daily Deletes Report on Xi Jinping Anti-Corruption Speech - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/08/changbaishan-daily-deletes-report-on-xi.html

Suicides of Officers and Officials

• On Eve of IPO, Sina Weibo Deploys New Whitelist Censorship Method When Another Official Commits Suicide - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/04/on-eve-of-ipo-sina-weibo-deploys-new.html
• After Person Reportedly Commits Suicide Baidu Censors Searches for Their Name (Again) - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/03/after-person-reportedly-commits-suicide.html

• Baidu Censors Information About Political Figure's Suicide (Again) - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/11/baidu-censors-information-about.html

The Image of the President of China

• China's Weibos Censor Posts That Go Against Propaganda Narrative of Xi Jinping's Baozi Shop Visit - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/01/chinas-weibos-censor-posts-that-go.html
• State Media Censors Child's Suggestion that President Xi Jinping Lose Weight - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2015/01/state-media-censors-childs-suggestion.html
• Baidu Begins Censoring "Putin Peng Liyuan" After Internet Users Praise "Ironman" For Putting Coat Over First Lady's Shoulders - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/11/baidu-begins-censoring-putin-peng.html

• Air Pollution Data From US Embassy Blocked During APEC Meeting - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2014/12/air-pollution-data-from-us-embassy.html