Censorship of Wanda Chairman Wang Jianlin's Harvard Lecture

On October 30, 2015, China's Wanda Group published a notice on its website entitled "Wang Jianlin gives an open lecture at Harvard Business School." An excerpt:

Wanda Group Chairman Wang Jianlin was invited by Harvard University as the first Chinese entrepreneur ever, to give an open lecture to students on “Wanda’s Globalization Strategy”. Over 900 students packed Harvard Business School’s Burden Hall to full capacity, while another 800 students had to resort to waiting outside. A student at the event commented on the amazing attendance and was surprised that a Chinese entrepreneur’s were attracting such an avid interest.
. . . .
After the lecture, Mr. Wang engaged in an open Q&A session with students, calmly handling questions on issues ranging from Wanda's political ties, strategic objectives behind its investment overseas, his outlook on China's slowing economic growth, the US presidential elections and Sino-US relations, as well as China's One Child Policy and resistance to Wanda's real estate project in Spain.

On October 30, 2015, the state sponsored Caixin Magazine published an article on its website entitled "Wang Jianlin Responds to Wanda Shareholder Controversy" (王健林回应万达股权争议). An  excerpt:

While giving a speech in the "Harvard Open Classroom" on October 29, 2015 local time, Wanda Group Chairman Wang Jianlin gave a formal response to a previous report in the New York Times regarding issues with Wanda shareholders. Wang Jianlin said that Qi Qiaoqiao and a company whose shares were controled by members of Deng Xiaoping's family had invested in Wanda business and real estate, and had transfered everything prior to the latter's stock market listing.

当地时间2015年10月29日，万达集团董事长王健林在“哈佛公开课”上发表演讲时，对此前《纽约时报》报道提及的万达股权问题作了正面回应。王健林说，齐桥桥和邓家贵夫妇控股的公司曾投资万达商业地产，并在后者上市前全部转让。

The article, which originally appeared at this URL - http://companies.caixin.com/2015-10-30/100868095.html - was deleted within hours. These screenshots show that shortly thereafter Baidu began censoring search results for "Wang Jianlin Responds to Wanda Shareholder Controversy" (王健林回应万达股权争议).

The Wanda website published an English language transcript of Wang's speech. According to the transcript, Wang began by telling the audience:

Harvard is a well-known university for its freedom of academics and thought. So there are no limits when it comes to the Q&A section, feel free to raise any question. 

The original version of that transcript published on October 31, 2015 included the following text (emphasis added):

Shih: So I’m going to ask another question which maybe a little bit controversial. You can decide whether you want to answer it. But I have a New York Times article from April 28, 2015, they suggest the reason behind Wanda’s rapid growth, as we herd earlier, you’re certainly growing very rapidly. But the New York Times suggests that the rapid growth relies on the company’s political affiliations. They even state that President Xi Jinping, and other leaders’ are relatives of President Xi Jinping, and other leaders are Wanda’s shareholders. Do you care to comment on that?

Wang:  Professor Shih, I can see you have an honest face, but I didn’t know you were so relentless. But you have asked, so I will answer you in front of your students. Firstly, Wanda has no political affiliation. In August 2009, our commercial properties subsidiary had initiated a round of private placement and appointed China Galaxy Securities and CICC, China’s largest at the time, to oversee its execution. we set a relatively high price at RMB13 per share. We successfully raised RMB4 billion, breaking the record for the most capital raised by a Chinese private company at the time. Chairman Xi’s brother-in law, Mr Deng Jia Gui’s investment company, Qin Chuan Dadi, participated in the private placement at the same subscribed price level as other investment companies, such as the investment company of China Construction Bank and China Fan Hai Development. Just two months before the listing, Mr Deng sold all the shares held by his investment company and fully exited at a low price point, and I’d like to state at this point that Mr Deng was never a shareholder of our listed company. After six years of investment, he sacrificed the opportunity to realize a huge return in investment. This incident demonstrates that President Xi is not only strict in managing our country but is even more scrupulous when it comes to family affairs.

We owe our rapid growth to our core competence of innovative business model and effective management practices. We pride ourselves on our unparalleled, industry-leading execution capabilities, and it is not easy to find another organization such as Wanda that is capable of completing the construction of commercial centers and hotels in such a consistent and punctual fashion. Some of you may not be familiar with cases studies relating to China, so I will give you an example in the US: AMC. After years of recorded losses we turned it around to make a profit in its first year post-acquisition, and got it listed on the NYSE in the second year with substantial returns to shareholders. This goes to show that the success of our rapid development rests squarely on the shoulders of our core competencies.

These screenshots below show the transcript as it originally published (via Google Cache) and how it appeared several days later.

A Chinese language version of the complete transcript of Wang Jianlin's talk was published on the website of the state sponsored Nanfang Group on October 31, 2015, under the title "A Record of Wang Jianlin's Harvard Open Class Speech" (王健林哈佛公开课演讲实录). Here is an excerpt of the Chinese language version of the text excerpted from the Wanda transcript above:

提问：现在我要问一个有争议的问题了，您可以决定是否回答。我看过一篇《纽约时报》的报道，是去年4月28日发表的。说万达之所以发展快，关键是有背景，包括习近平等领导的亲属都是你们万达上市公司股东，请问是否确有此事？

王健林：施老师我看您面相挺老实的，没想到问问题还挺狠，不过既然这么问了，那当着学生的面我也回答。第一、万达没有背景。我来说说事情的真相，2009年7、8月，万达集团旗下的万达商业地产为了解决资金问题，搞了一轮股权私募，委托中国最大的银河证券和中金证券两家券商替我们寻找投资人，前前后后谈了七、八十家公司，最后有十几家公司入股，其中就包括习主席的姐夫邓先生的秦川大地公司，他和建银国际、中国泛海、巨人集团等十几家公司同样价格进来，所以购买价格是市场化的。2009年入股后，由于中国政府政策限制的原因，万达商业地产公司迟迟没有上市，一直到2014年12月份才在香港挂牌上市。但就在上市前两个月，邓先生把他的股份以比较低的价格转让了，其实他是牺牲了巨大利益。正常价格购买、又是正常公开上市，能够获得巨大利益而放弃，我想他应该是受到了某种影响或者压力，这件事恰恰证明了不是腐败，恰恰证明了习总书记治国严治家更严的风格。

第二、万达的快速发展主要靠自己的核心竞争能力。万达在中国赫赫有名的两点，一是商业模式，每每都是创新的；第二是执行力强。举一个例子，我们每年开业几十个万达广场和一、二十家酒店，所有项目开工时就宣布开业时间。十多年下来，我们开业了一百多个广场，近百家酒店，一个项目建设时间都在两年内，全部按时完成，无一延误。这种执行能力我敢说世界上没有第二家企业能做到。如果说我举中国的例子，可能老美还不太服气的话，那我再举一个美国人的例子，就是刚才反复提到的AMC公司。在我买它之前，它的股东都是赫赫有名的企业，比如黑石、凯雷、摩根斯坦利等等，但是连年亏损，我收购过来当年就实现盈利，第二年就上市，现在我的收益已经翻了好几倍。这完全是市场化操作，足以证明万达的管理能力和企业操作水平。所以万达高速发展靠的是核心竞争能力，不是靠什么背景、政商关系。

These screenshots show that the article, originally available at this URL - http://economy.southcn.com/e/2015-10/31/content_135972291.htm - was subsequently deleted.

These screenshots show that around the same time Sina Weibo began censoring search results for "Wang Jianlin Harvard Speech" (王健林 哈佛演讲).

For additional background of China’s censorship of information relating to the Wanda holdings of relatives of China’s leaders, see Baidu and Sina Censor Information About Wanda Chairman Wang Jianlin

Southern Group’s Expression of Support for Journalist Liu Wei Deleted, Baidu Censors "Southern Metropolitan Reporter Liu Wei"

On October 16, 2015, the state sponsored Beijing News published an article entitled "Southern Metropolitan Daily Responds to Criminal Detention of Journalist Liu Wei on Suspicion of Illegally Obtaining State Secrets" (南都回应记者刘伟涉非法获取国家秘密罪被刑拘). Some excerpts:

This afternoon (October 16), Beijing News reporters (Weixin ID: bjnews_xjb) received information that Liu Wei, deputy editor of investigative reporting at the Southern Metropolitan Daily, had been held under criminal detention by Jiangxi police for eight days. According to people close to Liu Wei, at around 8:00 in the evening on October 8, Liu Wei left his home in Chengdu to head to the airport to fly to Beijing. After 10:00 pm that evening, contact with Liu Wei was lost.
. . . .
Beginning in 2013, Liu Wei began reporting on the Wang Lin affair. On October 23 of that year, the Southern Metropolitan Investigative Weekly published a four page report on the affair. Liu Wei was named the Southern Publishing's Group's Journalist of the Year in 2014.
. . . .
At 10:00 pm this evening, this reporter called Southern Metropolitan Publishing, which said the following:

1. Liu Wei is a senior investigative reporter with this news organization, and was assigned by us to investigate and report on news relating to the case of Wang Lin's suspected criminal activity. All of his interviews, reporting, and researching into Wang Lin's case was done entirely in his professional capacity in the execution of work related responsibilities. This news organization has provided a formal response to the Jiangxi police on October 9.

2. This news organization was deeply shocked and surprised that Liu Wei would be faced with deprivation of his liberty for carrying out his professional responsibilities. We immediately undertook emergency measures and got to work assisting Liu Wei's family to retain defense counsel in order to safeguard the legal interests owed to a journalist.

3. This news organization has already reported the situation to the relevant agencies, and have assigned people to accompany family members and legal counsel to Pingxiang, Jiangxi. On October 13, legal counsel wen to the jail to speak with Liu Wei. On October 14, family and legal counsel twice submitted applications for bail, but were denied by police both times.

4. This news organization will be following developments in this case closely, and will actively cooperate with the investigations by relevant agencies. We hope that the police will handle the case in accordance with the law, and will make information about the case public in a timely manner in accordance with the law.

今日(10月16日)下午，新京报(微信ID：bjnews_xjb)记者获悉，南方都市报深度报道部副主编刘伟已被江西警方刑拘8天。据刘伟的身边人透露，10月8日晚8时许，刘伟从成都家中离开，赶赴机场，要从成都飞往北京。但晚上10时后，刘伟失联。
. . . .
从2013年开始，刘伟介入王林事件报道。当年10月23日，南都深度周刊对此事件进行了4个整版报道。刘伟获2014年南方报业年度记者。
. . . .
今晚22时，记者致电南方都市报社，其报社回应称：
　　
一、刘伟系本报深度新闻部记者，受单位委派，调查采访王林涉嫌刑事责任案件的相关新闻，其对王林案的采访、报道、持续关注等，均属履行工作职责的职务行为，本报10月9日已向江西警方正式反馈;
　　
二、刘伟因履行职务而陷入丧失人身自由的困境，本报深感震惊和意外，立即启动应急程序，紧急展开相关工作，帮助刘伟家属聘请辩护律师，维护记者正当的合法权益;
　　
三、本报已向上级和有关部门及时通报相关情况，并派员陪同家属和律师赴江西萍乡等地，10月13日律师到看守所会见刘伟;10日和14日，家属、律师先后两次递交取保候审申请，均被警方拒绝;
　　
四、本报高度关注事件后续进展，积极配合有关部门的调查，希望警方依法办案，及时依法公开案件信息。

These screenshots show that the report was deleted the day after it was published.

This screeenshot was taken on October 19, and shows that Baidu was censoring search results for "Southern Metropolitan Reporter Liu Wei" (南都记者刘伟).

More Details Emerge of Internet Police Involved in Nationwide Money-For-Censorship Scheme

As noted previously in this blog, during the last year China’s state run media has exposed at least two cases involving police officers in Beijing and Hainan who were entrusted with censoring online content, and who abused their authority by taking bribes to order web masters to delete information that did not violate any of China’s laws, regulations, or policies. See:

• State Media: Baidu Staff and Internet Police Profited by Deleting Negative Information
• Jailing of (Yet Another) Corrupt Internet Police Officer Shows How Censors Interact with Webmasters)

On April 17, 2014, the state sponsored Southern Weekend published an article entitled “Internet Police Bribe Internet Police: Deleting Posts for Their Bosses” (网警贿赂网警：替领导删帖). That article provided additional details on the Hainan case mentioned above. Specifically:

• The full name of the Hainan police officer at the center of the scandal: Wei Yining (魏一宁).
• The total number of Internet police who paid Officer Wei bribes to delete posts: 11.
• Locations whose Internet police participated in the money-for-censorship scheme: Hunan, Liaoning, Qingdao, Nanjing.
• Wei Yining Trial: Wei was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The court judgment (available here) was issued in December 13, but was only being reported on this month.

Some excerpts from the article:

Gao Qiang, a senior administrator at Kaidi Net, told this reporter that, usually the Haikou Internet police use QQ to issue deletion orders. After Gao Qiang received an order from the Internet police's common account, all he would see is an order, and there was simply no way to verify whether the order had been subject to any  legal process.

"Sometimes we would receive an order, and we would have some doubts and would follow up. The issuing Internet police officer would only say that its an order sent down from the Public Security Bureau." After a while, even though there were suspicions that certain posts should not be subjected to an order, Gao Qiang and his coworkers just got used to following orders.

Similarly, at Tianya, as soon as they received an order, the "Legal Enforcement Bureau" would chose to enforce the Internet police's order by deleting posts or shutting an account.

Orders were authoritative and could not be questioned. Even if an administrator felt doubts, they frequently did not dare question the issuer as to whether the order had been reviewed and approved by leadership, or if it was personally issued by the Internet police officer.

Anyone who had authority over the Internet could send down an order to delete a post. With respect to posts about the government that were negative, the most common demand was "Don't let them garner too much attention." "Currently the orders that come down are not in any written document, they are all issued as messages in a QQ group." Gao Qiang believes that this was a major reason why Wei Yining could use his public office for his personal gain.

Post deletion orders were not always issued in so undisciplined a manner. Many years ago, there was standard government document for orders issued to web sites. Tang Tao, a director of an Internet oversight team for a municipal government in Hunan, told a reporter with the Southern Weekend that, several years ago, when it came to post deletion, there were strict  standards and procedures regarding what kind of posts could be deleted and how they could be deleted. They mainly deleted certain posts that were unhealthy, threatening social stability, and defaming third parties.

As Tang Tao explained it, in order to delete a post, it was necessary to first submit a report to a supervisor and to the senior Internet oversight department. Afterwards, an Internet Information Registration Form was filled in, and after specifying evidence and other measures, they would write up an Internet Sensitive Information Handling Circular, and an official would sign and chop it. After these procedures were completed Web sites would be notified by phone and fax.

Based on Tang Tao's understanding, there are many kind of orders that Internet police can issue, including deletion, filtering, temporary suspension, and shutting down. Post deletion order are extremely sensitive: they must be implemented immediately.

Southern Weekend has learned from reviewing a written order from the Internet Illegal Information Inspection Management System of the Binhai New District Public Security Bureau in Tianjin that, based on the system's technical specifications, within one minute after illegal information is detected, the system will issue an SMS alert to webmasters under their jurisdiction. The system will automatically perform a check within one minute after the website has deleted the illegal information. The system also requires that Level 1 Illegal Information must be detected within 10 minutes and dealt with within 20 minutes; Level 2 Illegal Information must be detected within 20 minutes and dealt with within 40 minutes; and Level 3 Illegal Information must be detected within 60 minutes and dealt with within 20 hours.

Long-time Tianya editor Liu Liu told this reporter that, Tianya's "Law Enforcement Bureau" has 50 people. About six people handle government orders, and they work on three shifts around the clock for orders that come down from the Internet police on the internal RTX system. "The time limit for clear instructions to delete posts, for example, saying XX post must be deleted immediately, is ten minutes." Liu said that, if they do not delete a post in that time, they will be called out by name in the online group by the Internet police who issued the order: "What do you think you're doing being so slow."
. . . .
The defense lawyer claimed that, while Wei Yining received financial gain from others, nevertheless what got deleted were posts that had a severely negative impact on the government, and there was no attempt to seek any other benefits for third parties, so his actions did not constitute accepting bribes.

The Internet oversight team supervisor Tang Tao said that many people would use that kind of relationship to find a local Internet police officer in the hope getting in touch with an Internet police officer that could get posts deleted. "For example, an official in a local agency sees some negative talk about himself or his agency in a Tianya forum, so he will think to use this method to get the post deleted."

Tang Tao believes that these Internet police officers were only working on behalf of their superiors, and in some cases they might relate to classified matters, and therefore the public cannot participate in oversight of Internet police work. This lead to Internet police like Wei Yining using their public office for personal gain, using the law enforcement authority they held to provide a natural screen for their rent-seeking and money-making.

The judge in the case specifically noted in the court judgment: "Not every post that has a negative impact on the government is illegal or infringing. In accordance with the spirit of the law and requirements of government administration in accordance with the law, the government also has the obligation to accept public oversight. By receiving financial gain for deleting posts without first having undergone review and approval, he in fact weakened the effectiveness of public oversight, and in reality sought to gain benefit from the organizations and agencies at whom the posts were targeted."

凯迪网的高层管理人员高强告诉记者，海口网警一般是通过QQ给他们下达删帖指令的。高强接到网警从公共账号发来的指令后，只能看到一条命令，根本无法查证其是否经过了法定程序。

“有时候我们收到指令，觉得有疑问就去追问，发布指令的网警就说是公安部下达的指令。”时间久了，即使怀疑某个帖子不应该有指令，高强和他的同事也只能习惯性地强制执行。

同样，在天涯社区，只要接收到处置指令，“执法部门”就会根据网警的处置指令选择对用户进行删帖、封号等处罚。

指令具有权威性，不容置疑。即便管理员觉得怀疑，也往往不敢去问对方这个指令是领导审批过的，还是网警个人发放的。

只要是有权管网络的，都可以给高强们下达删帖等处置指令，针对政府一些负面的帖子一般要求“不要炒作”。“现在下达指令并没有书面的文件，都是以QQ群里面的留言的方式下发的。”高强认为，这正是魏一宁可以假公济私删帖的重要原因。

删帖指令的下达并非一直如此随意。多年前，向网站下发处置指令曾经有标准的公文。河南某地级市的网监队长唐涛告诉南方周末记者，前几年，针对删帖而言，删除什么样的帖子，怎么删除，有着严谨的标准和流程。他们主要删除一些不健康的、威胁社会稳定和诽谤侮辱他人的帖子。

唐涛介绍，要删除一个帖子，必须先向主管领导报告并向上级网监部门报告；然后填写互联网信息登记表；在固定证据等措施后，填写互联网敏感信息处理通报书，领导签字并加盖公章。走完这些流程后方可电话或传真通知网站。

按照唐涛的了解，网警的处置指令一般有删除、过滤、临时断网、封堵等多种。删帖指令非常严厉：需要马上执行。

南方周末记者从天津市滨海新区公安局互联网违法信息巡查处置系统项目需求书中看到，根据该系统的技术指标，违法信息发现后，系统应在1分钟之内向所属网站负责人发送报警短信，网站删除违法信息后，系统自动校核时间也限定在一分钟内。该系统还要求实现一类违法信息10分钟发现，20分钟处置；二类违法信息20分钟发现，40分钟处置；三类违法信息60分钟发现，20小时处置。

天涯资深值班编辑刘柳告诉记者，天涯的“执法部门”一共有50个人。接收政府指令的约有6人，他们采用三班倒的工作方式，24小时在RTX内部等待网警下达指令。“明确说明要删帖的，比如说××帖子必须要删掉，限时一般最多是十分钟。”刘柳说，如果没有按时删掉，发布指令的网警就会在群里点名批评，“你们怎么这么拖沓，想干什么”。
. . . .
辩护律师称，魏一宁虽然收受他人财物，但所删的都是对政府有严重负面影响的帖子，并未为他人谋取利益，其行为不构成受贿罪。

上述网监队长唐涛说，很多人会经过各种关系，找到本地的网警，希望联系能够删帖的网警删帖。“比如本地的某单位的领导在天涯论坛上，看到网上对其本人或者本单位负面的言论后，就会想方设法删帖。”

唐涛认为，这些网警仅仅是对上级负责，有的涉及机密，因此公众也无法参与到监督网警的工作中来，这就为像魏一宁这样假公济私的网警，将手中的执法权寻租和变现提供了天然的屏障。

本案一审法官在判决书中特别写道：“并非所有对政府具有负面影响的帖子均系违法或侵权的，根据法律精神和依法行政的要求，政府亦有接受社会监督的义务。魏一宁接受财物未经审批删除帖子的行为，事实上会削弱社会监督的效果，实际上是为帖子所指向的机关或单位谋取利益。”

The article was originally available here - http://www.infzm.com/content/99895 - but as these screenshots show, it was deleted within hours.

As this screenshot shows, no link to article appears on the Southern Weekend web site.

 On April 18, the state sponsored Beijing News published an editorial by Zeng Ying (曾颖) about the Southern Weekend article entitled “How Can We Restrain Local Governments That Illegal Delete Posts” (地方政府非法删帖的需求怎么遏制). Some excerpts:

The [Southern Weekend] report noted that, everything that got deleted was "essentially negative information about government agencies that local governments did not want to be seen." So it appears that certain local officials' understanding of online public sentiment remains stuck in the archaic times of the broadcast age, believing deleting posts and silencing voices is the most effective way to block the spread of information they don't like. When they run into an incident in their jurisdiction, whether its justified or not, their first reaction is to make it disappear.
. . . .
There is a lack of standards in way the Internet is governed today, and this is the "objective reason" for the flood of illegal post deletion demands from officials. As for the employees who participate in and carry out post deletions, because there are no operating rules that clearly and concretely delineate whether one's own behavior is "legal" or "illegal," or where there are rules they leave far too much room unrestrained discretion, the result is a lack of guidance to the point of sinking into an abyss of criminality. There are those among them, including defense attorneys, who self-righteously believe that what they are doing is a "public service." And for those who do not see the law but only the so-called public service of their superiors, the main issue is relevant laws and regulations are not comprehensive, and the conflict between following orders and obeying they law is creating a disastrous  outcome.

报道里提到，删除的“基本上都是当地领导不希望被看到的有关政府部门的负面信息”。看来，一些地方官员对于网络舆情的认知，还停留在古老的传播时代，认为删帖和静声是阻止自己不喜欢的信息传播的最有效手段，遇到治下出事，无论有理无理，第一个反应便是让它消失。
. . . .
当前网络管理方式的不规范，则是官方非法删帖需求泛滥的“客观原因”。对参与执行删帖的人员来说，由于缺乏一个明确而可掌控的界定自己行为是在“法”与“非法”运行的规则；或有规则，但可自由裁量的空间太大了，而导致行为失范甚至堕入到犯罪深渊当中去，他们中的某些人，包括辩护律师，都不无委屈地认为他们所做的，是“公事”。而这种眼中没有法律，只有上级的所谓公事观，很大程度上是因为相关法律的规定不周全，守纪与守法出现对立造成的恶果。

Southern Weekend Article Questions Internet Rumor Crackdown, Gets Deleted

On August 22, 2013, China's official news agency Xinhua published an article entitled "Police Ask Netizens to Not Spread Rumors." Some excerpts:

Beijing police said on Wednesday they have smashed a company that allegedly made and spread fake information on websites for profits, and arrested two men suspected of fabricating online rumors and harming others' reputations.
Yang Xiuyu, founder of the Erma Co, and his employee Qin Zhihui (秦志晖) are suspected of using fake information to attract followers, according to a statement provided by the Beijing Public Security Bureau.
Yang and Qin are being held on suspicion of the crimes of provoking trouble and running an illegal business, police said.
Qin, 30, better known by his online name, Qin Huohuo (秦火火), had alleged on Sina Weibo, China's largest micro-blog site, that the Chinese government had paid 200 million yuan ($32.7 million) in compensation to a foreign passenger after two trains collided in Wenzhou, Zhejiang province, on July 23, 2011.
The micro blog was forwarded about 12,000 times within two hours, creating public anger at the government, police said.
The two also allegedly posted online that Lei Feng, a soldier idolized across China half a century ago for his selfless and modest actions, lived a life of luxury.

On August 29, Xinhua published an article entitled "Beijing Police Capture 27 for Prostitution." The article only named one of those arrested, Xue Manzi (薛蛮子 Charles Xue), and described him as follows:

Xue, 60, an investor and prolific microblogger with more than 12 million followers, was arrested in the Chaoyang District of Beijing last Friday, police said.
. . . .
Investigation found Xue, whose Chinese name was "Xue Biqun" and was verified as "Xue Manzi" in Sina Weibo, China's most popular Twitter-like service, came to China in 2007 and had engaged in licentious activities with more than ten female sex workers since May this year.

On September 1, the state sponsored Global Times published an article entitled "Confusion In Online Rumor Crackdown." Some excerpts:

Local police in Dangshan county, Anhui Province, on August 29 apologized for inappropriately punishing a Net user who also publicized the wrong death toll in a car accident. The punishment, ruling the man be detained for five days, was called off.
Tong Zhiwei, a professor with the Shanghai-based East China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times that the rectification was in accordance with the law and the apology showed that authorities have realized that they should not overdo the crackdown.

On September 2, Xinhua published an editorial entitled "We Must Guard Against the Crackdown on 'Online Rumor's Going Off the Rails" (打击“网络谣言”须防范执行跑偏). Some excerpts:

While we approve of the Dangshan police's attitude of seeking truth from the facts, we must also remind those agencies charged with enforcing the law that that in cracking down on rumors, respect for facts and the law remains paramount.
. . . .
It is true that it is somewhat inappropriate for Internet users failing to undertake verification and publish inaccurate casualty figures for a traffic accident. Nevertheless, if there is no evidence indicating that there was malicious intent, then it may not rise to the level of "intentionally fabricating and spreading rumors."
. . . .
The original intent of attacking online rumors is good, but we cannot label as rumor every voice we hear that we don't like. We must find a balance between attacking online rumors and protecting the public's rights to know, participate, express, and oversee. We must rely strictly on facts, take the law as our standard, and avoid acting arbitrarily.
Everyone applauds how attacking Internet rumors is conducive to cleansing online spaces and channeling positive energy. But at the same time, we must guard against abusive and deviant implementation in a few places. The path to resolution must first and foremost be built on comprehensive laws and regulations in the relevant areas. And law enforcement in particular must take the lead in abiding by the law. Only then can we build a healthy online environment. 

但在肯定砀山警方实事求是的态度的同时,也要提醒手握执法权的部门,打击谣言,更要尊重事实和法律。
. . . .
网民未经核实,发布不准确的车祸死亡人数,确有不当之处。然而,如果没有证据表明是恶意捏造,可能还没达到“故意编造、散布谣言”的程度。
. . . .
打击网络谣言,初衷是好的,但不能把自己不喜欢听到的声音,都扣上谣言的帽子。要把握好打击谣言和保证公众知情权、参与权、表达权、监督权的平衡,必须严格以事实为依据,以法律为准绳,避免随意性。
打击网络谣言,有助净化网络空间,传递正能量,人人拍手称快。但同时也要警惕一些地方在执行中滥用、跑偏。解决之道首先要建立健全相关领域的法律法规,同时,各地执法者尤其要带头守法,才能营造健康的网络环境。

On September 6, 2013, the state sponsored Global Times published an op-ed by Zhang Yiwu (张颐武), a professor of Chinese Studies at Beijing University entitled "Is Chinese Public Opinion Really Constricting?" (中国舆论真的在收紧吗). Some excerpts:

Given today's Internet environment, any move toward social governance will almost inevitably be met with debate and consternation. There is nothing at all odd about this. But the fact is that this does not in any way mean that the development of online opinion in China is being subjected to restrictions. On the contrary, this is a step toward "normalization" of online opinion in China, and it is laying the foundation for a flourishing and dynamic Internet for China.
. . . .
First, there is a lack of control over online rumors and malicious behavior which has allowed evildoers to take over, and they are increasingly running rampant. Second, many rumor mongers are using the virtual influence of astroturfers to seize prestige and power, and are employing Big V's reposts to exert influence, building their rants and ulterior motives on a foundation of certain irrational emotional currents in our society, and go on to wantonly attack those with whom they disagree, using rumors and lies to attack others and society. Rumor mongers are generally anonymous, and do not bear any responsibility. Those who repost what they say also avoid responsibility. 

在今天的互联网环境下，任何一个社会治理的行动都会难免遭遇议论纷纭的状况，这毫不奇怪。但实际上它决不意味着中国互联网舆论的发展受到限制，相反是中国互联网舆论走向“常态化”的重要一步，也为中国互联网繁荣和活跃奠定坚实基础。
首先，网上的谣言或恶意行为缺少规范，往往使得恶人当道，他们就更加猖獗。其次，不少造谣者以水军所营造的虚幻势力构成声势，以一些大V的转发来形成影响，以某些非理性的社会情绪作为宣泄和利用的基础，由此构成了肆意打击不同意见，用谣言和欺骗攻击他人和社会的状况。造谣者往往匿名发言，不承担任何责任，而其他人转发传播也变成无责任的。

On September 5, the state sponsored Southern Weekend published an article entitled "Will Attacking Rumors With the Long Arm of the Law Lead to a World Without Rumors?" (打击谣言的法律边界重拳严打，天下无谣？).  As these screenshots show, it was deleted on September 6.

Original URL: http://www.infzm.com/content/93972

This screenshot shows that the title of the article does not appear on the list of Southern Weekend's content for the week of September 5, 2013.

It was also deleted from where it was reposted on the Southern Weekend's sister publication, Southern Daily.

Original URL: http://ndnews.oeeee.com/html/201309/05/208413.html

The following are some translated excerpts from the article.

Barring some miracle, two days from now the journalist Liu Hu will spend his 38th birthday in a Beijing jail. On August 23, 2013, a week after reposting a tweet blowing the whistle on a government official, Liu Hu was taken from his home in Chongqing by Beijing police. The detention notice said he was suspected of having committed the offense of provoking and quarreling.
Before Liu Hu, online personality Qin Huohuo was detained, and he was similarly accused of committing the offense of provoking and quarreling.
Since August 20, when police nationwide launched their "Campaign Against Online Organized Crime," the offense of provoking and quarreling has become the new method of attack.
. . . .
Southern Weekend's reporters have learned that in the last two to three months, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have been soliciting opinions from academics on the issue of how the law should be employed in criminal cases where someone uses the Internet to commit offenses such as provoking and quarreling or defamation.
. . . .

 

Liu Hu's two lawyers have expressed their view saying: "There has yet to be a single example of online expression constituting the offense of provoking and quarreling. Such a possibility is excluded by China's criminal law and judicial interpretations."
The Criminal Law provides four ways the offense of provoking and quarreling might be triggered:

1. Willfully assaulting another person;
2. Chasing, attacking, insulting, or intimidating another person;
3. Forcibly taking or demanding or willfully vandalizing or occupying public or private property; or
4. Making trouble in a public place, creating severe disorder in a public place.

As it relates to Liu Hu's and "Qin Huohuo's" circumstances, only the fourth situation corresponds to online spaces. The question is, do the Criminal Law's public spaces include online spaces?

The most recent judicial interpretation from the "two supremes" only came into effect on July 22, 2013. It clarified  the definition of public spaces as: train and bus stations, ports, airports, hospitals, markets, parks, theaters, exhibition halls, sports fields, and other public areas.
. . . .
According to a Beijing Daily article, a responsible official with the Beijing Public Security Bureau has said: online spaces are public spaces.
On August 28, Cao Zuohe, a judge at Chaoyang's No. 2 Criminal Court, published an article in the Beijing Daily saying that, the key to whether online rumor mongering constitutes a crime is whether the Internet is defined as a public space. He wrote: "Defining online spaces as public spaces is something recognized by criminal law scholars and represents a breakthrough in judicial practice."
Clearly, relevant government agencies support the proposition that public spaces include online spaces.
. . . .
Lin Wei, a professor at China Youth University for Political Sciences, believes that the most recent judicial interpretation from the "two supremes" refers to what are commonly understood as physical spaces, and made no reference to the virtual Internet. From a functional perspective one can say that "online spaces are public spaces," but the problem is that it is not a public space that is mentioned in the Criminal Law.
Che Hao, an associate professor at Beijing University Law School, said that if there is no new judicial interpretation, it would be stretching things use the offense of provoking and quarreling to punish someone for fabricating and spreading rumors.
Zhou Guangquan, a professor at Tsinghua University Law School, provided a new way of thinking about this. He believes that the two concepts of public spaces included in"making trouble in a public place, creating severe disorder in a public place" should be explained separately: "The first concept can include virtual public spaces, because in this kind of space one can make trouble by speaking irresponsibly. However, the second public space must be an 'actual social public space,' and only where an act creates actual social disorder can it be considered a crime."
Zhou Guangquan, Lin Wei, and other criminal law scholars generally believe that the dispute regarding public spaces is not the most important issue.
Zhou Guangquan said that there is no substantive difference between fabricating and spreading rumors online or verbally. The key lies in the consequences that ensue. "Only when an act leads to actual social disorder can it be considered a crime."
Lin Wei believes that, if it is a case of simply misconstruing something, the it shouldn't be subjected to punishment on legal grounds, even where it was done intentionally. If there is to be punishment, it must be because the misconstruing brought about a specific threat to public order, and it must be possible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the rumor and the consequence.
. . . .
Legal scholars are concerned that, by extending the crime of provoking and quarreling to online spaces we run the risk of making it a "catchall crime," which will create new problems, in particular how to prevent certain leading cadres from utilizing this to exact revenge on whistleblowers where their speech relates to government officials.
. . . .
On August 23, a traffic accident occurred in Shangyu, Zhejiang, resulting in seven fatalities. On that day a Mr. Ma posted a rumor on a local forum saying "nine people died," with the result that "within 20 minutes 454 people viewed it and it was reposted 15 times." Police subjected him to five days of administrative detention for "fabricating facts and disrupting public order."
On the evening of August 26, an Internet user in Qinghe county, Hebei province, published information on the local Tieba saying "I heard that a murder took place in Louzhuang, does anyone know what actually happened?" He was detained. According to local media reports, the consequence of this Internet user's action was: This information was quickly clicked on over 1,000 times, was passed around by certain groups in the county, and severely disrupting public order, and causing mass panic.
On August 30, the Yuexiu precinct of the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau reported that an Internet user in Guangzhou had recently fabricated information online, spread rumors, and slandered "The Five Heroes of Langya Mountain." The result was many Internet users reposted and discussed it, which had a negative social impact, so he was subjected to seven days of administrative detention. [N.B. According to other new reports, the Internet user said "The five heroes of Langya Mountain were in fact some 8th Army irregulars, and after fleeing to Langya Mountain they used their guns to suppress local villagers, with the result that the local villagers resented them. Afterwards the villagers told the Japanese army of the five's whereabouts, which led the five to flee down a blind alley." (狼牙山五壮士实际上是几个土八路，当年逃到狼牙山一带后，用手中的枪欺压当地村民，致当地村民不满。后来村民将这5个人的行踪告诉日军，又引导这5个人向绝路方向逃跑。) See: http://epaper.oeeee.com/A/html/2013-08/31/content_1926048.htm]
. . . .
Zhou Guangquan believes that, based on his understanding of public places, if an Internet user says something in a virtual public space and it clearly will not give rise to any actual disorder in society and no one takes it seriously, and believes he or she is merely joking, then the law may not punish them.
What the public is questioning the most is where public security agencies proactively intervene in "rumors" about Party and government agencies.
"It is too big of a stretch to say that, if someone blows the whistle on an official the damage caused could extend to shaking public's faith in the governing Party, which could in turn throw society into disorder. Our social order is not as fragile as that."
. . . .
As Lin Wei sees it, the Internet users who misreported the number of traffic fatalities should not have been punished. "Even if they did it intentionally, and only three people were killed as opposed to seven as he said, I do not feel that what he said caused any harm." 

如果没有奇迹发生，再过2天，记者刘虎就会在北京市第一看守所迎来自己的38岁生日。2013年8月23日，在转发了一封对某政法官员的举报信一周后，刘虎在重庆的家中被北京警方带走。拘留通知书称他涉嫌寻衅滋事罪。
在刘虎之前，微博网民“秦火火”被刑拘，涉嫌的罪名同样是寻衅滋事罪。
自8月20日起，全国公安机关开展“打击网络有组织犯罪专项行动”，寻衅滋事罪成为新的打击手段。
. . . .
南方周末记者获悉，近两三个月里，“两高”曾就利用互联网实施的寻衅滋事、侮辱诽谤等刑事案件的法律适用问题，征求学界的意见。
. . . .
刘虎的两位律师发表意见书称，“迄今无一例因网络发言的寻衅滋事罪，我国刑法和司法解释，均杜绝了这种可能。”
刑法规定了寻衅滋事罪触发的四种方式：一、随意殴打他人；二、追逐、拦截、辱骂、恐吓他人；三、强拿硬要或者任意损毁、占用公私财物；四、在公共场所起哄闹事，造成公共场所秩序严重混乱。
对应网络空间情况，刘虎和“秦火火”只可能涉及第四种情况。问题是，刑法的公共场所是否包含网络空间？
“两高”对寻衅滋事罪的最新司法解释，2013年7月22日才开始施行。对公共场所的定义明确为：车站、码头、机场、医院、商场、公园、影剧院、展览会、运动场或者其他公共场所。
. . . .
据《北京日报》文章，北京市公安局有关负责人表示：网络空间是公共场所。
8月28日，北京市朝阳区法院刑二庭法官曹作和在《北京日报》撰文称，能否把互联网定义为公共场所，是网络造谣行为入罪的关键。他写道，“将网络空间定义为公共场所，这是一种刑事法学层面认识，更是司法实践的一次突破。”
显然，有关部门支持公共场所包括网络空间的解释。
. . . .
中国青年政治学院教授林维认为，“两高”最新的司法解释提到的都是通常理解的物理空间，没提到虚拟的互联网，从功能性的角度可以说“网络空间是公共空间”，但问题是，它不是刑法当中说的公共场所。
北京大学法学院副教授车浩说，如果没有新的司法解释，目前对造谣传谣行为以寻衅滋事罪论处确实比较勉强。
清华大学法学院教授周光权提供了一种新的思路。他认为，“在公共场所起哄闹事，造成公共场所秩序严重混乱的”里的两个“公共场所”概念应该分别理解：“第一个概念，可以包括虚拟的公共场所，因为在这种场所，可以发表不负责任的言论起哄闹事。但是，第二个场所，一定是‘现实社会的公共场所’，即行为造成现实社会秩序混乱的，才能定罪”。
周光权、林维等刑法学者均认为，公共场所之争，不是最重要的问题。
周光权说，通过网络造谣传谣和通过口头造谣传谣并无本质不同，关键是造成了什么结果。“行为造成现实社会秩序混乱的，才能定罪”。
林维认为，单纯就对一个事物错误描述的本身，哪怕是故意的，也不应该是进行法律处罚的理由。要处罚，一定是一个错误的描述，对社会公共秩序造成了一定的危害，即谣言与后果能建立法律上的因果关系。
. . . .
刑法学界担心的是，扩大适用到网络空间后，寻衅滋事罪本身具有的“口袋罪”缺陷，可能成为新的问题。尤其相关言论涉及官员时，如何防止某些领导干部借此打击报复举报人。
. . . .
8月23日，浙江上虞发生车祸，7人死亡，次日冯某在当地论坛发帖谣称“死亡9人”，造成“20分钟内，454人浏览，其中15人跟帖回复”，被警方以“虚构事实扰乱公共秩序”行政拘留5天。
8月26日晚，河北省清河县一名网民因在当地贴吧里发布“听说娄庄发生命案了，有谁知道真相吗？”的信息，被行政拘留。根据当地媒体的报道，这名网友造成的后果是：该信息迅速被点击一千余次，在该县部分群众中传播，严重扰乱了社会公共安全秩序，引发民众恐慌。
8月30日，广州市公安局越秀分局通报，广州一网民近日在网络上虚构信息、散布谣言，污蔑“狼牙山五壮士”，引起众多网民的转发及评论，造成了不良的社会影响，对其予以行政拘留7日。
. . . .
周光权以其对公共场所的理解，认为，如果网民在虚拟的公共场所发表的言论，显然不会引起现实社会发生任何秩序混乱，没有任何人会当真时、仅仅认为其是玩笑时，法律不能处罚。
遭受公众质疑最多的是，公安机关主动介入针对党政机关或官员的“谣言”。
“如果因为一个人举报了一些官员，就把他所造成的损害扩大到民众对于执政党信心的动摇，由此上升为扰乱社会秩序，跨度就太大了。我们的社会秩序没有那么脆弱。”
. . . .
在林维看来，上述错误描述车祸死亡人数的网民都不该被处罚。“就算是他是故意的，本来死了3个人，他非说死了7个人，你说这个造成了什么危害，我觉得也没有。”

The Chinese Government's 2013 Critique of Free Speech in America in Perspective

On April 21, 2013, China's official news service Xinhua published an article entitled "China Hits Back with Report on U.S. Human Rights Record." Some excerpts:

China on Sunday retorted the U.S. criticism and distortions of its human rights situation by publishing a report of the U.S. human rights record.
The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2012 was released by the Information Office of China's State Council, or the Cabinet, in response to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 issued by the U.S. State Department.
China in the report argued that there are serious human rights problems in the U.S. which incur extensive criticism in the world, as it has posed as "the world judge of human rights" again.
"As in previous years, the reports are full of carping and irresponsible remarks on the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China," China said in its report. "However, the U.S. turned a blind eye to its own woeful human rights situation and never said a word about it."

Here is the complete text of the report's discussion of free expression:

On September 17, 2012, or the first anniversary of Occupy Wall Street’s initial demonstration, confrontations between protesters and police around the Wall Street resulted in the arrests of more than 100 people. The US journalist community is worried about the continued toughening up of legislation on mass media. It is frequent that journalists in the US lose their jobs because of “politically incorrect” opinions.
2012年9月17日是“占领华尔街”运动一周年纪念日，在华尔街附近的示威者与警方爆发大规模冲突，有超过100人被逮捕。媒体担心美国新闻立法会越来越严厉。由于发表不同政治观点，美国记者失业的情况很常见。

Occupy Wall Street. These screenshots were taken on October 21, 2011, and show that, while users of Sina's and Tencent's Weibo microblogging services could search for "Occupy Wall Street," (占领华尔街) searches for "Occupy Beijing" (占领北京) returned no results. In the case of Sina, the user is told: "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。)

Toughening up of legislation on mass media.  On April 16, 2013, China's state-sponsored media reported that the General Administration of Press, Publication  Radio, Film, and Television (国家新闻出版广电总局) issued a "Notice Regarding Strengthening Management of Online Activities of News Editorial Personnel (关于加强新闻采编人员网络活动管理的通知). That Notice stipulated:

• "No news outlets may utilize overseas media or overseas website news information products without prior authorization." (未经批准，各类新闻单位均不得擅自使用境外媒体、境外网站的新闻信息产品).
• "News editors must persist on encouraging unity and stability, and on the guiding principle of focusing on positive propaganda." (新闻采编人员要坚持团结稳定鼓劲、正面宣传为主的方针)
• "Do not use or report Internet information that has not been verified through authoritative channels." (不引用、不报道未通过权威渠道核实的网络信息)
• "News outlets may not provide information from news informants, commissioned authors, civil society organizations, or commercial groups on their news web sites without prior authorization." (未经核实，新闻单位所办新闻网站不得擅自发布新闻线人、特约作者、民间组织、商业机构等提供的信息)

For more on the Chinese Communist Party's approach to legislating the mass media, see this post: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/04/chinas-weibos-censor-discussion-about.html.

Journalists in the US lose their jobs. These screenshots show that on the morning of January 4, 2013, Sina Weibo began censoring searches for "Southern Weekend Raped." (南方周末 被强奸) To understand why, see this post: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/websites-delete-articles-block.html

China's Weibos Censor Discussion About Party Journal Article Calling for More Party Control of Weibos

On April 10, 2013, Red Flag Journal (红旗文稿), a magazine published by the Communist Party's flagship magazine Seeking Truth, published an article entitled "Target the Two Venues of Public Discourse, Solidify the Positive Energy of Society" (统筹两个舆论场 凝聚社会正能量). The article was authored by Ren Xianliang (任贤良), acting vice-minister of Shaanxi province’s propaganda department. Some excerpts:

In today's China, subjectively speaking there exist two venues for public discourse. One comprises traditional media venues such as the platform of Party newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and press agencies. The other is the new media that is founded on the Internet. For some time now the core disseminations and expressed appeals of these two venues' have been at odds with one another, and this has not only directly challenged the bottom-line principle that the Party controls the media, but has also led to social divisions and confrontations based on class, severe damage to the government's credibility, and corrosive weakening of the fundamental principle that the Party governs the State.
. . . .
What is particularly serious is that some powers have manipulated online discourse, fabricating political rumors, maliciously tarnishing the image of the Party and the government, undermining the foundations of the Party's governance over the State. The 2013 "Southern Weekend" New Year's Greeting incident brazenly challenged the Party's system of controlling the news. Some staff used the Internet to launch their own "personal media" with speech that was "unrestrained" and that "contravened all norms," and their influence as just as great as that of a newspaper or wire service. It is as if others can raise up the anti-corruption banner, wave a "reporter" flag without journalist credentials, use foreign registered web sites, and then "re-import the goods-made-for-export" and use violent means to coerce and hijack local Party committees and governments. Some people have even likened to the chaotic online environment to an "online cultural revolution."
. . . .
The abrupt rise of the Internet and other new media, especially the appearance of blogs and weibos and other forms of personal media, has in fact undermined policies that banned private media and prohibited cross-border
oversight. Certain VIP weibo users frequently have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, even millions, of followers, and go so far as to launch micro-magazines and micro-television channels. Online video is particularly subject to extraordinary blow-ups, with the power to propagate and influence that greatly exceeds print media and even radio and television.
. . . .
The Party controls the media, the Party controls public discourse, these are unshakeable fundamental principles for maintaining the Party's leadership, no less than the Party party controls the military and the Party controls the barrels of the guns. And given current circumstances it can only be strengthened, it cannot be relaxed.
. . . .
When it comes to control, it is necessary to boldly confront all obstacles, even those powerful media outlets, famous web sites, bloggers, and micro-bloggers. Warn those who need warning, ban those who need banning, and silence those who need silencing. As soon as there is any violation of law, rules, or discipline, resolutely handle it in accordance with the law, and show no mercy. It is only by using the law to manage new media formats, including the Internet, in the same manner as is done with real-world society, that we can turn it to our own ends and not be subject to external threats. Only then can give the public an online world that is ordered, civilized, and healthy.
. . . .
Online "opinion leaders" represent the aspirations of a sizable portion of the crowd. The are the focus of much public attention, and hold great sway over users' moods and online opinion. Administrative agencies must adopt many different methods to transform, foster, and cultivate "opinion leaders" who understand, approve of, and praise the general and specific policies of the Party and the government, and use them to influence Internet users and guide public opinion. At the same time, get Party cadres online, launch micro-blogs and speak on behalf of the Party and the government, and cultivate our own online "speech leadership," and occupy the the new public opinion battlefield of this new media. 

当下中国，客观存在着两个舆论场，一个是以党报党刊党台、通讯社为主体的传统媒体舆论场，一个是以互联网为基础的新兴媒体舆论场。两个舆论场传播基调和诉求表达长期分离对立，不仅直接挑战党管媒体的原则底线，而且导致社会阶层分裂对峙、政府公信力严重受损、党的执政基础腐蚀削弱。
. . . .
更为严峻的是，一些势力操纵网络舆论，编造政治谣言，恶意抹黑党和政府形象，瓦解党的执政根基。2013年“南周”新年献词事件，公然挑战党的新闻管理制度。而一些人员利用网络创设“个人媒体”，言论行为“无拘无束”、“无法无天”，其影响力不亚于一份报刊、一家通讯社。如个别人打着反腐旗帜，没记者证却打着“记者”的旗号，通过在境外注册网站，然后“出口转内销”，用爆料手段，要挟、绑架地方党委政府。有人甚至将网上的乱象称之为一场“网上文化大革命”。
. . . .
网络等新兴媒体的崛起，特别是博客、微博等自媒体的出现，事实上瓦解了不准私人办媒体、禁止异地监督等政策规定。一些微博大V，动辄几十万、成百万乃至上千万粉丝，甚至办起了微刊、微电台，网上视频更是异常火爆，其传播力和影响力大大超过了平面媒体甚至广播电视。
. . . .
党管媒体、党管舆论，如同党管军队、党管枪杆子，是坚持党的领导不可动摇的基本原则，尤其是在当前形势下只能加强、不能放松。
. . . .
即使对那些强势媒体、知名网站和名人博主、微博大V，在管理上也必须敢于碰硬，该警告的警告，该禁言的禁言，该关闭的关闭。只要违法违规违纪，就坚决依法处理，决不手软。只有将包括网络在内的新兴媒体，像现实社会一样依法管理起来，才能为我所用、不受其害，也才能还公众一个规范有序、文明健康的网络世界。
. . . .
网上“意见领袖”代表了相当数量拥趸的心声，公众关注度高，对网民情绪和网络舆论影响很大。管理部门要采取多种手段，转化、扶植和培育一大批理解、认同、赞成党和政府路线方针政策的“意见领袖”，通过他们来影响网民、引导舆论。同时，要倡导党员干部上网、开微博，替党和政府说话，培养我们自己网上的“说话领袖”，占领新媒体这一新的舆论阵地。

The article originally appeared at this URL: http://www.qstheory.cn/hqwg/2013/201307/201304/t20130410_222170.htm. But it was deleted from there and subsequently republished at this URL: http://www.qstheory.cn/hqwg/2013/201307/201304/t20130413_223026.htm.

The following day, the state-sponsored Southern Metropolitan Daily drew attention to Ren's piece by publishing an article entitled "Shaanxi Official: Some Online Discourse is Being Manipulated, When It Comes to VIP Microbloggers, Silence Those Who Need Silencing" (陕西官员：一些网络舆论被操纵 微博大V该关就关). These screenshots show that the article, originally available here - http://ndnews.oeeee.com/html/201304/11/46487.html - was quickly deleted.

These screenshots were taken on April 12, and show that Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo were censoring searches for "Ren Xianliang."

These screenshots were taken on April 13, and show that Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo were censoring searches for "Being Manipulated" and "Silence Those Who Need Silencing."

News Web Sites and Weibos Censor Story on One School's "Internet Red Army"

Deleted Southern Metropolitan
Daily Story on "Internet Red Army"

On March 19, 2013, the state-sponsored Southern Metropolitan Daily published an article entitled "Baiyun Institute Establishes 'Internet Red Army' to Monitor Students' Weibos, Report Public Sentiment and Block Incorrect Public Opinion, Participants Earn 200 Yuan a Month" (白云学院组建“网络红军”监控学生微博 汇报舆情抵制错误舆论，兼职学生每人每月200多元报酬). Some excerpts:

At the end of 2010, the Baiyun Institute established an "Internet Public Opinion Information Oversight Working Group" which, according to a description by a school official, was intended to address the new problems the school was having with controlling public sentiment on campus, the proliferation of all kinds of harmful information, and the new challenges to students' political ideology work and school security and safety brought about by the rise of Weibos. The Baiyun Institute therefore established 116 Weibo groups and a "Baiyun Red Army" QQ group, which over the last three years has responded to various Internet information with over 100,000 posts.
. . . .
Currently the "Baiyun Red Army" is composed of nine full-time faculty and six part-time students, with the students coming from six of the schools institutes. New members must be recommended by senior members, and pass an interview with the school and other qualifications.
. . . .
The criteria for getting a position on the Working Group include "First, having good grades, and second a firm political ideology position." Huang Yumei said "Participating student must have a very firm viewpoint, otherwise, when they run into certain negative situations, if they also approve of the circumstances, they won't be able to speak reasonably on behalf of the school, and that would simply make them unsuited for requirement of this position."
. . . .
The work of overseeing Internet public sentiment requires the "Baiyun Red Army" members to sift through an enormous amount of information and provide timely reports. Currently the scope of their oversight encompasses 116 Weibo groups associated with the Baiyun Institute as well as the personal Weibos of certain students.
. . . .
With respect to hot topics that become the focus of student attention, the "Red Army Soldiers" will search Sina Weibo, Tencent Weibo, and Baidu PostBar for keywords, and every Friday afternoon summarize the public sentiment information in a report, which they provide to the school.
. . . .
"We use public sentiment oversight to understand how students are thinking, and when there is something that needs improvement, for example issues with food quality in the cafeterias, after we become of aware of it we fix it in a timely manner." Huang Yumei said that, with respect to negative statements about the school on Baidu PostBar, the "Red Army Soldiers" will make a response as soon as its discovered, "safeguarding the school's image is our responsibility and our duty."
2010年末，广东白云学院组建“学生工作网络舆情信息监控小组”，学校相关负责人介绍，微博的出现给校园舆情控制带来新课题，各种不良信息满天飞，给学生思想政治工作和校园安全稳定带来了新的挑战。为此，白云学院先后创建了116个微博群和“白云红军”Q Q工作群，3年来总计回复各项网络信息10万余条。
. . . .
目前，“白云红军”主要由9名专职教师和6名兼职学生组成，学生分别来自该校六个学院，入选“红军战士”需经老生推荐、校方面试等考核过程。
. . . .
选拔标准，“首先是要学习成绩好，其次是要求思想政治立场必须坚定。”黄玉梅说，“参加学生必须立场很坚定，不然的话，遇到一些负面情况，如果他也是认同这个事情，没有去为学校讲句公道话，那就不太符合这个岗位的要求。”
. . . .
网络舆情监控工作要求“白云红军”们对海量信息进行筛选并及时汇报，目前，新浪微博上116个与白云学院相关的微群和一些学生的个人微博均在其监控范围之内。
. . . .
对于学生关心的热门话题，“红军战士”们会在新浪微博、腾讯微博、百度贴吧等搜索关键词，每周五下午舆情信息整理成汇报表，上报给学校。
. . . .
“我们通过舆情监控，了解学生想法，对一些需要改进的地方，比如学生食堂饭菜质量等问题，我们了解之后会及时处理。”黄玉梅说，对于百度贴吧上一些关于学校的负面言论，“红军战士”发现之后要作及时回复，“维护学校的形象是我们的责任和义务。”

This screenshot was taken on March 22, and shows that the story had been deleted from the Southern Metropolitan Daily's web site.

Original URL: http://epaper.oeeee.com/A/html/2013-03/19/content_1823691.htm

On March 20, 2013, the state-sponsored Yancheng Evening News published an article entitled "Guangdong's Baiyun Institute Creates Waves With Its 'Internet Red Army' Overseeing Student Weibos" (广东白云学院“网络红军”监控学生微博掀波澜).

These screenshots were taken on March 22, and show that the story had been deleted from Yangcheng Evening News' web site, as well as from the Sina News web site, where it had been reposted.

Original URLs:

http://www.ycwb.com/ePaper/ycwb/html/2013-03/20/content_1548720.htm
http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2013-03-20/141926588699.shtml


These screenshots were also taken on March 22, and show that both Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo were censoring searches for "Internet Red Army." (网络红军)

Sina, Sohu, and Netease Repost Global Times Editorial (With Caveats)

This screenshot, taken on January 10, shows that Sina Weibo was censoring "Repost Global" (转载环球).

These screenshots show that three of China's main web portals - Sina, Sohu, and Netease - each reposted an editorial from the Global Times entitled  "Southern Weekend's 'Letter to Readers' Truly Makes One Ponder" (南方周末“致读者”实在令人深思 - read about that here - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/global-times-netease-and-sina-weibo.html).

The screenshots also show that in each case, the portal also posted these disclaimers (highlighted in red).

• Sina: "Notice: Sina reposted this text with the goal of providing more information, and this should not be taken to mean that we approve of its viewpoint or support its depictions."  (声明：新浪网登载此文出于传递更多信息之目的，并不意味着赞同其观点或证实其描述。)
• Sohu: "Notice: Any information that indicates it is from other media are reposts, and this does not represent that this web site approves of their viewpoint." (声明：凡注明为其它媒体来源的信息均为转载，不代表本网赞同其观点。)
• Netease: "Notice: Any information that indicates it is from other media are reposts, and this does not represent that this web site approves of their viewpoint." (声明：凡注明为其它媒体来源的信息均为转载，不代表本网赞同其观点。)

These screenshots show other articles posted at the same time did not include these notices.

Sina Weibo Censors "Beijing News," Beijing News Waxes Philosophical, Internet Edition Omits Page With Global Times' Editorial

Beijing News waxes philosophical

Late in the evening on January 8, 2013, the state-sponsored Beijing News (新京报) posted the following on its Tencent Weibo: "Walk too fast and lose your soul. We should stop and pause, wait until our souls can keep up with our pace. - 'Beyond the Clouds' Good night." (走得太快，会把灵魂丢掉。应该停下来等一等，等灵魂追赶上我们的步伐。——《云上的日子》 晚安。)

Early in the morning on January 9, the Beijing News posted the following on its Tencent Weibo: "If you want something that you have never had before, then you need to do something you have never done before. Good morning." (如果你想要你从未拥有过的东西，那么你必须去做你从未做过的事。 早安。)

These screenshots show that between nine and eleven in the morning of January 9 Sina Weibo began censoring "Beijing News."

This screenshot was taken later in the day on January 9, and shows the message that greeted Internet users throughout that day who tried to access the online version of the January 9 edition of the Beijing News at this URL - http://epaper.bjnews.com.cn/html/2013-01/09/node_1.htm: "The page you are accessing could not be found, please try one of the following links".

Below, the right-hand screenshot shows that on January 9, an editorial from the Global Times entitled  "Southern Weekend's 'Letter to Readers' Truly Makes One Ponder" (南方周末“致读者”实在令人深思 - read about that here - http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/global-times-netease-and-sina-weibo.html) appeared on page A20 of the hard-copy edition of the Beijing News.

The left hand screenshot, taken on January 10, shows that the Beijing News did not include page A20 in its online edition.

Sina Weibo Begins Censoring Searches About Famous People Being Asked to Tea

On the evening of January 9, 2013, Kai-fu Lee posted the following on his Sina Weibo: "This tea is hard to swallow!" (好难喝的茶！ - alternatively, "This tea tastes awful!").

Several minutes later, Lee posted the following: "From now on, only discuss East, West, and North, only discuss Monday through Friday" (从现在开始，只谈东西北方，只谈周一到周五。)

On January 10, Lee posted the following in response to a post from Ren Zhiqiang (任志强) saying "The first time." (第一次吧):

There's always a first time for everything, you approach them wholeheartedly, but do not let them vex you. You needn't ask me what is false and what is true, as I would that your doubts would be alliviated. For everything you do there was always the first time. I would that you would comprehend what is true and what is false.

一生总有第一次，何妨平淡试，何妨全力试。不要问我非与是，愿你疑虑尽释。奉献出第一次。愿你明白是非。

The English translation really doesn't do justice to the post, which was quite nuanced and poetic.

Two of Lee's posts.

These screenshots show that, on January 11, Sina Weibo began censoring "Asked to Tea Lee Kai-fu" (被喝茶 李开复).

At the same time it was also censoring "Asked to Tea Ren Zhiqiang" (被喝茶 任志强) and "Asked to Tea Yi Nengjing" (被喝茶 伊能静).

This screenshot shows that Sina Weibo was not censoring all queries containing "Asked to Tea" - in this example "Asked to tea Zhang Moumou" (被喝茶 张某某) returns a notice saying no results were found, but no censorship notice.

Communist Youth League Web Site Editorial Puts Southern Weekend In Its Place

On January 8, 2013, an editorial was published on China Youth Net (sponsored by by the Communist Party Youth League) entitled "The Southern Weekend is a Part of the Communist Party Newspaper Enterprise" (南方周末是党报事业的一部分).

These screenshots show that the editorial, originally available here -   http://pinglun.youth.cn/zqsp/201301/t20130108_2786487.htm - has since been deleted.

It remains available, however, on several other large portal websites, including:

• http://news.163.com/13/0108/11/8KMOPG520001124J.html
• http://star.news.sohu.com/20130108/n362791872.shtml
• http://news.qq.com/a/20130108/001187.htm

Screenshot shows Sina Weibo censors searches for
"Freedom of the Press"

Some excerpts:

Some commentators believe that there can be no middle ground, its either you or me. Some go so far as to proclaim from on high that this is a struggle for the very life of freedom of the press. But these people have it all wrong - - China has always enjoyed freedom of the press, otherwise, how could "Southern Weekend" have come into being? Where did ten New Year's Greetings that everyone has so much praise for come from? If you say that the "Southern Weekend" has done a good job, then you're saying that China has ample freedom of the press.
. . . .
Everyone knows that Southern Weekend is part of the Southern Publishing Group, and that it is a sister publication of the Southern Daily. In other words, Southern Weekend is a part of the Chinese Communist Party's Guangdong Central Committee newspaper enterprise, and is a part of the Chinese Communist Party's Guangdong Central Committee Propaganda Department. In the course of carrying out the Party's propaganda work it is perfectly normal for internal differences of opinions, even arguments, contradictions, and disputes to occur. This has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional governance or freedom of the press.
In socialist China, newspapers are tools of Party propaganda. The Party controls the media. This is an iron-clad principle that can be self-righteously shouted from the rooftops. A newspaper's utility lies in its ability to transmit the Party's guiding principles and to unite public opinion. Beyond that it can also drive out the bad and bring in the good, and deliver information from the people to the Party. Newspapers are the ears, eyes, and mouth of the Party, and so is the Southern Weekend - always has been, always will be.
. . . .
For the last 20 years, the Southern Weekend's every news article and editorial, every New Year's Greeting that everyone recalls as inspired, each and every one was spreading the Party's propaganda, was within the Party's fundamental policy framework, was a specific expression of the Party's propaganda goals, and was furthering the progressive development of the Party's enterprise. It must be understood that the Southern Weekend and the Party's propaganda enterprise are one-and-the-same, and are not isolated from one another, much less independent of one another. This is both an expression and proof of socialist freedom of the press.  

一些围观者人为，矛盾双方水火不容，必须你死我活。甚至有人无限拔高，认为这是对至高无上的新闻自由的誓死争取。这种认识差矣－－中国向来新闻自由，否则，何来《南方周末》？何来众人击节赞叹的十数篇新年献词？如果说《南方周末》办得好，那就是中国新闻足够自由。
. . . .
众所周知，《南方周末》隶属于南方报业集团，《南方周末》就是《南方日报》的子报。再换句话说，《南方周末》是中共广东省委党报事业的一部分，是中共广东省委宣传工作的一部分。党的宣传工作在具体执行中，内部出现了意见不一致，甚至出现了争吵、矛盾和纠纷，都是再正常不过的事情。这与宪政、新闻自由等等，是八竿子也打不着的事情。
在社会主义中国，报纸是党的宣传工具。党管媒体，这是铁打的原则，可以理直气壮地告诉全世界。报纸的作用，就是传达党的方针政策，统一群众认识，此外还可激浊扬清、针砭时弊，给党传递来自基层的信息。报纸就是党的耳目喉舌，《南方周末》也是－－过去是，现在是，未来还是。
. . . .
二十多年以来，《南方周末》所刊登的新闻报道、评论，以及大家记忆犹新的精彩的历年新年献词，宣传的都是党的理念，都在党的大政方针的框架之内，都是党的宣传意图的具体体现，都推动了党的事业向前发展。必须了解，《南方周末》和党的宣传事业向来都是统一的，而不是孤立的，更不是对立的。这也是社会主义新闻自由的体现和明证。

Baidu and Other Search Engines Begin Censoring "Tuo Zhen"

These screenshots show that between January 3 and January 8 2013, Baidu began censoring search results for "Tuo Zhen" (庹震) and shut down its Tuo Zhen Tieba forum.

Tuo is currently the director of the Guangdong province Communist Party Propaganda Department, which oversees publication of the Southern Weekend (南方周末), which has been in the news recently:

• January 5: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/websites-delete-articles-block.html
• January 6: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/baidu-and-other-search-engines-join.html
• January 7: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/global-times-netease-and-sina-weibo.html

Other search engines were also censoring searches for "Tuo Zhen" on January 8, including Sogou and Qihoo.

Sina Weibo Features Southern People Weekly Anti-Censorship Post Beneath Southern Weekend Censorship Notices

These screenshots were taken on January 7, 2013, and show that searches on Sina Weibo for the Chinese characters "South" (南) and "End" (末) returned no results, just a censorship notice.

 This censorship coincided with a controversy regarding Southern Weekend's (南方周末) New Year's Greeting, which this blog has covered here:

• January 5: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/websites-delete-articles-block.html
• January 6: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/baidu-and-other-search-engines-join.html
• January 7: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2013/01/global-times-netease-and-sina-weibo.html

The screenshots show that, as is standard practice at Sina Weibo, they have include several posts underneath the censorship notice. Generally, such posts have nothing to with the censored terms. Here, however, that appears not to be the case for two of the posts (highlighted in red). In these examples one of the posts is from June 6 from the Southern Weekend, and it reads:

Dear Readers: On January 3 this paper's New Year's Greeting was written by the editors to accompany the title of the "Pursuing the Dream"  special topic, and the introductory remarks on the cover were drafted by a responsible person at this paper. Rumors regarding this spreading on the Internet are false. Because time was rushed, production mistakes were made, and there were errors in the text. We apologize for this to all readers.
致读者：本报1月3日新年特刊所刊发的新年献词，系本报编辑配合专题“追梦”撰写，特刊封面导言系本报一负责人草拟，网上有关传言不实。由于时间仓促，工作疏忽，文中存在差错，我们就此向广大读者致歉。

The other post was published later on January 6 by the Southern People Weekly (a sister publication of  Southern Weekend), and consisted of an image of a person's mouth being covered by a hand and the person drawing a mouth on the hand, the text "Because this mouth is mine," and a quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
历史将会记录，在这个社会转型期，最大的悲剧不是坏人的嚣张，而是好人的过度沉默。

Screenshot of the Southern People Weekly post.

Southern People Weekly post URL: http://e.weibo.com/1653460650/zdgaJkVzn