Sunday, September 22, 2013

Bo Xilai Found Guilty of Corruption - A Chronicle of Censorship of the Case

The following is a timeline of the events and censorship leading up to Bo Xilai's conviction.

2007


Wang Lijun (王立军), then police chief of the city of Jinzhou in northeast China's Liaoning Province, first meets Bogu Kailai (薄谷开来), wife of Bo Xilai (薄熙来).

2009


April: While Wang was serving as the chief of Chongqing's Public Security Bureau, one of Wang's immediate family members was transferred to a working position in Beijing. Not having a residence in Beijing, Wang's relative received two apartments in Beijing bought by Xu Ming (徐明), board chairman of the Dalian Shide Group Co. Ltd. (大连实德集团有限公司) at a price of 2.85 million yuan (449,583 U.S. dollars). The apartments were registered under the name of Wang's father-in-law. After the deal, Wang gave his thanks to Xu in person.

2010


May: The state-sponsored Hualong website publishes a report entitled "42 National Internet Media CEOs Sign 'Hongyan Declaration' In Chongqing" (全国42家网络媒体CEO重庆签署《红岩宣言》), stating that Beijing Internet media had convened a "Seventh Beijing Internet Media Red Native Land - Chongqing Circuit" (第七届北京网络媒体红色故土-重庆行”). The report went on to say that during a "Conference on New Media and Red Culture" (新媒体与红色文化传承研讨会) held during the event, 42 national Internet media outlets including Sina, Netease, and Baidu, signed a "media declaration" entitled "Succeed the Hongyan Spirit, Inherit the Red Culture" (继承红岩精神 传承红色文化).

In a report entitled "The Internet Can Feel the Pulse of the People, Chongqing Welcomes Objective and Constructive Criticism" (网络可以感受民意脉动 重庆欢迎客观善意批评), the state-sponsored Chongqing Business Post quoted Bo Xilai as telling the assembled Internet executives:
The "Hongyan Declaration" that you have issued is very good. Media, including Internet media, have an important function, which is to daily mold the spiritual world of China's citizens. China has 400 million Internet users, and many are young people, and they are full of vitality and vigor. They are the future of the motherland, and it is the duty of the media to create healthy information platforms for them, and provide them guidance through their services. Comrades involved in the Internet, who hold to their bosom the revitalization of the great resurgence of the Chinese people, can in the course of their work not only make greater contributions, but also feel joy in their hearts and the value of human life.
你们发表的《红岩宣言》很好。包括网络在内的媒体,有个重要功能,就是每天都在塑造国民的精神世界。中国有4亿网民,很多是年轻人,他们朝气蓬勃,充满活力,是祖国的未来,为他们营造一个积极健康的信息平台,在服务中实现引导,是媒体的使命。搞网络的同志,胸有中华民族伟大复兴的神圣事业,在工作中,不仅可以做出更大贡献,也会感到内心的幸福和人生的价值。

2011


January: Baidu is censoring search results for "Bo Xilai," and has banned users from setting up PostBar (Tieba 贴吧) forums on Bo Xilai.


August 12: Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜 - son of Gu Kailai and Bo Xilai) tries to meet with Wang, but Wang refuses.

November 12: After a discussion with Bogu Kailai, Wang arranges surveillance and control efforts targeted at Neil Heywood under the pretext that Heywood may have committed drug-related crimes. Gu Kailai asks Neil Heywood to come to Chongqing.

November 13: Heywood flies from Beijing to Chongqing and checks into the Lucky Holiday hotel (南山丽景度假酒店).

November 14: Bogu Kailai and Zhang Xiaojun, then an employee of the general office of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and a family assistant for Bogu Kailai, poison Heywood at the Lucky Holiday Hotel in Chongqing.

November 15: After talking on the phone with Bogu Kailai, Wang is informed that she had met Heywood in the hotel and had a drink with him. Wang instructs Guo Weiguo, then deputy chief of the Chongqing's Public Security Bureau and a close friend of Bogu Kailai, to handle the case, but does not tell Guo or other policemen that he possesses clues and recorded evidence of Bogu Kailai's involvement. Heywood is found dead in a Chongqing hotel room. Chinese authorities rule that the cause of death is alcohol poisoning, and his body is cremated.

November 26: the Wall Street Journal publishes an article entitled "Children of the Revolution" stating: "One evening early this year, a red Ferrari pulled up at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Beijing, and the son of one of China's top leaders stepped out, dressed in a tuxedo." The leader was Bo Xilai, and his son was Bo Guagua.

The screenshots were taken on November 27 and November 30, respectively, and show that, while on November 27 Tencent's Weibo microblogging platform was returning over 7,000 results for a search for Bo Guagua's name, three days later the same search returned a notice saying "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。)
These screenshots show that Sina Weibo was also censoring searches for "Bo Guagua," and Baidu had banned users from setting up PostBar (Tieba 贴吧) forums on Bo Guagua.


2012


January 28: Wang reports to Bo Xilai that Bogu Kailai was highly suspected in the murder of Neil Heywood.

January 29: Bo Xilai rebukes Wang and slaps him in the face. Wang subsequently asks Wang Zhi (王智), Wang Pengfei (王鹏飞), and Li Yang (李阳) to go to his office and rearrange the November 15, 2011 case file.

February 2: Wang Lijun's is removed from his position as chief of Chongqing's Public Security Bureau.

Around this time, three staff members working closely with Wang are put under illegal investigation.

February 6: Under the pretext of discussing business, Wang cancels his original work arrangements and enters the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu at 2:31 p.m.

February 7: Wang leaves the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu of his own volition at 11:35 p.m.

February 8: At 11:30 am, Xinhua publishes a report stating:
At 10:54 on the morning on the 8th, the Chongqing city government's press office used Xinhua's official Weibo to publish information saying "Based on information, Deputy Mayor Wang Lijun is, pursuant to agreement, currently undergoing convalescent therapy for long-term work overload, high levels of mental stress, and severe physical indisposition.
8日上午10点54分,重庆市政府新闻办通过新华网官方微博发布消息,称“据悉,王立军副市长因长期超负荷工作,精神高度紧张,身体严重不适,经同意,现正在接受休假式的治疗。”
These screenshots show that Sina Weibo was not censoring searches for Wang Lijun at 9:30 am on the morning of February 8, then an hour later it began censoring that term, then it stopped censoring the term again after the Xinhua announcement.


Below, the left-hand screenshot shows that at around 3 pm a search on Baidu for "Wang Lijun" was returning apparently uncensored results. The right-hand screenshot shows that, about an hour later, the same search on Baidu returned a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, some search results have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。) Search results were restricted to about dozen websites operated by the central government and the Communist Party.

These screenshots, also taken on February 8, show that whereas a search in the morning for "Wang Lijun defects to American Consulate" (王立军叛逃美领馆) returned hundreds of results, the same search that evening returned no results, just a notice saying "Search results may not comply with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and have not been displayed." (搜索结果可能不符合相关法律法规和政策,未予显示。).

February 10: Li Yinhe (李银河) posts what she claims to be an "Open Letter From Wang Lijun" dated February 3, 2012, on her Caijing Magazine blog. The letter begins:
By the time everyone reads this letter, I'll probably either be dead or detained. I want to take a moment to explain to the world why I did all of this. There is one basic explanation: I do not wish to see Bo Xilai, the greatest hypocrite in the Communist Party, be able to continue his act. If evil politicians like him rule the state, it will be the greatest catastrophe for people of China and the greatest misfortune for China's future.
当大家看到这封信的时候,我或许已不在人世或许已失去了自由。我想向全世界解释一下我做这一切的原因。归根结底是一条: 我不希望看到党内最大的伪君子薄熙来能再继续表演下去,如果这样的奸臣当道,这将是中国未来最大的不幸和民族的灾难。
These screenshots show Lin Yinhe's blog post as it appeared before and after it was deleted.

Below, the top-left screenshot was taken on February 11, and shows that on that day a search for "Wang Lijun Open Letter" (王立军 公开信) on Sina's Weibo returned over 1,700 results. The bottom left and right-hand screenshots were taken in the morning of February 12, and show that the same search on both Sina and Tencent Weibos was returning no results, just a notice saying that search results may be illegal and cannot be displayed.
On the morning of February 10, the author Han Han published a blog post entitled "Chongqing's Beautiful Drama" (重庆美剧 ). The left hand screenshot was taken on the morning of February 10, 2012 (Beijing time), and shows Han Han's blog post as it appeared a thttp://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4701280b0102e11n.html. The right hand screenshot was taken at 6 pm the same day, and shows the title remained, but all of the text had been deleted.

February 21: The screenshots show that at some time between 10 am and 9:30 pm on February 21, 2012, Baidu stopped returning search results for the phrase "Bo Xilai Tenders Resignation" (薄熙来 请辞) and instead returned a notice saying "Search results may not comply with local laws, regulations, and policies, and have not been displayed." (搜索结果可能不符合相关法律法规和政策,未予显示。)

March 15: Xinhua reports:
Zhang Dejiang has been appointed Party chief of Chongqing, replacing Bo Xilai, according to a decision of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee announced Thursday. Bo will no longer serve as secretary, standing committee member or member of the CPC Chongqing municipal committee.
The screenshots show Baidu search results for "Bo Xilai Removed" (薄熙来 被免职) taken ten hours apart on March 15. The left hand screenshot was taken around noon, and shows Baidu's results have no censorship notice and include results from various "Weibo" micro-blogging platforms. The right-hand screenshot was taken around 10 pm the same day, and shows that Baidu is no longer returning Weibo results, and is displaying a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, some search results have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。)

These screenshots show that, while a search for "Bo Xilai" (薄熙来) on Sina's Weibo microblogging platform returned over 1.2 million search results on March 15, 2012, on March 17 the same search returns a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, search results for 'Bo Xilai' have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策,“薄熙来”搜索结果未予显示).

March 19: A document entitled "Report on the Investigation and Assessment of Wang Lijun's Personal Visit to the American Consulate in Chengdu" (王立军私自进入美国驻成都总领馆并滞留事件进行调查评估的通报) begins to circulate on the Internet.

Below, the left-hand screenshot was taken at around 2 pm, March 19, 2012, and shows that a search for "Report on the Investigation and Assessment of Wang Lijun's Personal Visit to the American Consulate in Chengdu" (王立军私自进入美国驻成都总领馆并滞留事件进行调查评估的通报) on Baidu returned over 360,000 results. The right-hand screenshot was taken around 6:30 pm the same day, and shows that Baidu now returns around 30,000 search results (although there are only three pages) and a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, some search results have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。)

March 26: The British government asks the Chinese government to investigate Heywood's death.

These screenshots show several examples of how several websites in China began censoring information at that time.

March 31: The Economy and Nation Weekly publishes an article entitled "Dalian Shide's Missing Officer" (大连实德迷局) stating that on March 15, Xu Ming had been subjected to "controls by relevant government agencies" on suspicion of involvement in a "economic case."

These screenshots show that on April 4, Sina's and Tencent's weibo microblogging platforms were censoring searches for "Xu Ming" (徐明).

April 10: Bo Xilai is suspended from his Politburo and top Communist Party posts. Government announces Gu Kailai is being investigated for Heywood's death.

These screenshots show that a search for "Wang Lijun" (王立军) on Baidu at around 4 pm on April 10, 2012 returned results from foreign web sites like Wikipedia and Yahoo.com. The same search done at 10 pm the same day now includes a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, a portion of search results have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。), and the foreign web sites are gone.

The screenshots show that when a user did a search for "Gu Kailai" (谷开来) on April 9, Baidu's first page of search results included results from Wikipedia and Hudong. At some point between April 9,  and April 10, Baidu began limiting search results for "Gu Kailai" (谷开来) to a white list of about a dozen websites controlled by the central government and the Communist Party, as well as Baidu's own Baike.

These screenshots show that at some point between 11 pm on April 10, 2012 and 8 am on April 11, 2012, Baidu began limiting search results for "Bo Guagua" (薄瓜瓜) to a white list of about a dozen websites controlled by the central government and the Communist Party, as well as Baidu's own Baike.

As these screenshots from April 11 show, Sina Weibo was also censoring searches for terms related to the case, including "Bo Xilai," "BXL," "Gu Kailai," "Bo Guagua," "Heywood," and "Wang Lijun." (王立军)

These screenshots show that the following day Sogou began censoring searches for "Zhang Xiaojun" (张晓军). On April 12, searches on Sogou returned over 180,000 results from websites including Hexun, Sohu, and QQ. By April 13, however, Sogou was returning around 2,000 results, all of them from about dozen websites controlled by the central government and the Communist Party.

These screenshots show that, shortly after China's state run media began publicly discussing the Heywood case, Baidu stopped completely censoring searches for "Heywood," and instead began restricting search results to its strict white list.

April 25: Bo Guagua writes an open letter to his school paper, the Harvard Crimson, saying his education has been funded by scholarships and his mother's earnings as a lawyer. He says he has no comment to make about the investigation.

May 17: The New York Times reports that Patrick Henri Devillers has been implicated in the business affairs of Gu Kailai.

This screenshot shows that a search for "Devillers" (多维尔) on Sina Weibo on May 17 returned no results, just a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, search results for "Devillers" have not been displayed" (根据相关法律法规和政策,“多维尔”搜索结果未予显示).


June 17: Cambodia detains French architect Patrick Devillers.

June 22: Cambodia’s Foreign Ministry said the country had no plans to extradite Patrick Devillers to China.

These screenshots, taken on June 22, show that, while a search for "Devillers" (多维尔) on Baidu returns (apparently) uncensored search results, searching for "Devillers extradition" (多维尔 引渡) results in a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, some search results have not been displayed" (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示), and the results that Baidu has provided were restricted to about a dozen websites controlled by the central government and the Communist Party.

These screenshots, taken on July 7, 2012, show that for searches for Bo Xilai, Bo Guagua, and Gu Kailai, Baidu claims to have found 765k, 12k, and 8.4k results, respectively. In each case, however, Baidu only returned only one result - its own Baidu Baike article.

These screenshots were taken on July 15, and show that by now Baidu has reverted to its prior censorship of Bo Xilai, Gu Kailai, and Bo Guagua, with the former being on the broad white list and the latter two on the strict white list.

July 17: Patrick Devillers flies to Beijing.

July 22: Wang is formally arrested by the State Security Bureau of Chengdu for defection after the Chengdu Municipal People's Procuratorate approves the arrest.

July 26: Gu Kailai and Zhang Xiaojun are charged with Heywood's murder by the People's Procuratorate in Hefei, Anhui province.

August 2: After the investigation is completed, the case is handed over to the Chengdu Municipal People's Procuratorate for examination before prosecution.

August 7: Bo Guagua sends an email to CNN saying: "As I was cited as a motivating factor for the crimes accused of my mother, I have already submitted my witness statement."

August 9: Gu Kailai and Zhang Xiaojun are tried in Heifei.

These screenshots show that Sina Weibo was censoring "Hefei Court" and "Body Stand In."

August 20: A court in Hefei, Anhui, finds Gu Kailai guilty of murdering Neil Heywood and gave her a suspended death sentence. It also found Zhang Xiaojun guilty and sentenced him to nine years imprisonment.

These screenshots show that, shortly afterwards, Sina Weibo stopped censoring "Gu Kailai."

September 24: The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court finds Wang guilty of bribe-taking (受贿 - 9 years), abuse of power (滥用职权 - two years), defecting  (叛逃 - 2 years), and “bending the law for selfish ends,” (徇私枉法 - 7 years) and sentences him to a term of 15 years imprisonment.

September 28: Xinhua reports that the Political Bureau of the Communist Party Central Committee had decided that Bo Xilai would be expelled from the Communist Party of China and removed from public office.

September 29: Xinhua reports that the Standing Committee of the Chongqing Municipal People's Congress had decided to remove Bo from his post as deputy to the 11th National People's Congress.

These screenshots show that Tencent Weibo stopped censoring searches for "Wang Lijun" within hours of the court announcing the verdict. Sina Weibo also stopped censoring searches for Wang's name at about the same time as the verdict was announced.

2013


July 25: Xinhua publishes an article entitled "Bo Xilai Indicted for Bribery, Corruption and Power Abuse."

These screenshots show that on July 24, both Sina and Tencent were censoring searches for "Bo Xilai" (薄熙来) on their Weibo products, and that on July 25 both companies stopped censoring searches for that term.



August 22: China's official news service Xinhua published an article entitled "Bo Xilai Stands Trial for Bribery, Embezzlement, Abuse of Power." An excerpt:
Bo Xilai, former Communist Party of China chief of Chongqing Municipality, stood open trial Thursday on charges of taking bribes, embezzlement and abuse of power at the Jinan Intermediate People's Court in east China's Shandong Province.
The trial started at 8:43 a.m. The official microblog account of the court will update the trial proceedings.
September 19: Portions of a letter written by Bo to family members while in prison begins circulating on the Internet.

These screenshots show that Tencent Weibo was censoring searches for "Bo Xilai Prison Letter to Family" (薄熙来狱中家书), and Sina Weibo was deleting posts referencing the letter.


September 21: At 11:24 am Xinhua published an article entitled "Bo Xilai Sentenced to Life in Prison for Bribery, Embezzlement, Power Abuse." According to that report:
Bo Xilai, former secretary of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and a former member of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau, was sentenced to life imprisonment on Sunday for bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power. 
He was deprived of political rights for life.
These screenshots show that on September 21 Sina Weibo was censoring searches for "Cherish the Memory of Bo Xilai" (怀念 薄熙来), "Support Bo Xilai" (拥护 薄熙来), and "Chongqing Model" (重庆模式).


Several of China's major search engines were also censoring searches for ""Chongqing Model" (重庆模式).


Thursday, September 19, 2013

Weibo User "Boss Hua" Questioned by Police, China's Weibos and (Most) Search Engines Censor His Name

On June 26, 2012, the state-sponsored Global Times published an article entitled "Not So Authentic." Some excerpts:
A door was half open at 10 am Wednesday, in a dark corridor of a tall office building beside the East Third Ring Road in Beijing. It was the China Office of the World Luxury Association (WLA), but no logo could be found on the door.
Inside the small office with only three rooms, seven people were idly browsing the Internet.
"We took off our logo a few days ago," a staff member who declined to be named told the Global Times.
The association has recently been the subject of much debate about its real background and legality.
. . . .
An Internet user named Huazong, who has an Internet company and is good at online information research including domain name registration, started an investigation into the real background of the WLA last month. He never expected that it would lead to death threats.
"The domain name of the WLA's website, www.worldluxuryassociation.org, was registered by the World Luxury Association Ltd, according to my investigation. And its address is in New York. But the registered country was China," Huazong told the Global Times.
. . . .
Huazong's Weibo posts about the real background of the WLA and its China Office were widely reposted.
However, Ouyang said that Huazong was attempting to blackmail the association and this was being investigated by the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau's Hongkou branch.
Huazong later said on Weibo that he had received death threats from thugs hired by Ouyang, and that he had fled to Vietnam.
On September 4, 2012, the Global Times published an article entitled "Watch Hunt." Some excerpts:
When local official Yang Dacai rushed to the scene of a fatal road accident to monitor rescue work in Yan'an, Northwest China's Shaanxi Province last week, he didn't expect he would soon be vilified by the public.
Pictures showing the potbellied official smiling in front of the wreckage of a double-decker sleeper bus that had crashed into a methanol-loaded tanker soon raised questions over how callous he could be, grinning at the loss of 36 lives.
That was just the beginning of the storm. In the ensuing cyber manhunt, an example of what are commonly known in China as "human flesh searches," enraged Web users not only  discovered his position - director of the workplace safety inspection administration of Shaanxi - but also came across pictures of him wearing  an expensive assortment of luxury watches.
. . . .
"Most Web users do not really care about the actual number or value of these watches," a Web user named Huazong, told the Global Times. "What they need is just a channel to vent their anger over corruption."
Huazong, a businessman in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, started compiling instances of the fancy watches worn by officials since July last year, and he had discovered Yang had at least 11 watches as early as October 2011.
Microblogs have coalesced into their own "micro-power," which when used collectively, is a mighty instrument, Tang Yuanqing, a professor of communication and public opinion from the Communication University of China, was reported by the Xinhua News Agency as saying.
. . . .
So far, Huazong has evaluated the watches of more than 300 officials, and found that many of them had more than three famous-brand watches, but his enthusiasm waned after he only received one official reply after 90 posts.
The assets of officials must be formally made public, because this kind of public exposure won't be able to prove whether they bought these luxury goods with their own salaries, he said, adding that follow-up investigations by inspection departments were important, or else microblog supervision would only descend into "virtual violence."
For censorship related to the Yang Dacai affair, see: http://blog.feichangdao.com/2012/10/shaanxi-official-yang-dacai-dismissed.html

On September 18, 2013, the state-sponsored Southern Metropolitan Daily published an article entitled "Wristwatch Expert 'Boss Hua' Ordered by Police to Appear" (鉴表专家“花总”被警方传唤). Some excerpts:
According to information yesterday, the Internet user "Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel," (hereafter "Boss Hua" or "Huazong") who gained a reputation as a wristwatch appraiser  and for his "Guide to Artifice," has been taken away by police. Regarding this, a police officer who would not give his name has confirmed to a Southern Metropolitan reporter that a criminal suspect using the online name "Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel" was indeed ordered to appear by police, and was currently being questioned by officers of the Criminal Division at the Chaoyang District Public Security Office. He would not, however, say what crime "Boss Hua" was suspected of committing.
昨日有消息称,以鉴表和“装腔指南”闻名的网友“花总丢了金箍棒”(下称“花总”)被北京警方带走。对此,一位不愿透露姓名的警官向南都记者证实,网名为“花总丢了金箍棒”的犯罪嫌疑人确被警方传唤,正在北京市公安局朝阳分局刑侦支队接受讯问,但未透露“花总”所涉罪名。
On September 18, the state-sponsored China.com.cn reported that Boss Hua had posted on his Sina Weibo account that afternoon "I'm free. Thanks!" (以自由了。谢谢!).

On September 19, Boss Hua posted the following on his Sina Weibo:
I was just released on bail, so its only a kind of temporary freedom, and I'm still not in the clear. As a suspected criminal I'm may not and should not use public opinion to influence the administration of justice. So until the case is resolved, I will not be making any comments regarding the status of the case. This is not because of any external pressure, and there no "confidentiality agreement" with police like some from have conjectured. To safeguard my rights during this process I place my hopes first in the law, and second in my lawyer.
今日取保候审,只算暂还自由,仍算不上清白之身。作为犯罪嫌疑人,不能也不该以舆论影响司法。所以结案前,我不会对案情做任何评述。这非外部压力,与警方之间也无某些朋友揣测的“保密协议”,在此过程中的权利保障,一来还是寄望法律,二来寄望律师。
According to Baidu's Encyclopedia (百科 Baike), Boss Hua's real name is Wu Dong (吴东)

These screenshots were taken on September 19, 2013, and show that both Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo were censoring searches for "Boss Hua" (花总 Hua Zong).
These screenshots show that, while Tencent's Soso was apparently not censoring searches for "Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel" (花总丢了金箍棒), a search for that term on Baidu returned a notice saying "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, some results have not been displayed" (根据相关法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。).
These screenshots show that a search on Baidu's "Knowledge" (知道 Zhidao) for "Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel" on September 19 returns no results, and that the question "Who is Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel" was deleted some time between September 8 and September 19.

Finally, these screenshots show that Qihoo and Sogou were completely censoring searches for "Boss Hua Lost the Monkey King's Golden Cudgel."

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Baidu, Sina, and Tencent Censor Searches Relating to Wang Gongquan's Detention

On September 14, 2013, the state-sponsored Global Times published an editorial in English and Chinese entitled "Unconditional Support for Wang is Imprudent"(为王功权无条件背书有违法律精神). Some excerpts:
Well-known venture capitalist and billionaire investor Wang Gongquan was detained by police in Beijing Friday.
. . . .
Since Friday afternoon, some liberals have begun to voice support for Wang, and asserted that he is completely innocent and being "politically persecuted" for his outspoken comments online. 
Several liberals have started to collect signatures on Weibo and completely politicized the incident. They claimed that China is at "the most dangerous moment," and warned that police authorities "should not irritate the public."
. . . .
We believe such an unconditional endorsement based on value judgment is not appropriate.
. . . .
Currently some liberals are seeking to build a public opinion atmosphere where anyone in their camp being sent to court is a victim of "political persecution." Even the prostitution scandal of Chinese-American investor Charles Xue has been seen by them as an "official crackdown on freedom of speech." 
By doing so they are actually claiming that they are not subject to law in China, and that they can only be judged by public opinion, especially that on Weibo. While seeking to build up such a privilege, some of them may lose respect for the law in real life.
These screenshots show that the "Dinghui Investments Wang Gongquan" (鼎晖投资 王功权) PostBar (贴吧 Tieba) forum was operating at least as recently as May, 2013, but that users searching for that forum on September 14 are told: "Apologies, in accordance with relevant laws, rules, and regulations, this Bar cannot be opened" (抱歉,根据相关法律法规和政策,本吧暂不开放。).

Original URL: http://tieba.baidu.com/f?ie=utf-8&kw=%E9%BC%8E%E6%99%96%E6%8A%95%E8%B5%84%20%E7%8E%8B%E5%8A%9F%E6%9D%83

This screenshot was taken on September 14, and shows that Tencent Weibo is censoring searches for "Wang Gongquan" (王功权).

These screenshots were taken on September 14, and show that Sina Weibo censors searches for "Wang Gongquan Urgent Statement" (王功权 紧急声明), but not for "Wang Gongquan" or "Urgent Statement."

Monday, September 9, 2013

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。”

Friday, September 6, 2013

Translation: Interpretation Regarding Certain Questions About Applicable Law When Dealing With Criminal Cases Whereby Information Networks are Utilized to Commit Defamation and Other Crimes

This “Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate Regarding Certain Questions About Applicable Law When Dealing With Criminal Cases Whereby Information Networks are Utilized to Commit Defamation and Other Crimes” was passed at the 1,589th meeting of the Supreme People’s Court Adjudication Committee meeting on September 5, 2013, and the 9th meeting of the 12th of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Procuratorial Committee on September 2, 2013, it is hereby promulgated, and takes effect on 10 September 2013. It is hereby promulgated and shall be implemented from September 10, 2013.

Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate

September 6, 2013

In order to protect the legal rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations and safeguard social order, in accordance with the “Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the "National People's Congress Standing Committee Decision Regarding Safeguarding Network Security," and other provisions, the following explanations are offered regarding questions of applying the law when dealing criminal cases whereby information networks are utilized to commit offenses such as defamation, provoking quarrels, extortion, or the illegal operation of a business or other criminal cases:

Article 1. If one of the following circumstances exists, it shall be deemed to be “fabricating facts to defame a third party” under Article 246, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law:

(1) fabricating facts which harm the reputation of third party and disseminating them, or organizing or causing persons to disseminate them, over information networks;
(2) falsifying original information content on information networks relating to a third party  involving another person such into facts that harm the reputation of a third party and disseminating them, or organizing or causing persons to disseminate them, over information networks;

where there is clear knowledge that facts harming a third party's reputation are fabricated are disseminated over information networks it shall, where the circumstances are malicious, be considered “fabricating facts to defame third parties."

Article 2. Where information networks are utilized to defame a third party and one of the following circumstances exists, it shall be deemed to be “grave circumstances” under Article 246 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law:

(1) where the same defamatory information is actually clicked upon or browsed 5,000 times or more, or is reposted 500 times or more;
(2) where it causes severe consequences to the injured party or their relatives such as mental derangement, self-harm, or suicide;
(3) where an individual defames a third party within two years after receiving administrative punishment for defamation;
(4) other serious circumstances.

Article 3. Where information networks are utilized to defame a third party, and one of the following circumstances is exists, it shall be deemed to be “severely jeopardizing social order and national interests” under Article 246 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law:

(1) triggering a mass incident;
(2) triggering a disturbance of social order;
(3) triggering ethnic or religious conflict;
(4) defaming many people and creating a negative social repercussions;
(5) harming the national image or severely jeopardizing national interests;
(6) creating negative international repercussions;
(7) other circumstances severely jeopardizing social order and national interests.

Article 4. If repeated instances of utilizing information networks to defame a third party within a one year period are not disposed of, and the aggregate number of actual clicks, browsing, or reposts constitutes a crime, convictions shall be made and punishment imposed in accordance with the law.

Article 5. Utilizing information networks to insult or intimidate a third party shall, where circumstances involve malice and the disruption of social order, be subject to conviction and punishment as the crime of provoking quarrels in accordance with the provisions of Article 293 Paragraph I Clause (2) of the Criminal Law.

Disseminating false information that one has fabricated or clearly knows to be fabricated over information networks, or organizing or causing people to disseminate the same on information networks shall, where it leads to a disturbance and creates a severe disruption of social order, be subject to conviction and punishment as the crime of provoking quarrels in accordance with the provisions of Article 293 Paragraph 1 Clause (4) of the Criminal Law.

Article 6. Where the dissemination, deletion, or other method of dealing with online information on information networks causes a third party to be coerced to hand over high-value public or private assets, or where the aforementioned act is repeatedly committed, it shall be subject to conviction and punishment as the crime of extortion in accordance with Article 274 of the Criminal Law.

Article 7. Providing deletion of information services on information networks in exchange for compensation in violation of State provisions and with the intent to seek profit, or providing information dissemination services on information networks in exchange for compensation for information that is known to be false, disrupting marketing order shall, where one of the following circumstances exists, be deemed illegal operation of a business with “severe circumstances” and shall be convicted and punished as illegal operation of a business in accordance with the provisions of Article 225 Clause 4 of the Criminal Law:

(1) for an individual, an illegal operations in an amount greater than or equal to 50,000 yuan, or an unlawful revenue greater than or equal to 20,000 yuan;
(2) for a work unit, an illegal operations in an amount greater than or equal to 150,000 yuan or higher, or an unlawful revenue greater than or equal to 50,000 yuan.

Where the acts provided for in the preceding Paragraph are carried out and the amount is greater than or equal to five times those provided for in the preceding Paragraph, it shall be deemed an “especially serious circumstance” as provided in Article 225 of the Criminal Law.

Article 8. Anyone providing funds, facilities, technology or other assistance to any third party with clear knowledge they are utilizing information networks to carry out defamation, provoking quarrels, operating a business illegally, or other crimes shall be punished as an accomplice.

Article 9. Utilizing information networks to carry out defamation, provoke quarrels, or operate a business illegally shall also constitute the crime of harming commercial reputation and merchandise reputation in accordance with Article 221 of the Criminal Law, the crime of inciting violence to obstruction the implementation of the law as provided in Article 278 of the Criminal Law, and the crime of fabricating and willfully disseminating false terrorist  information as provided in Article 291 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law, and conviction and punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the provision imposing the relatively heavier punishment.

Article 10. As referred to in this Interpretation, information networks shall include computer networks, broadcast television networks, fixed communications networks, mobile communications networks, as well as local area networks that are open to the public, which use computers, televisions, fixed telephone, mobile telephones, and other electronic equipment as terminals.

关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释

《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》已于2013年9月5日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1589次会议、2013年9月2日由最高人民检察院第十二届检察委员会第9次会议通过,现予公布,自2013年9月10日起施行。

法释〔2013〕21号

为保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益,维护社会秩序,根据《中华人民共和国刑法》《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于维护互联网安全的决定》等规定,对办理利用信息网络实施诽谤、寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、非法经营等刑事案件适用法律的若干问题解释如下:

第一条 具有下列情形之一的,应当认定为刑法第二百四十六条第一款规定的“捏造事实诽谤他人”:

(一)捏造损害他人名誉的事实,在信息网络上散布,或者组织、指使人员在信息网络上散布的;
(二)将信息网络上涉及他人的原始信息内容篡改为损害他人名誉的事实,在信息网络上散布,或者组织、指使人员在信息网络上散布的;

明知是捏造的损害他人名誉的事实,在信息网络上散布,情节恶劣的,以“捏造事实诽谤他人”论。

第二条 利用信息网络诽谤他人,具有下列情形之一的,应当认定为刑法第二百四十六条第一款规定的“情节严重”:

(一)同一诽谤信息实际被点击、浏览次数达到五千次以上,或者被转发次数达到五百次以上的;
(二)造成被害人或者其近亲属精神失常、自残、自杀等严重后果的;
(三)二年内曾因诽谤受过行政处罚,又诽谤他人的;
(四)其他情节严重的情形。

第三条 利用信息网络诽谤他人,具有下列情形之一的,应当认定为刑法第二百四十六条第二款规定的“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”:

(一)引发群体性事件的;
(二)引发公共秩序混乱的;
(三)引发民族、宗教冲突的;
(四)诽谤多人,造成恶劣社会影响的;
(五)损害国家形象,严重危害国家利益的;
(六)造成恶劣国际影响的;
(七)其他严重危害社会秩序和国家利益的情形。

第四条 一年内多次实施利用信息网络诽谤他人行为未经处理,诽谤信息实际被点击、浏览、转发次数累计计算构成犯罪的,应当依法定罪处罚。

第五条 利用信息网络辱骂、恐吓他人,情节恶劣,破坏社会秩序的,依照刑法第二百九十三条第一款第(二)项的规定,以寻衅滋事罪定罪处罚。

编造虚假信息,或者明知是编造的虚假信息,在信息网络上散布,或者组织、指使人员在信息网络上散布,起哄闹事,造成公共秩序严重混乱的,依照刑法第二百九十三条第一款第(四)项的规定,以寻衅滋事罪定罪处罚。

第六条 以在信息网络上发布、删除等方式处理网络信息为由,威胁、要挟他人,索取公私财物,数额较大,或者多次实施上述行为的,依照刑法第二百七十四条的规定,以敲诈勒索罪定罪处罚。

第七条 违反国家规定,以营利为目的,通过信息网络有偿提供删除信息服务,或者明知是虚假信息,通过信息网络有偿提供发布信息等服务,扰乱市场秩序,具有下列情形之一的,属于非法经营行为“情节严重”,依照刑法第二百二十五条第(四)项的规定,以非法经营罪定罪处罚:

(一)个人非法经营数额在五万元以上,或者违法所得数额在二万元以上的;
(二)单位非法经营数额在十五万元以上,或者违法所得数额在五万元以上的。

实施前款规定的行为,数额达到前款规定的数额五倍以上的,应当认定为刑法第二百二十五条规定的“情节特别严重”。

第八条 明知他人利用信息网络实施诽谤、寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、非法经营等犯罪,为其提供资金、场所、技术支持等帮助的,以共同犯罪论处。

第九条 利用信息网络实施诽谤、寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、非法经营犯罪,同时又构成刑法第二百二十一条规定的损害商业信誉、商品声誉罪,第二百七十八条规定的煽动暴力抗拒法律实施罪,第二百九十一条之一规定的编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息罪等犯罪的,依照处罚较重的规定定罪处罚。

第十条 本解释所称信息网络,包括以计算机、电视机、固定电话机、移动电话机等电子设备为终端的计算机互联网、广播电视网、固定通信网、移动通信网等信息网络,以及向公众开放的局域网络。

Translation: Sun Daluo's Court Judgment for Sharing Books and Articles

The PRC government sentenced Sun Zhiming (孙志明, who wrote under the alias Sun Daluo (孙大骆)) to one year imprisonment for the crime of "di...