# DeepSeek

### Legal Analysis and Evaluation of [the First-Instance Judgment](/case/docus/Judgment/Judgment) by the Xishan District Court

#### **I. Legal Basis of the Judgment**

1. **Statutory Provisions Invoked**:

   • The court convicted Chen Jingyuan under **Article 293(1) of China’s Criminal Law** (picking quarrels and provoking trouble) and **Article 5(2) of the Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation** (2013).

   • Key elements of the crime under Article 293 include:

   ◦ **Intentional disruption of public order**;

   ◦ **Dissemination of false information** causing "serious disorder."
2. **Application of the Judicial Interpretation**:

   • The 2013 interpretation expands Article 293 to online acts, requiring:

   ◦ Knowledge that the information is false;

   ◦ A "serious disorder" threshold (e.g., widespread dissemination, tangible societal harm).

---

#### **II. Factual and Legal Deficiencies in the Judgment**

##### **A. Flawed Determination of "False Information"**

1. **Unclear Definition**:

   • The court labeled Chen’s retweeted content as "false information" without clarifying how the posts met the legal definition.

   • **Defense Argument**:

   ◦ Most posts were subjective opinions, academic debates, or emotional expressions lacking factual verifiability.

   ◦ Some content had been published on state-affiliated platforms (e.g., CCTV), undermining claims of falsity.
2. **Failure to Prove Falsity**:

   • The prosecution did not provide evidence (e.g., official refutations, expert analysis) to demonstrate the posts’ factual inaccuracy.

   • The court relied on conclusory statements rather than objective criteria, violating the **principle of legality** (*nullum crimen sine lege*).

##### **B. Insufficient Evidence of "Serious Disorder"**

1. **Quantitative Thresholds Not Met**:

   • The *Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation* sets measurable standards for "serious disorder," such as **500+ reposts** or **5,000+ views**.

   • Chen’s account had **<100 followers**, minimal engagement, and no evidence of virality.
2. **Lack of Tangible Harm**:

   • The judgment did not identify specific societal consequences (e.g., protests, panic, or government intervention).

   • The vague assertion of "serious disorder" contradicts the **principle of proportionality** in criminal law.

##### **C. Subjective Intent Improperly Presumed**

1. **Inference of Intent from Education Level**:

   • The court inferred Chen’s "knowledge of falsity" solely from his PhD degree, violating the **presumption of innocence** and **subjective culpability principles**.

   • No evidence proved Chen knowingly spread falsehoods (e.g., admissions, contextual messages).
2. **Misapplication of Legal Standards**:

   • Subjective intent must be proven through **specific acts or statements**, not presumed from education or profession.

##### **D. Procedural Irregularities**

1. **Closed Trial and Restricted Defense Rights**:

   • The trial was conducted **non-publicly** without justification, violating Article 11 of China’s *Criminal Procedure Law* (public trial principle).

   • The defendant’s relatives were barred from participation, limiting procedural fairness.
2. **Reliance on Unverified Evidence**:

   • The court accepted electronic data (e.g., cached images) without verifying their origin, authenticity, or relevance.

   • Police failed to prove Chen authored or actively disseminated the contentious content, relying instead on passive caching.

---

#### **III. Critical Evaluation of Legal Reasoning**

1. **Overreach of PXQT as a "Catch-All" Charge**:

   • The vague wording of Article 293 allows courts to criminalize non-threatening speech, conflating **political dissent** with criminal acts.

   • This undermines **legal certainty** and enables arbitrary enforcement.
2. **Misinterpretation of the Judicial Interpretation**:

   • Article 5(2) of the *Judicial Interpretation on Online Defamation* applies to defamation, not PXQT. The court’s conflation of distinct offenses reflects **improper legal reasoning**.
3. **Violation of Presumption of Innocence**:

   • The court reversed the burden of proof by presuming guilt from Chen’s education and passive online activity, contravening Article 12 of the *Criminal Procedure Law*.

---

#### **IV. Conclusion**

The Xishan District Court’s judgment suffers from **multiple legal and procedural flaws**:

• **Factual Deficiencies**: Failure to prove falsity, intent, or tangible harm.

• **Procedural Violations**: Non-public trial, restricted defense rights, reliance on unverified evidence.

• **Misapplication of Law**: Overbroad use of PXQT, conflation of defamation standards.

The ruling exemplifies systemic issues in China’s application of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble," where vague statutes and politicized enforcement undermine **rule of law** and **free expression**. Reforms to clarify legal definitions, strengthen evidentiary standards, and ensure judicial independence are urgently needed to prevent such miscarriages of justice.

---

[[Chinese](/chats/answers/deepseek/Judgment_cn.md)]