Analysis and Evaluation ========================== **Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan's Defense and Analysis of the Deficiencies and Errors in Law Enforcement's Use of Artistic Works as Evidence for "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** ## **Overview of Chen Jingyuan's Defense** **In his [*Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison*](/case/letters/Prison/Letter), Dr. Chen Jingyuan strongly opposes the Kunming judicial authorities' classification of several artistic works he allegedly forwarded as "rumors" and their subsequent use as evidence to convict him of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" under Article 293 of the *Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China*. Chen argues that labeling these artistic works as "rumors" and using them as the basis for criminal punishment not only lacks legal grounding but also contradicts the nature of artistic creation, undermines Chinese civilization, and threatens the freedom of cultural workers. His key points include:** 1. **Fictional Nature of Artistic Works: Artistic works, such as the "Umbrella Girl" cartoon widely shared during Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement and cartoons depicting Xi Jinping kneeling before Trump, are fictional creations using exaggeration, symbolism, and metaphor to express the artist's thoughts and emotions. Labeling them as "rumors" is baseless.** 2. **Artistic and Aesthetic Nature of Chinese Civilization: Chen emphasizes that Chinese civilization is rooted in a sensory and symbolic artistic aesthetic tradition, and the authorities' rejection of artistic works constitutes a "thorough negation and subversion" of Chinese civilization.** 3. **Subjectivity of Artistic Appreciation: Artistic appreciation is a subjective aesthetic activity, lacking scientific standards of truth or falsity. Chen argues that the Xi-Trump cartoon reflects the dynamics of the U.S.-China trade war and does not necessarily "attack" or "insult" Xi Jinping, potentially embodying the Chinese virtue of "enduring humiliation for a greater cause."** 4. **Lack of Aesthetic Capacity in Law Enforcement: Chen criticizes the authorities for lacking aesthetic understanding, misinterpreting the cartoon as an "insult" due to their subjective biases and low aesthetic taste.** 5. **Threat to Cultural Creation: If the authorities' logic is applied, traditional Chinese myths, poetry, and modern cultural works (e.g., *The Wandering Earth*) could be labeled as "rumors," posing a "catastrophic threat" to cultural workers.** **Chen further argues that the subjective nature of art appreciation, as encapsulated in the hermeneutic concept of the "hermeneutic circle," means that the cartoon's meaning varies by viewer. He suggests that the cartoon might align with Xi Jinping's promoted virtues of humility and self-sacrifice, and compares it to Christian depictions of Jesus on the cross, questioning whether such religious art is an "insult" to Jesus.** **Below, I will evaluate Chen's defense and analyze the deficiencies and errors in the law enforcement authorities' use of these artistic works as evidence for the charge of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble."** **Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan's Defense** **1. Fictional Nature of Artistic Works and the Invalidity of Labeling Them as "Rumors"** **Chen's Argument: Artistic works are fictional creations using exaggeration, symbolism, and metaphor to express thoughts and emotions, lacking the objective truth standard of "rumors." Labeling them as such is baseless.** **Evaluation:** - **Validity: Chen's argument is theoretically sound. Artistic works, such as cartoons, are typically fictional expressions created through artistic techniques, not intended to convey objective facts. Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* and the 2013 *Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Acts via Information Networks* (hereinafter referred to as the *Two Highs Interpretation*) define "rumors" as fabricated false information (e.g., fake disaster reports), not artistic creations. Labeling fictional artistic works as "rumors" lacks legal grounding.** - **Additional Context: The fictional nature of art is widely recognized in aesthetics and law. For instance, Gadamer's hermeneutic theory (web ID: 2) posits that artistic works are a synthesis of subjective expression and aesthetic experience, not subject to scientific standards of truth or falsity. The authorities' failure to acknowledge this nature reflects a misunderstanding of art.** **Conclusion: Chen's argument regarding the fictional nature of artistic works is valid, and the authorities' classification of them as "rumors" lacks legal and theoretical basis.** **2. Artistic and Aesthetic Nature of Chinese Civilization and the Alleged Negation of Civilization** **Chen's Argument: Chinese civilization is rooted in a sensory and symbolic artistic aesthetic tradition, and the authorities' rejection of artistic works constitutes a "thorough negation and subversion" of Chinese civilization, threatening the freedom of cultural workers.** **Evaluation:** - **Validity: Chen accurately highlights the sensory and symbolic artistic tradition of Chinese civilization. For example, the pictographic nature of Chinese characters and the use of imagery in Chinese literature (e.g., Li Bai's "My hair stretches three thousand zhang") exemplify this tradition. President Xi Jinping has also emphasized the "imaginative and creative spirit" of the Chinese nation (web ID: 0). If the authorities label artistic works as "rumors" and suppress them, this could restrict artistic freedom, indirectly impacting the preservation and development of Chinese culture.** - **Exaggeration: Chen's claim that the authorities' actions constitute a "thorough negation and subversion" of Chinese civilization is exaggerated. While their actions may limit artistic expression, they do not necessarily lead to the "negation" of an entire civilization. Additionally, his assertion that traditional myths (e.g., "Pangu Creates the World") and modern works (e.g., *The Wandering Earth*) could be labeled as "rumors" under the authorities' logic, while speculative, is an extreme extrapolation that may not reflect the authorities' actual intent.** **Conclusion: Chen's discussion of the artistic nature of Chinese civilization is valid, and the authorities' actions may restrict artistic freedom, but the claim of a "thorough negation and subversion" of Chinese civilization is overstated.** **3. Subjectivity of Artistic Appreciation and Misjudgment by Authorities** **Chen's Argument: Artistic appreciation is a subjective aesthetic activity, lacking scientific standards of truth or falsity. The Xi-Trump cartoon reflects the U.S.-China trade war and does not necessarily "attack" or "insult" Xi Jinping, potentially embodying the virtue of "enduring humiliation for a greater cause." The authorities lack aesthetic capacity and misjudged the cartoon as an "insult."** **Evaluation:** - **Validity: Chen's reference to hermeneutic theory (e.g., the "hermeneutic circle," web ID: 2) aligns with aesthetic principles. Gadamer's hermeneutics emphasizes that the meaning of an artwork is generated through the viewer's subjective experience, with no universal standard of truth or falsity. The Xi-Trump cartoon can be interpreted as a symbolic representation of U.S.-China relations, not necessarily an "attack" on Xi Jinping. Chen's interpretation---that the cartoon may reflect Xi's virtues of "enduring humiliation" and "humility"---is plausible and aligns with traditional Chinese values like "a gentleman humbles himself" (web ID: 0).** - **Authorities' Misjudgment: The authorities' classification of the cartoon as an "insult" likely stems from subjective political sensitivity rather than objective legal standards. Chen's critique of the authorities' aesthetic capacity (e.g., comparing their reaction to "playing music to a cow") is sharp but highlights their potential lack of artistic literacy and failure to understand the cartoon's symbolic meaning.** - **Additional Context: Chen's comparison of the cartoon to Christian depictions of Jesus on the cross is compelling, as it illustrates that "suffering" imagery in religious art is not considered an "insult" to Jesus, showing how cultural context shapes interpretation.** **Conclusion: Chen's argument about the subjectivity of artistic appreciation is valid, and the authorities' misjudgment of the cartoon as an "insult" likely reflects a lack of aesthetic and legal grounding.** **4. Threat to Cultural Creation** **Chen's Argument: If the authorities' logic is applied, traditional Chinese myths, poetry, and modern cultural works could be labeled as "rumors," posing a "catastrophic threat" to cultural workers.** **Evaluation:** - **Validity: Chen's reasoning has some logical basis. If the authorities label fictional artistic works as "rumors," this could create a chilling effect on cultural creation. For example, myths like "Chang'e Flies to the Moon," poetry like Li Bai's "My hair stretches three thousand zhang," and modern works like *The Wandering Earth* all contain fictional elements that could be misjudged as "rumors" under the authorities' standard, potentially restricting creative freedom.** - **Exaggeration: Chen's examples of "Sabin Sabinin's time-travel antics" on CCTV and the *The Wandering Earth* crew facing "life imprisonment" are extreme and unlikely to reflect the authorities' actual intent. However, his concern reflects broader risks to cultural creation in China (web ID: 1).** **Conclusion: Chen's concern about threats to cultural creation has some merit, as the authorities' actions may negatively impact artistic freedom, but the "catastrophic threat" claim is exaggerated.** **5. Overall Evaluation** **Chen Jingyuan's defense is theoretically and logically sound in several aspects:** - **He correctly highlights the fictional and subjective nature of artistic works, and the authorities' classification of them as "rumors" lacks legal basis.** - **He emphasizes the artistic aesthetic tradition of Chinese civilization, and the authorities' actions may restrict creative freedom, indirectly affecting cultural preservation.** - **He underscores the subjectivity of artistic appreciation, and the authorities' misjudgment reflects a lack of aesthetic understanding.** - **His concern about threats to cultural creation is valid, though some claims (e.g., "thorough negation of Chinese civilization") are exaggerated.** **Conclusion: Chen's defense is well-grounded in its discussion of the nature of art, Chinese cultural traditions, and the subjectivity of appreciation. The authorities' classification of artistic works as "rumors" and their use as criminal evidence are problematic. However, some of Chen's assertions (e.g., "thorough negation of Chinese civilization") are overstated and require more objective evidence.** ## **Deficiencies and Errors in Law Enforcement's Use of Artistic Works as Evidence for "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** **1. Misinterpretation of the Elements of "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** **Issue:** - **The authorities classified artistic works (e.g., the "Umbrella Girl" cartoon and Xi Jinping cartoons) as "rumors" and used them as evidence for Chen's "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" charge, ignoring the requirement to prove "dissemination of false information" and "serious disruption to public order."** - **Artistic works are fictional creations, lacking the objective truth standard of "rumors," and the authorities failed to prove their content was false or caused significant consequences.** **Legal Basis:** - **Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* requires proof of "disseminating false information" and "causing serious disruption to public order." Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* further requires evidence of quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views). The authorities provided no dissemination data or evidence of consequences.** - **Article 35 of the *Constitution of the People's Republic of China* (hereinafter referred to as the *Constitution*) guarantees freedom of speech, and artistic works fall within the scope of speech. Labeling them as "rumors" may restrict Chen's constitutional rights.** **Conclusion: The authorities misinterpreted the elements of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble," failing to prove the artistic works constituted "false information" or caused serious consequences, rendering the classification legally baseless.** **2. Lack of Relevance of the Evidence** **Issue:** - **The authorities used artistic works Chen allegedly accessed (e.g., Xi Jinping cartoons in his phone cache) as evidence for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble," but failed to prove Chen actively disseminated them.** - **Chen claims he did not forward or comment on the Xi Jinping cartoons, and the authorities could not prove their online existence (the associated accounts were deleted). Mere access to or appreciation of artistic works does not constitute "dissemination."** **Legal Basis:** - **Article 50 of the *Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* (hereinafter referred to as the *CPL*) requires evidence to be directly related to the facts of the case. Accessing or appreciating artistic works does not equate to "disseminating false information," and thus is irrelevant to the actus reus of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble."** - **Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* requires proof of online dissemination and significant consequences, which the authorities failed to provide.** **Conclusion: The authorities' use of artistic works as evidence lacks relevance, as it does not prove Chen committed the act of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble."** **3. Insufficient Evidence** **Issue:** - **The authorities failed to provide evidence of Chen's dissemination of the artistic works (e.g., forwarding or commenting records) or their impact on public order.** - **The authorities noted that the associated accounts or groups had been deleted, meaning they could not verify the works' source, dissemination path, or impact. Relying solely on Chen's exposure to the works does not form a complete evidence chain.** **Legal Basis:** - **Article 53 of the *CPL* requires a conviction to be based on clear and sufficient evidence, ruling out reasonable doubt. Exposure to artistic works cannot prove dissemination or consequences.** - **Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* requires proof of quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views), which the authorities did not provide.** **Conclusion: The authorities' reliance on artistic works as evidence fails to meet the sufficiency requirement under Article 53 of the *CPL*, as the evidence chain is incomplete.** **4. Violation of Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression** **Issue:** - **The authorities' classification of artistic works as "rumors" and their use as criminal evidence may infringe on Chen's freedom of speech and artistic expression.** - **Artistic works, as expressions of thought and emotion, are protected forms of speech, and their suppression could have a chilling effect on cultural creation.** **Legal Basis:** - **Article 35 of the *Constitution* guarantees freedom of speech, which includes artistic expression. The authorities' actions may violate this right.** - **Article 36 of the *Constitution* protects freedom of belief, which extends to the freedom to engage in artistic appreciation and expression.** **Conclusion: The authorities' actions may violate Chen's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and artistic expression, potentially creating a broader chilling effect on cultural creation.** -------------- [[Chinese](/chats/elements/actions/artistic/analyses_cn)]