An offhand comment on the anti-corruption campaign ====================================================== **Analysis of the Legal Basis, Deficiencies, and Shortcomings of the Kunming Public Security, Procuratorate, and Court System Using Chen Jingyuan's Comment as Evidence for "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** **Case Background Overview** Dr. Chen Jingyuan was arrested and convicted by the Kunming public security, procuratorate, and court system (hereinafter referred to as the \"Kunming authorities\") for the crime of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" under Article 293 of the *Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China* due to his activities on Twitter. One of the key pieces of evidence cited was [[a comment](https://x.com/_cenjoy/status/1486039010846064640)] Chen made under a post about \"certain CCP senior officials allegedly using anti-corruption campaigns as a pretext to massively embezzle state or private enterprises.\" The comment reads: "**The so-called anti-corruption is nothing but a way for CCP elites to get rich and sustain their power, and it has little to do with us ordinary people.**" This comment has received zero retweets and no dissemination to date. The Kunming authorities used this comment as evidence for Chen's \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" charge. Below, I will analyze the legal basis for this action, as well as the deficiencies and shortcomings in the Kunming authorities' approach, from the perspectives of legal principles and evidence usage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **I. Analysis of the Legal Basis for the Kunming Authorities Using Chen Jingyuan's Comment as Evidence for "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** **1. Legal Elements of "Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble"** According to Article 293 of the *Criminal Law*, the crime of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" requires the following elements: - **Actus Reus**: The act of \"disseminating false information\" or \"causing a disturbance in a public place.\" - **Consequence**: Causing serious disruption to public order. - **Mens Rea**: The intent to commit the act. - **Quantitative Standard for Online Dissemination**: 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*) Article 5 specifies that disseminating false information online must result in significant consequences, such as being retweeted 500 times or viewed 5,000 times, or causing other severe outcomes (e.g., triggering mass incidents) to constitute a crime. **2. Possible Legal Basis for the Kunming Authorities' Actions** The Kunming authorities may have relied on the following legal grounds to use Chen Jingyuan's comment as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\": - **Determination of "Disseminating False Information"**: The authorities might have deemed Chen's comment---"The so-called anti-corruption is nothing but a way for CCP elites to get rich and sustain their power"---as a form of \"defamation\" or \"false statement\" against the official anti-corruption campaign, classifying it as a \"rumor\" or \"false information,\" thereby meeting the \"disseminating false information\" element under Article 293 of the *Criminal Law*. - **Presumption of "Serious Disruption to Public Order"**: The authorities might have presumed that the comment could provoke public distrust in the anti-corruption campaign, potentially leading to social instability and thus \"disrupting public order.\" - **Assessment of Subjective Intent**: The authorities might have argued that Chen, knowing that anti-corruption is a key official policy, still posted a negative comment, demonstrating subjective intent to \"pick quarrels and provoke trouble.\" - **Application of Constitutional Restrictions**: Article 51 of the *Constitution of the People's Republic of China* (hereinafter referred to as the *Constitution*) states that citizens, in exercising their freedoms and rights, must not harm the interests of the state, society, the collective, or the lawful rights of other citizens. The authorities might have argued that Chen's comment harmed national interests or social stability. **3. Reasonableness of the Legal Basis** - **Issue with Determining "Disseminating False Information"**: Chen's comment is a subjective opinion and emotional expression, not a factual statement. The *Two Highs Interpretation* defines \"false information\" as fabricated specific facts (e.g., fake disaster reports), not critical opinions about policies or phenomena. The comment does not involve specific facts (e.g., alleging a particular official's corruption) but is a general critique of the anti-corruption campaign. If the authorities failed to prove the content was false and directly classified it as a \"rumor,\" this lacks legal grounding. - **Lack of Evidence for "Serious Disruption to Public Order"**: The comment received zero retweets and no dissemination, causing no actual impact on public order. The *Two Highs Interpretation* requires proof of quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views), but no such data was presented in this case, making the authorities' presumption baseless. - **Issue with Assessing Subjective Intent**: Chen's comment may have been a personal emotional outburst, not necessarily indicative of intent to \"pick quarrels and provoke trouble.\" If the authorities presumed intent solely due to the topic of anti-corruption, this may constitute subjective speculation. - **Application of Article 51 of the *Constitution***: While Article 51 allows for restrictions on citizens' rights, such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The authorities failed to demonstrate how Chen's comment specifically harmed national interests, and directly applying this provision to restrict his freedom of speech may be unlawful. **Conclusion**: The legal basis for the Kunming authorities' use of Chen Jingyuan's comment as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" is tenuous. It does not adequately meet the elements of Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* or the *Two Highs Interpretation*, indicating flaws in legal application. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **II. Deficiencies and Shortcomings in the Kunming Authorities' Approach** **1. Lack of Relevance of the Evidence** **Issue**: - Chen's comment is a subjective opinion and emotional expression, not a factual statement, and does not possess the characteristics of a \"rumor\" or \"false information.\" The comment merely expresses skepticism about the anti-corruption campaign without fabricating facts, making it impossible to prove Chen engaged in \"disseminating false information.\" - The authorities failed to provide evidence that the comment's content was false or that it was directly related to the actus reus of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" **Legal Basis**: - Article 50 of the *Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* (hereinafter referred to as the *CPL*) requires that evidence be directly related to the facts of the case. Chen's comment, as a subjective opinion, is unrelated to \"disseminating false information\" and lacks relevance to the actus reus of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" - Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* requires proof of dissemination and its consequences, which the authorities failed to provide. **Conclusion**: The authorities' use of Chen's comment as evidence lacks relevance, as it does not prove he committed the actus reus of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" **2. Insufficient Evidence** **Issue**: - The authorities did not provide evidence that Chen's comment caused a \"serious disruption to public order.\" The comment received zero retweets and no dissemination, causing no actual impact on public order. - The authorities failed to prove the comment's content was \"false information\" and did not provide evidence of official refutation or clarification. **Legal Basis**: - Article 53 of the *CPL* requires that a conviction be based on clear and sufficient evidence, ruling out reasonable doubt. The authorities provided no dissemination data or evidence of consequences, making the conviction evidence insufficient. - Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* requires proof of quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views), which the authorities failed to meet. **Conclusion**: The authorities' reliance on Chen's comment as evidence fails to meet the sufficiency requirement under Article 53 of the *CPL*, as the evidence chain is incomplete. **3. Disregard for Constitutional Protection of Free Speech** **Issue**: - Chen's comment is a critique of the anti-corruption campaign, falling within the scope of free speech protected by the *Constitution*. The authorities' classification of this as \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" may infringe on Chen's constitutional rights. - The authorities failed to demonstrate how Chen's comment specifically harmed national interests or social stability, directly restricting his free speech without proving the necessity of such a restriction. **Legal Basis**: - Article 35 of the *Constitution* guarantees citizens' freedom of speech, and commenting on the anti-corruption campaign falls within the scope of speech. - Article 51 of the *Constitution* allows for restrictions on rights, but such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the restriction. **Conclusion**: The authorities disregarded the protection of free speech under Article 35 of the *Constitution* and failed to prove the necessity of restricting Chen's rights, potentially infringing on his constitutional rights. **4. Disregard for the Universality of Subjective Opinions** **Issue**: - Chen's comment is a subjective opinion and emotional expression, reflecting a common psychological response of citizens questioning public policies like anti-corruption campaigns, which is a universal psychological activity. The authorities' classification of this as \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" disregards the universality of subjective opinions. - Anti-corruption campaigns involve public interest, and citizens questioning their effectiveness is a normal part of social discourse. The authorities failed to consider this context, directly labeling the comment as criminal evidence without reasonable grounds. **Legal Basis**: - Article 35 of the *Constitution* guarantees freedom of speech, and the expression of subjective opinions falls within this scope. - Psychological research confirms that emotional expression and subjective opinions are universal features of human psychological activity (web ID: 0), and the authorities' disregard for this universality lacks scientific basis. **Conclusion**: The authorities disregarded the universality and social context of subjective opinions, criminalizing a normal psychological activity, which lacks legal and scientific grounding. **5. Lack of Procedural Justice** **Issue**: - The authorities did not thoroughly verify the dissemination scope or social impact of Chen's comment, directly classifying it as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" without a transparent evidence collection and classification process. - The authorities did not explain how they determined the comment to be \"false information\" or provide evidence of official refutations or clarifications. **Legal Basis**: - Article 2 of the *CPL* mandates that criminal proceedings ensure the correct implementation of the law and protect citizens' rights. The authorities' failure to carefully verify evidence may violate procedural justice. - Article 116 of the *CPL* requires a detention warrant for arrests, and Article 119 mandates notifying the family within 24 hours of detention. If the authorities failed to follow arrest procedures, this would constitute a further violation. **Conclusion**: The authorities lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification and conviction procedures, potentially violating the procedural justice requirements of the *CPL*. **6. Potential Political Motivation** **Issue**: - Chen's comment involves the topic of anti-corruption, which may have been perceived by the authorities as an \"attack\" on official policy. The authorities may have been driven by political sensitivity to classify it as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble,\" rather than basing their actions on legal facts. - The authorities failed to provide dissemination data or evidence of consequences, suggesting the conviction may have been politically motivated. **Legal Basis**: - Article 5 of the *Constitution* mandates the rule of law, and no organization or individual may act above the *Constitution* and laws. Law enforcement must be based on legal facts, not political considerations. - Article 12 of the *CPL* states that no one may be deemed guilty without a court judgment. The authorities' conviction with insufficient evidence may violate the principle of presumption of innocence. **Conclusion**: The authorities may have been influenced by political motives, failing to act in accordance with the law, raising concerns of potential abuse of power. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Overall Assessment** **Legal Basis Analysis**: The Kunming authorities' use of Chen Jingyuan's comment as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" has a tenuous legal basis. The authorities may have presumed the comment to be \"false information\" and disruptive to public order due to its sensitive topic of anti-corruption, but they failed to provide dissemination data or evidence of consequences, falling short of the elements required by Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* and the *Two Highs Interpretation*. This indicates flaws in legal application. **Deficiencies and Shortcomings**: - **Lack of Evidence Relevance**: Chen's comment is a subjective opinion, unrelated to \"disseminating false information,\" and lacks relevance to the actus reus of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" - **Insufficient Evidence**: The authorities failed to provide dissemination data or evidence of consequences, rendering the conviction evidence insufficient. - **Disregard for Constitutional Protections**: The authorities failed to justify the necessity of restricting free speech, potentially infringing on Chen's constitutional rights. - **Disregard for Subjective Opinion Universality**: The authorities criminalized a normal psychological activity, lacking scientific grounding. - **Lack of Procedural Justice**: The authorities lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification, violating procedural justice. - **Potential Political Motivation**: The authorities may have been driven by political sensitivity, failing to act in accordance with the law. **Final Conclusion**: The Kunming authorities' use of Chen Jingyuan's comment as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" lacks a solid legal basis, failing to meet the elements of Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* and the *Two Highs Interpretation*. The conviction lacks sufficient evidence and exhibits deficiencies in evidence relevance, sufficiency, constitutional protection, subjective opinion universality, and procedural justice. The authorities may have been influenced by political motives, potentially infringing on Chen's freedom of speech under Article 35 of the *Constitution*. This case highlights the tension between the handling of sensitive topics and the protection of constitutional rights in China's judicial practice. *Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you.* -------------- [[Chinese](/chats/elements/actions/emotion/comment_cn)]