Analysis and Evaluation ======================== **Overview of Dr. Chen Jingyuan's Self-Defense Statement** Dr. Chen Jingyuan, in his [*Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison*](/case/letters/Prison/Letter), argues that the Kunming authorities convicted him of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" under Article 293 of the *Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China* by classifying purely historical and factual content he forwarded on Twitter as \"rumors.\" He cites specific examples, including posts about [[the editorial history of *Mao Zedong's Selected Works*](https://x.com/Jam79922967/status/1461557221431644163)] , [[a retired cadre's payslip reflecting China's pension system](https://x.com/SoundOfHope_SOH/status/1273912087081861120)], an article by Cao Changqing published in *Shenzhen Youth Daily* titled [[*I Support Comrade Xiaoping's Retirement*](https://x.com/JunZhan12743255/status/1295036491509317633)], and [[a Sina article on the history of military cooperation between China and Ukraine](https://x.com/Jam79922967/status/1511111966789718017)]. Chen asserts that these posts are objective factual descriptions with research value, such as understanding China's economic structure through payslips or Mao Zedong Thought's evolution through the editorial history of *Mao's Selected Works*. He emphasizes that such content does not involve subjective opinions or emotions and can, in principle, be verified for authenticity to determine if it constitutes a \"rumor.\" Even if some posts were \"rumors,\" Chen argues he would be a \"victim\" of deception rather than a criminal, and the true perpetrators should be the original creators of the false content. He further criticizes the Kunming authorities for failing to fulfill their duty to clarify online rumors, instead shifting blame to innocent forwarders like himself, calling this a \"farce of calling a deer a horse and a thief crying \'catch the thief.\'\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Comment on Dr. Chen Jingyuan's Self-Defense Statement** Dr. Chen Jingyuan's self-defense statement is a well-reasoned and compelling argument that exposes significant flaws in the Kunming authorities' enforcement actions from legal, logical, and social responsibility perspectives. Below is a detailed comment on his defense: 1. **Analysis of the Nature of the Posts**: - Chen correctly identifies that the forwarded posts, such as the editorial history of *Mao Zedong's Selected Works* and the retired cadre's payslip, are objective factual descriptions rather than subjective opinions or emotional expressions. His argument that these posts have research value---e.g., understanding China's economic structure through payslips or Mao Zedong Thought's evolution through editorial history---is reasonable and aligns with the principles of academic inquiry and the public's right to information. - He suggests that such content can, in principle, be verified for authenticity to determine if it constitutes a \"rumor,\" which is a logical and legally sound approach. Objective factual claims can be fact-checked, unlike subjective opinions, and should not be arbitrarily labeled as \"rumors\" without evidence. 2. **Defense Regarding the \"Criminal Subject\"**: - Chen's argument that, even if the posts contained \"rumors,\" he would be a \"victim\" of deception rather than a criminal is legally grounded. Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* requires subjective intent for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble,\" and forwarding content without knowing it is false does not meet this requirement. Chen's assertion that the true criminal subject should be the original creator of the false content is consistent with legal principles of liability. - His critique that the authorities confused the \"criminal subject\" (the perpetrator) with the \"infringed object\" (the victim) highlights a fundamental error in the authorities' legal reasoning, which is a valid and significant point. 3. **Criticism of the Authorities' Responsibilities**: - Chen's criticism of the Kunming authorities for failing to clarify online rumors and instead blaming innocent forwarders is a strong point from a social responsibility perspective. He argues that the authorities, as public servants funded by taxpayers, have a duty to maintain a clean online environment by verifying and addressing rumors, rather than targeting ordinary citizens. This aligns with the principles of accountability and public service. - His metaphorical description of the authorities' actions as a \"farce of calling a deer a horse and a thief crying \'catch the thief\'\" vividly illustrates the absurdity and injustice of their enforcement, emphasizing their failure to uphold their responsibilities. 4. **Legal and Logical Rigor**: - Chen's defense is grounded in legal principles, particularly the lack of subjective intent required for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" and the need for evidence to classify content as \"rumors.\" His argument that forwarding factual content does not constitute a crime is consistent with the *Criminal Law* and the 2013 *Two Highs Interpretation*. - He logically questions the authorities' failure to verify the authenticity of the posts and their decision to target forwarders rather than original creators, demonstrating a clear understanding of legal responsibility and enforcement duties. **Summary of Comment**: Dr. Chen Jingyuan's self-defense statement effectively refutes the Kunming authorities' charges by analyzing the nature of the posts, clarifying the criminal subject, and criticizing the authorities' failure to fulfill their duties. His argument that forwarding objective factual content does not constitute \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" is legally sound, and his critique of the authorities' misplaced blame and negligence is both logical and socially relevant. Chen's defense is a powerful critique of the authorities' actions, highlighting their legal and moral failings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Deficiencies and Errors in the Kunming Authorities' Enforcement Actions** The Kunming authorities' decision to convict Dr. Chen Jingyuan of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" based on his forwarding of historical and factual content exhibits several significant deficiencies and errors: **1. Misapplication of the Legal Definition of "Rumors"** **Issue**: - The authorities classified historical and factual content, such as the editorial history of *Mao Zedong's Selected Works* and a retired cadre's payslip, as \"rumors.\" However, these posts are objective factual descriptions, not fabricated claims. The *Two Highs Interpretation* defines \"false information\" as fabricated facts (e.g., fake disaster reports) that cause measurable harm, not historical records or factual data. - The authorities failed to provide evidence that the content was false or to conduct any verification, directly labeling it as \"rumors\" without factual basis. **Legal Basis**: - Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* requires that \"disseminating false information\" involve fabricated facts that disrupt public order. The historical and factual content Chen forwarded does not meet this definition. - 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. The authorities failed to prove the falsity of the content. **Conclusion**: The authorities' classification of objective factual content as \"rumors\" is a misapplication of the law, lacking legal and factual grounding. **2. Lack of Evidence of "Serious Disruption to Public Order"** **Issue**: - The authorities failed to provide evidence that Chen's forwarded posts caused a \"serious disruption to public order.\" Chen's Twitter account has a limited reach (he states his follower count and retweet numbers are below 100), and there is no indication of significant dissemination or impact. - The *Two Highs Interpretation* requires quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) or other severe outcomes (e.g., mass incidents) to establish a crime. The authorities provided no such data. **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 evidence of dissemination or impact. - Article 5 of the *Two Highs Interpretation* sets a threshold for online dissemination, which Chen's actions do not meet. **Conclusion**: The authorities' conviction lacks sufficient evidence to establish the required consequence of \"serious disruption to public order,\" violating the evidentiary standards of the *CPL*. **3. Disregard for the Forwarder's Subjective Intent** **Issue**: - The authorities failed to prove that Chen had the subjective intent of \"knowingly disseminating false information\" when forwarding the posts. Chen states that his purpose was research and reference, and he believed the content to be factual, indicating a lack of intent to \"pick quarrels and provoke trouble.\" - Even if the posts contained \"rumors,\" Chen, as a forwarder, may have been a \"victim\" of deception rather than a deliberate disseminator, and the authorities wrongly identified him as the criminal subject. **Legal Basis**: - Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* requires subjective intent for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" Forwarding content without knowing it is false does not meet this requirement. - Article 14 of the *Criminal Law* states that an intentional crime requires the actor to know their actions will cause harm to society and to desire or allow such harm to occur. The authorities failed to prove Chen's intent. **Conclusion**: The authorities disregarded Chen's lack of subjective intent, wrongly identifying him as the criminal subject, in violation of the *Criminal Law*'s requirements for intent. **4. Violation of Constitutional Rights to Free Speech and Access to Information** **Issue**: - Chen's forwarding of historical and factual content falls within the scope of free speech and the right to access information protected by the *Constitution*. The authorities' classification of this as a crime infringes on Chen's constitutional rights. - The authorities failed to demonstrate how Chen's actions specifically harmed national interests or public order, as required to justify restricting his rights under Article 51 of the *Constitution*. **Legal Basis**: - Article 35 of the *Constitution* guarantees citizens' freedom of speech, which includes the right to forward and discuss historical and factual content. - Article 41 of the *Constitution* protects citizens' rights to criticize and make suggestions regarding state affairs, which includes accessing and sharing information about societal conditions. - 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' actions violate Chen's constitutional rights to free speech and access to information, failing to justify the restriction of these rights. **5. Lack of Procedural Justice** **Issue**: - The authorities did not verify the authenticity of the posts Chen forwarded, directly classifying them as \"rumors\" without a transparent evidence collection and classification process. - The authorities failed to provide evidence of official refutations or clarifications to support their claim that the content was \"false information\" and did not explain how they determined the posts to be \"rumors.\" **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 violates procedural justice. - Article 50 of the *CPL* requires that evidence be directly related to the facts of the case, which the authorities failed to establish. **Conclusion**: The authorities lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification, violating the procedural justice requirements of the *CPL*. **6. Failure to Fulfill the Duty to Clarify Rumors** **Issue**: - The authorities failed to fulfill their duty to clarify online rumors, instead shifting blame to innocent forwarders like Chen. Chen argues that the authorities, as public servants, should have the capacity to verify and address rumors, rather than targeting ordinary citizens. - The authorities' expenditure of significant resources without effectively addressing online rumors, while convicting innocent forwarders, demonstrates negligence and injustice. **Legal Basis**: - Article 5 of the *Constitution* mandates the rule of law, requiring enforcement agencies to fulfill their duties and protect citizens' rights. - Article 12 of the *Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China* requires the state to take measures to prevent and address online rumors. The authorities have a responsibility to clarify rumors rather than shift blame. **Conclusion**: The authorities failed to fulfill their duty to clarify rumors, instead shifting responsibility to innocent citizens, demonstrating negligence and injustice. **7. Potential Political Motivation and Abuse of Power** **Issue**: - The content Chen forwarded includes sensitive historical and factual topics (e.g., the editorial history of *Mao Zedong's Selected Works*), which may have been perceived as politically sensitive. The authorities may have been driven by political motives to classify this content as \"rumors\" and convict Chen, rather than basing their actions on legal facts. - The authorities' broad classification of factual content as \"rumors\" suggests an intent to suppress information dissemination and the public's right to know, rather than enforce the law impartially. **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 violates 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** **Comment on Chen's Defense**: Dr. Chen Jingyuan's self-defense statement effectively refutes the Kunming authorities' charges by analyzing the nature of the posts, clarifying the criminal subject, and criticizing the authorities' failure to fulfill their duties. His argument that forwarding objective factual content does not constitute \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" is legally sound, and his critique of the authorities' misplaced blame and negligence is both logical and socially relevant. Chen's defense is a powerful critique of the authorities' actions, highlighting their legal and moral failings. **Deficiencies and Errors in Enforcement**: - **Misapplication of "Rumors"**: The authorities misclassified objective factual content as \"rumors,\" lacking legal grounding. - **Lack of Evidence**: The authorities failed to prove a \"serious disruption to public order,\" as Chen's posts had minimal reach. - **Disregard for Intent**: The authorities ignored Chen's lack of subjective intent, wrongly identifying him as the criminal subject. - **Violation of Constitutional Rights**: The authorities infringed on Chen's rights to free speech and access to information under Articles 35 and 41 of the *Constitution*. - **Lack of Procedural Justice**: The authorities lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification, violating procedural justice. - **Failure to Clarify Rumors**: The authorities failed to address online rumors, instead shifting blame to innocent citizens. - **Political Motivation**: The authorities may have been driven by political sensitivity, suggesting an abuse of power. **Final Conclusion**: The Kunming authorities' conviction of Dr. Chen Jingyuan for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" based on his forwarding of historical and factual content lacks a solid legal basis, failing to meet the elements of Article 293 of the *Criminal Law* and the *Two Highs Interpretation*. The enforcement actions exhibit significant deficiencies in evidence sufficiency, intent determination, constitutional protection, procedural justice, and duty fulfillment. The authorities' approach not only violates Chen's rights but also reflects broader tensions between the suppression of information dissemination 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/realities/analyses_cn)]