About the retire of Deng Xiaoping ================================= **Legal Analysis of the Use of the Twitter Post by \"天上人间主号\" as Evidence in Chen Jingyuan's \"Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble\" Case**s **Case Background and the Specific Twitter Post** Chen Jingyuan, a Chinese citizen with a PhD, was convicted of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" (寻衅滋事罪) under Article 293 of the *Criminal Law of the People\'s Republic of China* (PRC Criminal Law) by the Kunming public security, procuratorate, and court system (collectively referred to as the \"Kunming authorities\"). One piece of evidence used in the conviction was Chen's forwarding of a Twitter [[**post**](https://x.com/JunZhan12743255/status/1295036491509317633)] by the account [["天上人间主号"(@JunZhan12743255)](https://x.com/JunZhan12743255)], posted on August 16, 2020. The post includes an image of a 1986 newspaper and text discussing a historical event involving Deng Xiaoping. The text of the post reads: *1986年，邓小平接受法拉奇采访时说："不是我不想退休，我请求过多次了，全党全国人民不同意！"随后《深圳青年报》发表文章"我赞成小平同志退休"。结果83岁邓小平并未退休，而33岁的总编辑曹长青却被退休。曹长青总结道：在某些国家你不仅不能反对领袖的意见，你甚至赞成领袖的意见也不行！ [https://t.co/BiMlTkXCJ0](https://t.co/BiMlTkXCJ0) Translation: In 1986, Deng Xiaoping told Fallaci in an interview: \"It's not that I don't want to retire; I've requested it multiple times, but the entire Party and the people of the country disagree!\" Subsequently, Shenzhen Youth Daily published an article titled \"I Support Comrade Xiaoping's Retirement.\" As a result, 83-year-old Deng Xiaoping did not retire, but the 33-year-old editor-in-chief, Cao Changqing, was forced to \"retire.\" Cao Changqing concluded: In some countries, you can neither oppose the leader's opinion nor even support it! Attached Image: A 1986 issue of Shenzhen Youth Daily with the headline \"I Support Comrade Xiaoping's Retirement.\"* The Kunming authorities alleged that Chen's forwarding of this post, among others, constituted spreading false information online, causing serious disruption to public order, thus fulfilling the elements of \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble.\" This analysis evaluates the legal basis for using this specific Twitter post as evidence of Chen's alleged crime under PRC law. **Legal Framework: \"Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble\" in the PRC** The charge is governed by **Article 293** of the PRC Criminal Law, specifically: - **Article 293(1)(4)**: Punishes \"causing trouble in a public place or public area, thereby causing serious disorder.\" - The *Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate Interpretation on Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Crimes via Information Networks* (2013, \"Two Highs Interpretation\") provides further guidance on online behavior: - **Article 5(2)**: Spreading false information online that is forwarded over 500 times, viewed over 5,000 times, or causes serious public disorder (e.g., mass incidents, public panic) constitutes this crime. Key legal principles include: - **Legality (罪刑法定)**: No crime without a clear legal definition (Article 3, PRC Criminal Law). - **Subjective Intent**: Criminal liability requires intent or negligence (Article 14). - **Evidence Standards**: Conviction requires clear and sufficient evidence (Article 53, Criminal Procedure Law). - **Freedom of Expression**: The PRC Constitution (Article 35) guarantees freedom of speech, though this is often limited by laws protecting public order and state interests (Article 51). **Analysis of the Twitter Post as Evidence** **1. Objective Elements: Act, Falsity, and Harm** To establish the crime, the Kunming authorities must prove: - **Act**: Chen forwarded the Twitter post. - **Falsity**: The content of the post is false. - **Harm**: The act caused serious disruption to public order. **a. The Act of Forwarding** Chen's act of forwarding the Twitter post is undisputed. The authorities likely obtained electronic data (e.g., Twitter logs) showing Chen's interaction with the post, as referenced in the indictment and court documents (e.g., \"network online extraction records\" and \"electronic data extraction lists\"). This satisfies the actus reus requirement. **b. Falsity of the Content** The post recounts a historical event from 1986: Deng Xiaoping's interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, where he discussed his retirement; the subsequent publication of an article in *Shenzhen Youth Daily* titled \"I Support Comrade Xiaoping's Retirement\"; and the political repercussions for the editor-in-chief, Cao Changqing. The post includes an image of the newspaper with the headline. The Kunming authorities, per the court's judgment, deemed this content \"false information\" that \"insults and attacks national leaders and the current political system.\" **Evaluation:** - **Accuracy of the Content**: The events described in the post are historically verifiable. Deng Xiaoping's 1986 interview with Fallaci is documented, where he indeed stated that he wished to retire but was prevented by the Party and the people (see *Deng Xiaoping Selected Works*, Volume 3). The *Shenzhen Youth Daily* article \"I Support Comrade Xiaoping's Retirement\" was published, and Cao Changqing, the editor-in-chief, faced political consequences, as he later recounted in his writings. The attached newspaper image appears consistent with historical records and shows no obvious signs of fabrication. - **Labeling as \"False\"**: The authorities' classification of this content as \"false\" lacks supporting evidence. The post's core claims---Deng's statement, the newspaper article, and Cao's dismissal---are factually grounded. The concluding remark by Cao (\"In some countries, you can neither oppose the leader's opinion nor even support it!\") is a political critique, not a factual assertion that can be deemed true or false. Under PRC law, \"false information\" in the context of Article 293 and the Two Highs Interpretation typically refers to fabricated facts (e.g., rumors about events or disasters), not historical accounts or political commentary. The Two Highs Interpretation does not explicitly categorize such content as \"false information\" unless it involves verifiable falsehoods causing harm. - **Legal Basis**: The determination of falsity lacks a clear legal or factual basis. The authorities provide no evidence that the events were fabricated or misrepresented. Labeling a historical account as \"false\" simply because it critiques the political system or a leader stretches the definition of \"false information\" beyond its legal scope. Moreover, the PRC Constitution (Article 35) protects freedom of speech, and international norms (e.g., ICCPR Article 19, which China has signed but not ratified) suggest historical commentary and political expression should be protected unless they directly incite violence or harm---neither of which is alleged here. **c. Serious Disruption to Public Order** The court repeatedly asserts that Chen's forwarding caused \"serious disruption to public order,\" a necessary element under Article 293(1)(4) and the Two Highs Interpretation. **Evaluation:** - **Lack of Evidence**: The court provides no specific evidence of disruption---e.g., forwarding or view counts, public reactions, or incidents (e.g., protests, panic). The Two Highs Interpretation sets quantitative thresholds (500 forwards, 5,000 views) or qualitative impacts (mass incidents), but the authorities offer no data. Chen's lawyer noted his account had fewer than 100 followers (mostly inactive) and his total forwards over decades were under 100, far below the statutory thresholds. - **Impact of the Specific Post**: The post recounts a historical event from 1986 and offers a political critique. While it may be sensitive due to its discussion of Deng Xiaoping and the political system, it does not incite violence, spread panic, or target individuals for harm. The content is primarily a historical reflection and analysis, unlikely to cause \"serious disorder\" in the PRC, especially given Chen's limited online reach. - **Legal Basis**: The absence of evidence for disruption undermines the legal basis for this element. The Two Highs Interpretation requires a demonstrable impact, not a speculative one. The court's conclusory statement violates the evidence standard (Criminal Procedure Law, Article 53). **2. Subjective Element: Intent** The authorities must prove Chen \"knowingly\" spread false information with intent to disrupt public order. The court inferred intent from Chen's high education (PhD), claiming he \"should have discerned right from wrong.\" **Evaluation:** - **Knowledge of Falsity**: No evidence shows Chen knew the content was false. The post's historical claims are verifiable, and the attached newspaper image aligns with historical records. Chen's defense argues he forwarded it for academic interest, not to deceive. The authorities provide no direct evidence (e.g., Chen's statements admitting knowledge of falsity) to support this claim. - **Intent to Disrupt**: The post's historical and analytical nature, combined with Chen's limited online presence (small follower base, low engagement), suggests no intent to cause disorder. Chen claims he forwarded it for personal study, a plausible motive given his academic background. The prosecution offers no counterevidence of a malicious purpose. - **Education as Proof of Intent**: The court's reliance on Chen's education to infer intent is legally flawed. High education does not equate to criminal intent, especially without evidence he recognized the content as false or aimed to disrupt order. This inference violates the principle that intent must be proven, not presumed (Article 14, PRC Criminal Law). - **Legal Basis**: The subjective element is unproven. PRC law requires clear evidence of intent (Article 14), and the court's speculative reasoning fails to meet this standard. **3. Legal Application: Applicability of Article 293** The Kunming authorities applied Article 293, arguing Chen's forwarding of the post constituted \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" by spreading false information online. **Evaluation:** - **Scope of Article 293**: This article is a catch-all offense, often criticized for vagueness and overreach. The Two Highs Interpretation aims to narrow its online application by setting specific criteria (falsity, intent, and harm). Here, the lack of evidence for falsity and harm suggests Article 293 may not apply. - **Alternative Charges**: If the authorities viewed the post as defamatory to Deng Xiaoping, Article 246 (defamation) might apply, but this requires a specific victim and intent to harm reputation---neither is clearly established. If deemed subversive, Article 105 (inciting subversion) could apply, but this requires intent to overthrow the state, which is not supported by the post's historical content or Chen's actions. - **Historical and Political Speech**: The post's content is historical commentary and political speech, which, under PRC law, is sensitive but not inherently criminal unless it incites violence or verifiable harm. The authorities' application of Article 293 appears to stretch its scope to suppress critical discourse, potentially violating the legality principle (Article 3) and freedom of speech (Constitution, Article 35). **4. Procedural and Evidentiary Issues** Chen alleges procedural flaws, including a non-public trial and restricted defense rights. The use of the Twitter post as evidence also raises questions about selective enforcement. **Evaluation:** - **Selective Enforcement**: The original poster ( \@JunZhan12743255 ) and other forwarders were not prosecuted, per Chen's appeal. This raises equality concerns (Constitution, Article 33), as the authorities singled out Chen without clear justification. - **Evidence Handling**: The authorities likely extracted the post via electronic data collection, but the court does not specify how it assessed the post's content or impact. The lack of transparency in evidence presentation (e.g., no forwarding/view counts) undermines the conviction's legitimacy. - **Procedural Fairness**: The closed trial and restricted defense rights (e.g., Chen's inability to speak) may violate Criminal Procedure Law (Articles 14, 183), further weakening the legal basis for using this evidence. **Conclusion: Legal Basis Assessment** The Kunming authorities' use of Chen's forwarding of the Twitter post by \"天上人间主号\" as evidence for \"picking quarrels and provoking trouble\" lacks a robust legal basis under PRC law: 1. **Falsity Unproven**: The post's content is a historical account with verifiable facts, not false information. Labeling it \"false\" without evidence misapplies the Two Highs Interpretation's criteria. 2. **Harm Unproven**: No evidence shows the forwarding caused serious public disorder, failing the statutory thresholds (500 forwards, 5,000 views, or mass incidents). Chen's limited online reach makes such impact implausible. 3. **Intent Unproven**: The authorities provide no evidence Chen knew the content was false or intended to disrupt order. Inferring intent from his education is speculative and legally invalid. 4. **Misapplication of Law**: Article 293's use here stretches its scope beyond clear statutory intent, potentially violating the legality principle and freedom of speech protections. 5. **Procedural Flaws**: Selective enforcement and procedural irregularities further undermine the conviction's legitimacy. **Final Assessment**: The Kunming authorities' reliance on this Twitter post as evidence of Chen's crime does not withstand legal scrutiny. The post's historical accuracy, Chen's limited influence, and the absence of proven harm or intent suggest the charge is unsubstantiated. This case reflects an overbroad application of Article 293, possibly motivated by political considerations rather than legal merit, raising concerns about the rule of law and freedom of expression in the PRC. *Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don\'t share information that can identify you.* -------------- [[Chinese](/chats/elements/actions/realities/deng_cn)]