Analysis and Evaluation

Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan’s Defense and Analysis of the Deficiencies and Errors in Law Enforcement’s Use of Subjective Emotional Expressions as Evidence for “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”

Overview of Chen Jingyuan’s Defense

In his Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison, Dr. Chen Jingyuan opposes the Kunming judicial authorities’ classification of his forwarded or commented online content involving subjective emotional expressions as “rumors” and their 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 these expressions are subjective emotional responses, lacking the objective truth standard of “rumors,” and that labeling them as such and using them for criminal charges is baseless and absurd. His key points include:

  1. Nature of Subjective Emotional Expressions: Chen’s forwarded content (e.g., a candlelight memorial image for June 4th, a post about the release of Tsinghua University law professor Xu Zhangrun) and comments (e.g., on Huawei’s chip ban, authoritarian regimes’ tactics, and anti-corruption campaigns) are subjective emotional expressions, not requiring objectivity, and do not reflect his explicit views or attitudes.

  2. Nature of Forwarding Behavior: Chen merely forwarded the content without liking or commenting, and some comments were limited to private accounts with minimal visibility, causing no social impact.

  3. Absurdity of the Police’s Classification: The police’s labeling of subjective emotional expressions as “rumors” ignores the universal nature of human emotions, equating normal psychological experiences with criminal behavior, which Chen compares to the absurdity of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams case of “being sentenced to death for killing a king in a dream.”

  4. Universal Consequences: If subjective emotional expressions are criminalized, all normal Chinese citizens could potentially face arrest and trial by the Kunming police and courts.

Below, I will evaluate Chen’s defense and further analyze the deficiencies and errors in the law enforcement’s use of these subjective emotional expressions as evidence for the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Evaluation of Chen Jingyuan’s Defense

1. Nature of Subjective Emotional Expressions and the Unreasonableness of Labeling Them as “Rumors”

Chen’s Argument: The forwarded content and comments (e.g., the June 4th candlelight image, the Huawei chip ban comment) are subjective emotional expressions, not requiring objectivity, and labeling them as “rumors” is baseless.

Evaluation:

  • Reasonableness: Chen’s argument is theoretically sound. Subjective emotional expressions, such as lamenting an event, expressing anger, or commemorating a date, are natural manifestations of human psychological activity and do not require objective factual accuracy. 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 subjective emotional expressions. The police’s classification of Chen’s forwarded content and comments as “rumors” lacks legal grounding.

  • Specific Content Analysis:

    • June 4th Candlelight Memorial Image: Forwarding such an image is a commemorative act, an emotional expression, not a factual statement, and should not be classified as a “rumor.”

    • Xu Zhangrun Release Post: If the news was accurate (Chen does not mention any official refutation), forwarding it is merely information sharing, not fabrication, and does not constitute a “rumor.”

    • Personal Comments: For example, “It looks like Huawei will be beaten back to its original shape” is a lament about Huawei’s situation, and “Anti-corruption is just a way for CCP elites to get rich and sustain their power” is a critique of anti-corruption efforts—both are subjective opinions, not fabricated facts.

  • Additional Context: Psychological research, such as Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, confirms that emotional expression is a core component of human psychological activity (web ID: 0). The police’s disregard for this universality and direct classification as “rumors” is indeed absurd.

Conclusion: Chen’s argument regarding the nature of subjective emotional expressions is reasonable, and the police’s classification as “rumors” lacks legal and psychological basis.

2. Nature of Forwarding Behavior and Its Social Impact

Chen’s Argument: He merely forwarded the content without liking or commenting, and some comments were limited to private accounts with minimal visibility, causing no social impact.

Evaluation:

  • Reasonableness: Chen accurately notes the limited scope of his forwarding and commenting behavior, which caused no social impact. For example:

    • The June 4th candlelight image and Xu Zhangrun post were forwarded without additional comments, showing no explicit stance.

    • The Huawei comment was made on a private WeChat account (visible to only a dozen friends and family), the anti-corruption comment had zero retweets, and the authoritarian regime comment was posted on a now-defunct QQ Weibo, visible only in his personal “Moments.”

  • Legal Basis: Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation requires that “disseminating false information” result in significant consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views). Chen’s forwarded content and comments did not meet this threshold and had no impact on public order.

  • Additional Context: Studies on social media indicate that content shared on private accounts or with limited visibility typically has negligible impact on public order (web ID: 1). The police provided no dissemination data and directly classified the content as “rumors,” lacking factual basis.

Conclusion: Chen’s argument about the limited scope of his forwarding behavior is reasonable, and the police failed to prove any social impact, rendering the classification baseless.

3. Absurdity of the Police’s Classification and Universal Consequences

Chen’s Argument: The police’s labeling of subjective emotional expressions as “rumors” equates normal psychological experiences with criminal behavior, more absurd than Freud’s case of “being sentenced to death for killing a king in a dream.” If this logic holds, all normal Chinese citizens could face arrest and trial.

Evaluation:

  • Reasonableness: Chen’s comparison to Freud’s case highlights the absurdity of the police’s logic and is somewhat persuasive. Emotional expression is a universal human psychological activity, and criminalizing it could lead to overreach in legal application, infringing on citizens’ fundamental rights. Article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) guarantees freedom of speech, and emotional expressions fall within this scope, making the police’s actions potentially unconstitutional.

  • Exaggeration: Chen’s assertion that “all normal Chinese citizens could face arrest and trial” is exaggerated. The police’s actions may target specific sensitive topics (e.g., June 4th, anti-corruption), but they are unlikely to apply universally to all emotional expressions. However, his concern reflects broader issues in China’s judicial practice regarding the protection of free speech (web ID: 2).

Conclusion: Chen’s argument about the absurdity of the police’s classification has merit, and their actions may infringe on free speech, but the claim that “all Chinese citizens could be arrested” is overstated.

4. Overall Evaluation

Chen Jingyuan’s defense is theoretically and logically sound in several aspects:

  • He accurately highlights that subjective emotional expressions lack the objective truth standard of “rumors,” and the police’s classification lacks legal basis.

  • He emphasizes the limited scope of his forwarding and commenting, which caused no social impact, and the police failed to provide evidence of consequences.

  • He uses Freud’s case to illustrate the absurdity of the police’s logic, reflecting potential issues in legal application.

  • While his claim that “all Chinese citizens could be arrested” is exaggerated, it underscores real challenges in protecting free speech.

Conclusion: Chen’s defense is well-grounded in its discussion of the nature of emotional expressions, their limited impact, and the absurdity of the police’s logic. The police’s classification of subjective emotional expressions as “rumors” and their use as criminal evidence are problematic. However, some assertions (e.g., “all Chinese citizens could be arrested”) are overstated and require more objective evidence.

Deficiencies and Errors in Law Enforcement’s Use of Subjective Emotional Expressions as Evidence for “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”

1. Misinterpretation of the Elements of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”

Issue:

  • The police classified Chen’s forwarded content and comments (e.g., the June 4th candlelight image, the Huawei comment) as “rumors” and used them as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” ignoring the requirement to prove “dissemination of false information” and “serious disruption to public order.”

  • Subjective emotional expressions lack the objective truth standard of “rumors,” and the police failed to prove their content was false or that they 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 mandates evidence of quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views). The police provided no such data or evidence of consequences.

  • Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and subjective emotional expressions fall within this scope, making the police’s classification potentially unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The police misinterpreted the elements of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” failing to prove Chen’s forwarded content and comments constituted “false information” or caused serious consequences, rendering the classification legally baseless.

2. Lack of Relevance of the Evidence

Issue:

  • The police used Chen’s forwarded content and comments as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” but these are subjective emotional expressions, not factual statements, and lack the characteristics of “rumors.”

  • The forwarding behavior (e.g., the June 4th image) included no additional comments or explicit stance, and the comments (e.g., the Huawei lament) were limited to private accounts with minimal visibility, causing no social impact.

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. Subjective emotional expressions do not equate to “disseminating false information” and are irrelevant to the actus reus of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

  • Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation requires proof of dissemination and significant consequences, which the police failed to provide.

Conclusion: The police’s use of subjective emotional expressions as evidence lacks relevance, as it does not prove Chen committed the actus reus of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

3. Insufficient Evidence

Issue:

  • The police failed to provide evidence that Chen’s forwarded content and comments caused “serious disruption to public order.” For example, the anti-corruption comment had zero retweets, the Huawei comment was visible to only a dozen people, and the authoritarian regime comment was posted on a defunct platform.

  • The police did not prove the content was “false information” or provide dissemination data or evidence of social impact.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 53 of the CPL requires that a conviction be based on clear and sufficient evidence, ruling out reasonable doubt. The police 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, which the police failed to meet.

Conclusion: The police’s reliance on subjective emotional expressions as evidence fails to meet the sufficiency requirement under Article 53 of the CPL, as the evidence chain is incomplete.

4. Disregard for the Universality of Human Emotions

Issue:

  • The police classified subjective emotional expressions as “rumors,” disregarding the universal nature of emotions as a fundamental aspect of human psychological activity, effectively criminalizing normal psychological experiences.

  • Chen’s forwarded content and comments (e.g., June 4th memorial, anti-corruption critique) are normal emotional responses, not fabricated facts.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and emotional expressions fall within this scope, making the police’s actions potentially unconstitutional.

  • Psychological research confirms that emotional expression is a core component of human psychological activity (web ID: 0), and the police’s disregard for this universality lacks scientific basis.

Conclusion: The police disregarded the universality of human emotions, criminalizing normal psychological experiences, which lacks legal and scientific grounding.

5. Lack of Procedural Justice

Issue:

  • The police did not thoroughly verify the dissemination scope or social impact of Chen’s forwarded content and comments, directly classifying them as “rumors” and arresting him, lacking transparency in the evidence collection and classification process.

  • The police did not explain how they determined the content to be “rumors” 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 police’s failure to carefully verify evidence before classifying and arresting Chen 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 police failed to follow arrest procedures, this would constitute a further violation.

Conclusion: The police lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification and arrest procedures, potentially violating the procedural justice requirements of the CPL.

6. Potential Political Motivation

Issue:

  • Chen’s forwarded content and comments involve sensitive topics (e.g., June 4th, anti-corruption), and the police may have been driven by political sensitivity to classify them as “rumors,” rather than basing their actions on legal facts.

  • The police 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 police’s conviction

[Chinese]