The Selected Works of Mao

Legal Analysis of the Use of the Twitter Post by “Petrichor” as Evidence in Chen Jingyuan’s “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case

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] by the account [“Petrichor” (@Jam79922967)] , posted on November 19, 2021. The post includes a series of images containing a list of alleged quotes by Mao Zedong that were reportedly removed from official publications due to their controversial nature. The text of the post reads:

中共第一代领袖毛泽东的很多言论，当初被收入毛选语录，但后来却被删除，因为实在影响中共形象，但是毛泽东讲的是大实话。这里摘录一部分被删的毛语录，读余让人惊掉下巴。 https://t.co/UjCrl55TQM Translation: Many statements by the CCP’s first-generation leader, Mao Zedong, were initially included in the Selected Works of Mao and Quotations from Chairman Mao, but were later removed because they severely damaged the CCP’s image. However, Mao was speaking the truth. Here is a selection of the deleted Mao quotes, which will leave you stunned.

The images list 12 quotes attributed to Mao, such as:

  • “1. 斯大林好得很；斯大林好得很；斯大林就是有一点缺点，杀人太多。” Translation: “Stalin was very good; Stalin was very good; Stalin’s only flaw was that he killed too many people.”

  • “2. 知识分子为什么三番五次地整他们？因为他们身上有屎。” Translation: “Why do we repeatedly rectify intellectuals? Because they have shit on them.”

  • “10. 仁义道德是害人的东西；害了多少人，害了多少代人。” Translation: “Benevolence and morality are harmful things; they have harmed so many people, so many generations.”

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 claims to list quotes by Mao Zedong that were initially included in official publications like the Selected Works of Mao or Quotations from Chairman Mao but were later removed due to their damaging impact on the CCP’s image. 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:

  • Nature of the Content: The post presents a list of alleged quotes by Mao Zedong, claiming they were removed from official records. Some quotes, such as Mao’s comments on Stalin or intellectuals, align with his known rhetoric and historical context (e.g., Mao’s documented criticisms of intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution and his complex views on Stalin). However, verifying the exact phrasing and the claim of their removal from official publications requires access to historical records, which the post does not provide. The authenticity of these quotes is debated, as seen in replies to the post (e.g., @XiaozhPhD04 claims many such quotes are fabricated, while @Jam79922967 defends their authenticity).

  • Labeling as “False”: The authorities’ classification of this content as “false” hinges on the assumption that the quotes are fabricated or misattributed. However, they provide no evidence to refute their authenticity—e.g., showing that Mao never made such statements or that they were never included in early editions of his works. 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 claims or political commentary, unless they are demonstrably false and cause harm. The post’s claim that these quotes were removed due to their impact on the CCP’s image is a historical assertion, not a verifiable fact in the absence of specific evidence (e.g., publication records).

  • Legal Basis: The determination of falsity lacks a clear legal or factual basis. Without evidence that the quotes are fabricated or that they were never part of official publications, labeling them “false” is speculative. Even if some quotes are inaccurate, the post’s overall narrative (Mao made controversial statements that were later suppressed) aligns with historical practices of censorship in the PRC, such as the editing of Mao’s works post-Cultural Revolution. 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 and political expression should be protected unless it directly incites 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 lists controversial quotes attributed to Mao, which may be sensitive due to Mao’s revered status in the PRC. However, it does not incite violence, spread panic, or target individuals for harm. The content is historical and critical in nature, aimed at exposing what the poster claims are Mao’s “true” thoughts. While it might provoke debate or discomfort, it is unlikely to cause “serious disorder” in the PRC, especially given Chen’s limited online reach. The post’s engagement on Twitter (e.g., replies and retweets) suggests some discussion, but there’s no evidence of broader societal impact.

  • 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 quotes were false. The post presents them as historical, and some align with Mao’s known views, though their exact authenticity is debated. 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 critical 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 Mao, 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 critique, 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 (@Jam79922967) 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 “Petrichor” as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” lacks a robust legal basis under PRC law:

  1. Falsity Unproven: The post’s quotes are historical claims, some of which align with Mao’s known views, though their authenticity is debated. Labeling them “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 nature, 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.

免责声明：Grok 不是律师，请咨询专业律师。请勿分享可识别您身份的信息。

[Chinese]