An academic Paper on Political Spectrum

Legal Analysis of the Use of the Twitter Post by “王江松” 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 [Post] by the Twitter account [“王江松”@JIangyingbinfen], posted on March 8, 2022. The post includes a series of images and text discussing political ideologies in China, specifically a four-quadrant framework categorizing political positions as extreme right (专政右派), moderate right (宪政右派), moderate left (宪政左派), and extreme left (专政左派). The text of the post reads:

最近又有一个说右就是对和好、左就是错和坏的视频了，而陈子明、秦晖等人倡导的极右（专政右派）、中右（宪政右派）、中左（宪政左派）、极左（专政左派）这种国际上通行的四分法却无人问津，参见我的长篇论文《当代中国极右中右中左极左的思想政治谱系》 https://t.co/PLAQ6Qrv0N https://t.co/yU1juFn02m Translation: Recently, there’s another video claiming that right is correct and good, while left is wrong and bad, yet the internationally accepted four-quadrant framework advocated by Chen Ziming, Qin Hui, and others—extreme right (authoritarian right), moderate right (constitutional right), moderate left (constitutional left), and extreme left (authoritarian left)—is ignored. See my lengthy paper The Ideological and Political Spectrum of Contemporary China: Extreme Right, Moderate Right, Moderate Left, Extreme Left [link].

The images include diagrams illustrating this ideological spectrum, with labels in Chinese, such as “元资本” (meta-capital), “左派” (left), “右派” (right), “宪政” (constitutionalism), and “专政” (authoritarianism). 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 discusses a four-quadrant ideological framework (extreme right, moderate right, moderate left, extreme left) and critiques a video that oversimplifies political ideologies into “right is good, left is bad.” It references scholars like Chen Ziming and Qin Hui, who have historically advocated for nuanced political analysis in China, and links to a paper by the poster, Wang Jiangsong, titled The Ideological and Political Spectrum of Contemporary China. 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 is an academic discussion of political ideologies, presenting a framework for understanding China’s political spectrum. It does not make factual assertions that can be objectively verified as true or false but rather offers an analytical model. The four-quadrant framework is a recognized method in political science globally (e.g., the Political Compass model), and scholars like Chen Ziming and Qin Hui have indeed used similar frameworks in their work on Chinese politics. The post’s critique of oversimplified political narratives (“right is good, left is bad”) is an opinion, not a factual claim.

  • Labeling as “False”: The authorities’ classification of this content as “false” appears to stem from its perceived challenge to the PRC’s political system, which is rooted in communist ideology (aligned with the “left” in the framework). The diagrams label “extreme left” as “authoritarian left” (专政左派), which could be interpreted as critical of the PRC’s governance model. However, 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 academic theories, opinions, or ideological critiques. The Two Highs Interpretation does not explicitly categorize political analysis 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 framework is fabricated, that the referenced scholars did not advocate for it, or that the post misrepresents their views. Labeling academic discourse as “false” simply because it critiques the political system 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 academic 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 is an academic discussion, unlikely to incite violence, spread panic, or cause disorder. It engages with political theory, referencing established scholars and linking to a detailed paper. While the framework might be seen as critical of the PRC’s system (e.g., labeling “extreme left” as authoritarian), it is not inflammatory or directly subversive. Given Chen’s limited online reach, the post’s potential to cause “serious disorder” is minimal.

  • 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 presents an academic framework, supported by references to scholars and a linked paper. 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 academic nature and Chen’s limited online presence (small follower base, low engagement) suggest 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 subversive, Article 105 (inciting subversion) might apply, but this requires intent to overthrow the state, which is not supported by the post’s academic content or Chen’s actions. Defamation (Article 246) is inapplicable, as no specific victim is targeted.

  • Academic and Political Speech: The post’s content is academic 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 intellectual 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 (@JIangyingbinfen) 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 “王江松” as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” lacks a robust legal basis under PRC law:

  1. Falsity Unproven: The post’s content is an academic discussion, not a verifiable falsehood. 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 academic 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.

[Chinese]