U.S. President Donald Trump speech on “Evil of Communism”

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

Overview of the Case 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). One piece of evidence cited by the Kunming public security, procuratorate, and court system (collectively referred to as the “Kunming authorities”) was Chen’s forwarding of a Twitter post by the account “阿波罗网唯一官方推号”. The post, dated November 7, 2019, includes an image of a public event with a statue and a crowd, and its text reads:

*川普：建立一个没有共产主义邪恶的未来(图):… https://t.co/mgrBAKbEEp

#川普 #共产主义 #邪恶 https://t.co/zvFsIWD1kJ

Translation: Trump: Building a future without the evil of communism (Image):…

#Trump #Communism #Evil*

The Kunming authorities alleged that Chen’s act of forwarding this post, among others, constituted spreading false information online, causing serious disruption to public order, thus meeting the criteria for “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”) elaborates 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.

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 not disputed. 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 cites a statement attributed to then-U.S. President Donald Trump: “Building a future without the evil of communism.” 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 Statement: The statement is a political opinion or critique, not a factual assertion that can be objectively verified as true or false. Trump’s speeches often included criticisms of communism, as seen in historical records (e.g., his 2019 speech at the United Nations General Assembly where he criticized socialism and communism). The post’s attribution to Trump aligns with his public rhetoric, and the Kunming authorities provide no evidence to refute its authenticity (e.g., showing the statement was fabricated or misattributed).

  • Labeling as “False”: The court’s classification of this statement as “false” appears to stem from its perceived insult to the PRC’s political system (communism being foundational to the state ideology). 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 disasters or events), not opinions or ideological critiques. The Two Highs Interpretation does not explicitly cover political speech as “false information” unless it involves verifiable falsehoods causing harm.

  • Legal Basis: The authorities’ determination of falsity lacks a clear legal or factual basis. Without evidence that the statement was fabricated or that Trump never made such a remark, labeling it “false” is legally unsupported. 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 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 itself, while critical of communism, does not incite violence, spread panic, or target individuals for harm. It reports a foreign leader’s speech, accompanied by an image of a public event (a statue unveiling, possibly the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C., dedicated in 2007). Such content is 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 statement was false. The post attributes a statement to Trump, consistent with his public rhetoric. 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 content 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 defamatory to national leaders, Article 246 (defamation) might apply, but this requires a specific victim and intent to harm reputation—neither is alleged. 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 content or Chen’s actions.

  • Political Speech: The post’s content is 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 dissent, 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 (@aboluowang) 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 as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” lacks a robust legal basis under PRC law:

  1. Falsity Unproven: The post’s statement is a political opinion, 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 legal 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 content, Chen’s limited influence, and the absence of proven harm or intent suggest the charge is unsubstantiated. This case appears to reflect 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.

[Chinese]