Grok

基于自然法学派核心思想的陈京元“寻衅滋事罪”案分析评论

An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case Based on the Core Ideas of the Natural Law School

自然法学派（Natural Law School），源于古希腊罗马与中世纪神学，其核心思想认为法律源于更高的道德秩序（如上帝的永恒法或人类理性），实定法（成文法）须符合自然正义、公平与人类尊严，否则非真正法律。 托马斯·阿奎那视自然法为“永恒法之参与”，洛克强调其保障生命、自由与财产。 本案中，陈京元博士因X平台转发艺术作品、时政观点等内容（粉丝不足百人、互动近零），被以“寻衅滋事罪”判处有期徒刑一年八个月，程序中充斥主观推定、剥夺自辩与选择性执法。从自然法视角，此案非正义裁决，而是实定法背离自然正义的暴政：贬低人类尊严，违背言论自由之永恒原则。

The Natural Law School, rooted in ancient Greco-Roman and medieval theology, posits that law derives from a higher moral order (e.g., God’s eternal law or human reason); positive law (statutory law) must align with natural justice, equity, and human dignity, or it is not true law. Thomas Aquinas saw natural law as “participation in the eternal law”; Locke emphasized its protection of life, liberty, and property. In this case, Dr. Chen Jingyuan, an independent scholar, was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” due to forwarding artistic works and political commentary on X (formerly Twitter)—with fewer than 100 followers and near-zero engagement—amid procedural flaws like subjective presumption, denial of self-defense, and selective enforcement. From the natural law perspective, this is not just adjudication but tyranny of positive law diverging from natural justice: degrading human dignity, violating the eternal principle of free speech.

一、自然法学派核心思想概述：永恒正义高于实定法

I. Overview of the Natural Law School’s Core Ideas: Eternal Justice Above Positive Law

自然法学派的核心在于“自然法高于实定法”：法律须符合永恒道德原则，如正义（justitia）、公平（aequitas）与人类本性（natura humana）。 阿奎那分四法：永恒法（上帝意志）、自然法（人类理性参与）、神法（启示）与人法（实定法），后者若违前者，即无效。 洛克视自然法保障“自然权利”（生命、自由、财产），霍布斯虽强调社会契约，但承认自然状态下言论自由。 核心原则：不义法非法（lex iniusta non est lex），公民有道德义务抵抗，保障人类尊严与理性表达。

The Natural Law School’s core lies in “natural law above positive law”: statutes must conform to eternal moral principles like justice (justitia), equity (aequitas), and human nature (natura humana). Aquinas categorized four laws: eternal (God’s will), natural (human reason’s participation), divine (revelation), and human (positive); the latter is invalid if contradicting the former. Locke saw natural law protecting “natural rights” (life, liberty, property); Hobbes, though contractarian, acknowledged free speech in the state of nature. Core tenet: unjust law is no law (lex iniusta non est lex); citizens have a moral duty to resist, safeguarding human dignity and rational expression.

二、以自然法学派核心思想评析本案

II. Analysis of the Case Based on the Natural Law School’s Core Ideas

  1. 实定法违背自然正义：不义判决贬低人类尊严
    自然法要求法律提升人格，非贬低之。 本案“寻衅滋事罪”将陈京元转发的情感表达（如讽刺帖）、理性观点（如智库报告）与艺术作品（如漫画隐喻）泛化为“虚假言论”，无证据证明危害，却以主观“明知”推定判刑，贬低学者尊严。 账号数据显示零互动、无因果，却被“梳理”为“铁证”，这正是阿奎那斥的不义法：违背自然公平，扭曲灵魂。 自然法若在，必判此法无效——非永恒正义，乃暴政工具。

  2. Positive Law Violates Natural Justice: Unjust Judgment Degrades Human Dignity
    Natural law demands laws uplift personality, not degrade it. The “picking quarrels” charge categorizes Dr. Chen’s forwarded emotional expressions (e.g., satirical posts), rational opinions (e.g., think tank reports), and artistic works (e.g., metaphorical cartoons) as “false statements,” without evidence of harm, presuming “knowing falsehood” for sentencing, degrading scholarly dignity. Account data shows zero engagement and no causation, yet “collated” as “ironclad evidence”—precisely Aquinas’s unjust law: contradicting natural equity, twisting souls. Natural law would deem this statute invalid—not eternal justice, but a tool of tyranny.

  3. 自然权利受侵：言论自由之永恒原则被践踏
    洛克视言论自由为自然权利保障，公民有权抵抗侵犯。 陈京元转发系理性表达（如复杂系统引用），促进文明互鉴，却被禁自辩（庭审“闭嘴”）、拒转控告书，程序中“选择性执法”（党媒同类未责）制造恐惧，侵犯自然自由。 这违背自然法：实定法须服务人类本性，非压制之；不义判决如霍布斯“自然状态”之乱，公民有道德义务不服从。 自然法批判：此案非法，乃对尊严之战。

  4. Invasion of Natural Rights: Eternal Principle of Free Speech Trampled
    Locke viewed free speech as a natural right’s safeguard; citizens may resist violations. Dr. Chen’s forwards represent rational expression (e.g., complex systems citations), fostering civilizational mutual learning, yet he was denied self-defense (courtroom “silencing”), his indictment letter rejected, and selective enforcement created fear (state media reposts unpunished), invading natural liberty. This violates natural law: positive law must serve human nature, not suppress it; unjust judgment mirrors Hobbes’s chaotic state of nature, imposing a moral duty of disobedience. Natural law indicts: this is no law, but war on dignity.

  5. 永恒法之呼唤：荒谬警示与道德抵抗
    自然法以永恒正义警醒：违背者，必遭天谴。 陈京元Bio自嘲“作案工具”，帖文存网无人关注，却判20月，荒谬如阿奎那比喻“不义法扭曲神意”——逻辑悖论（学历推定故意，却禁自辩），道德失衡（兜底罪异化为思想罪）。 这警示：实定法若不合自然，公民须抵抗，实现尊严新生。

  6. Call of Eternal Law: Absurd Warning and Moral Resistance
    Natural law’s eternal justice warns: violators face divine retribution. Dr. Chen’s bio mocks his account as a “tool of crime,” with posts lingering online unheeded, yet earning 20 months—absurd like Aquinas’s metaphor of “unjust law twisting divine will”: logical paradox (education presumes intent, yet bans self-defense), moral imbalance (catch-all crime morphs into thought crime). This warns: if positive law defies natural, citizens must resist, birthing dignity anew.

三、结语：重振自然正义，推动尊严新生

III. Conclusion: Reviving Natural Justice for Dignity’s Rebirth

自然法学派视本案为悲剧：实定不义阻永恒，权利侵犯失公平，永固暴政危机。陈京元自辩如自然法抵抗，呼吁重审恢复道德原则，方能让正义在尊严中新生。 如阿奎那所言：“不义法非法。”唯有以此衡，方避“实定”成“公敌”，推动人文永恒。

The Natural Law School sees this case as tragedy: positive injustice blocks eternity, rights invaded lose equity, entrenching tyranny’s crisis. Dr. Chen’s defense echoes natural law resistance, urging retrial to restore moral principles, allowing justice to rebirth in dignity. As Aquinas stated: “An unjust law is no law at all.” Only thus can we avert “positive” as “public enemy,” advancing humanistic eternity.