Copilot
共和主义核心观点简述 Core tenets of Republicanism (brief)
中文：共和主义把自由理解为“非支配”（freedom as non‑domination）：不被任意权力支配；强调公民平等、法的中立、公共参与与公共理由；反对权力的专断与选择性治理。
English: Republicanism conceives freedom as non‑domination (not being subject to arbitrary interference); it emphasizes civic equality, rule‑bound government, public participation and public reason; it opposes arbitrary power and selective enforcement.
共和主义视角下的核心疑点 Key republican critiques of the case
中文：选择性执法构成支配性权力的体现。仅针对陈京元单一用户刑事化，而不追究同类转发者或原作者，显示执法并非中立，而是工具化地对某些公民实施支配。
English: Selective enforcement manifests arbitrary power. Targeting one reposting user while not pursuing others shows law used instrumentally to dominate specific citizens rather than neutrally apply rules.中文：程序不透明与剥夺辩护削弱非支配性保障。不公开审理、限制自辩与阻断控告信通道，使被告无法通过公开程序纠正权力错误，公民免遭任意压迫的制度保障被侵蚀。
English: Procedural opacity and denial of defense weaken safeguards against domination. Closed trials, curtailed self‑defense, and blocked complaints prevent correction of official error through public procedures, eroding institutional protection from arbitrary rule.中文：以“应当辨别”或“高学历推定明知”替代证据性证明，属于以身份或地位对个人实施归责，是共和主义反对的主观化权力扩张。
English: Using status‑based presumptions (e.g., “should have known” because of education) instead of evidentiary proof is assigning liability by identity—a form of subjective power expansion republicanism rejects.中文：刑罚化网络表达造成“从属化”的公民空间。以重刑威慑边缘言论，会产生普遍寒蝉效应，抑制公民公共参与与自我‑主权，削弱民主对抗任意权力的能力。
English: Penalizing online expression produces civic subordination. Heavy punishments deter marginal speech, chilling public participation and self‑governance, impairing democracy’s capacity to resist arbitrary power.
共和主义的实务性评估 Practical normative assessment (Republican lens)
中文：本案在实质与程序上均表现出使国家权力对个人构成任意支配的风险：证据不足却以刑罚对付言论、程序性剥夺与选择性执法都削弱了公民抵御支配的制度资源。
English: Substantively and procedurally, the case risks turning state power into arbitrary domination: penalizing speech without solid evidence, procedural deprivation, and selective enforcement all drain institutional resources citizens need to resist domination.
推荐的共和主义性改革建议 Republican‑aligned remedial measures
中文：恢复公开、公正审理并保障充分辩护与申诉渠道，确保权力受公众监控（publicity as anti‑domination safeguard）。
English: Reinstate public, fair hearings and secure full defense and appeal channels so power is subject to public scrutiny.中文：严格证据标准与举证责任，禁止以身份属性（学历、地位）推定主观故意；对网络言论适用刑法前应先适用行政/民事缓和手段。
English: Enforce strict evidentiary standards and prosecution burden; bar status‑based presumptions of intent; prefer administrative or civil remedies over criminalization for online speech.中文：建立独立监督与救济机制（司法外的监察、议会与公民审查），对选择性执法进行审计与问责。
English: Create independent oversight and redress (external inspectorates, parliamentary and civic review) to audit and hold selective enforcement accountable.中文：恢复并扩展公共论域保护措施：支持平台透明、事实查证机构、学术与文化空间的豁免或高保护门槛，防止公民被任意剥夺参与公共生活的能力。
English: Protect public spheres: require platform transparency, bolster fact‑checking bodies, and afford higher protection for scholarly and cultural expression to prevent arbitrary exclusion from civic life.
结语 Conclusion
中文：依共和主义标准，法律的正当性部分来自其防止任意支配的能力。陈京元案的定性与审理过程暴露出权力任意化的多重风险，纠正需以恢复程序正义、提高证据与监督标准，以及通过制度性设计重建公民免于支配的保障。
English: Under republican norms, law’s legitimacy depends on preventing arbitrary domination. This case reveals multiple risks of power arbitrariness; remedy requires restoring procedural justice, tightening evidentiary and oversight standards, and institutionally rebuilding citizens’ protections against domination.