Copilot

社会主义政治哲学视角概述 Overview from Socialist Political Philosophy

  • 中文：社会主义政治哲学强调公共利益、社会正义、集体福祉与权力的社会责任。法治应服务于实现经济与社会平等，保障公众的政治参与与社会安全，同时防止权力滥用损害集体利益。

  • English: Socialist political philosophy emphasizes the public interest, social justice, collective welfare and the social responsibility of power. The rule of law should promote economic and social equality, safeguard popular political participation and social security, and prevent abuse of power that harms collective interests.

关键原则 Core normative principles

  • 中文：1) 公共利益优先；2) 权力需为社会共同体负责并受制度监督；3) 保障公民参与与言论的社会性功能；4) 以社会效果和公正分配作为法律正当性检验。

  • English: 1) Priority of the public interest; 2) Power must be accountable to the social community and institutionally checked; 3) Protect the social function of civic participation and speech; 4) Judge legal legitimacy by social effects and distributive justice.

基于案情的事实前提 Facts (brief)

  • 中文：被告为博士学者，在境外社交平台转发他人内容；公安检方以其转发为据认定“散布虚假信息、扰乱公共秩序”并以寻衅滋事定罪；程序上存在不公开审理、上诉形式审查、申诉渠道受阻等问题。

  • English: The defendant, a PhD scholar, reposted others’ content on foreign social platforms; police and prosecutors labeled these reposts as “spreading false information, disturbing public order” and convicted him of picking quarrels; procedurally the case saw closed trial, paper‑reviewed appeal, and restricted complaint channels.

社会主义视角的实质性评析 Substantive assessment under socialist norms

  1. 公共利益与社会秩序的衡量

    • 中文：社会主义允许为维护公共秩序和社会稳定对行为加以规制，但该规制须能确证对公共利益的实质损害。控方未提供体现社会整体利益受损的实证（如大规模社会动荡或公共安全危害），因此刑事化缺乏服务公共利益的正当性。

    • English: Socialism allows regulation to protect public order and social stability, but only where there is demonstrable harm to public interest. The prosecution failed to present empirical evidence of broad social harm (e.g., mass unrest or public‑safety threats); thus criminalization lacks legitimacy as serving the public good.

  2. 权力责任与制度监督

    • 中文：社会主义强调国家机关应对社会负责并受监督。案件的选择性执法、不公开程序与阻碍申诉，削弱了国家作为公共权力代理人的合法性，增加了权力滥用的社会风险。应强化独立监督与救济机制以维护公共信任。

    • English: Socialism stresses that state organs are accountable and subject to oversight. Selective enforcement, closed procedures, and blocked appeals undermine the legitimacy of the state as agent of the public and increase risk of abuse. Strengthened independent oversight and remedies are needed to maintain public trust.

  3. 言论的社会功能与阶级视角

    • 中文：言论在社会主义视野下既是公民参与与舆论监督的工具，也是社会整合的信息机制。对学者的刑罚化，若并非确证其危害公共利益，容易压抑监督性话语，削弱社会自我纠错能力，不利于治理现代化与共同富裕目标。

    • English: Speech is both a tool for civic participation and a mechanism for social integration. Punishing a scholar—absent proof of public‑interest harm—suppresses critical speech, weakens social self‑correction, and harms goals of governance modernization and shared prosperity.

  4. 分配正义与程序正义的复合考量

    • 中文：刑罚具有剥夺性与再分配影响。把边缘网络行为转入刑法领域，会对不同社会群体产生不均衡影响，违背社会主义追求的实质平等与程序平等。刑法应为最后防线，优先采用教育、行政、民事修复机制。

    • English: Punishment is dispossessive and has redistributive effects. Criminalizing marginal online behavior disproportionately impacts social groups, contravening socialism’s pursuit of substantive and procedural equality. Criminal law should be the last resort; priority should be given to education, administrative, and civil restorative measures.

政策与制度性建议 Policy and institutional recommendations

  • 中文：1) 严格限定刑事化范围，设高举证门槛证明“严重社会危害”；2) 恢复公开审判与充分辩护，畅通申诉渠道并设独立监督机构审查类似案件；3) 对网络言论优先采取平台治理、事实核查、行政处置与社会修复措施；4) 建立透明的执法与问责机制，防止选择性执法与权力寻租。

  • English: 1) Narrow criminalization, require high evidentiary threshold for “serious social harm”; 2) Reinstate public trials and full defense, ensure complaint avenues, and create independent review for similar cases; 3) Prioritize platform governance, fact‑checking, administrative responses, and restorative measures for online speech; 4) Build transparent enforcement and accountability mechanisms to prevent selective policing and rent‑seeking.

结论 Conclusion

  • 中文：从社会主义政治哲学看，法律应以促进公共利益、社会正义与制度合法性为旨归。陈京元案在缺乏实证社会危害与存在程序瑕疵的情况下，将个人学术性转发刑事化，不仅难以服众，也可能损害治理正当性与社会整合目标，应予重新审视并优先采用非刑罚性治理路径。

  • English: From a socialist standpoint, law must aim to advance public interest, social justice, and institutional legitimacy. In the absence of demonstrable social harm and given procedural flaws, criminalizing an individual’s scholarly reposts is unjustified, risks undermining governance legitimacy and social cohesion, and should be reassessed in favor of non‑penal governance measures.