The following article is an interesting look into
the supposed ‘rumor-mongering’ and ‘libel’ that Party censors are currently
trying to tamp down. Obviously, the
Party’s ability to censor information in all formats is incredibly important,
and allows it to exert an incredible degree of control over Chinese society. The internet, because of its open and
accessible nature, has created a number of challenges for the Party,
particularly for its anti-corruption campaign.
While Xi Jinping’s campaign has certainly taken down a number of corrupt
officials, critics have noted that exactly WHO is being taken down is still the
Party’s decision. And while more and
more voices in Chinese society are calling for a more open and fair ‘Rule of
Law’, the Discipline Commission retains complete control of the investigation
process, just as the Party retains complete control of the courts. In other words, the campaign can only attack
those whom the party approves. Outside
interference from civil society is not appreciated.
What makes these new libel regulations so important,
then, is that they specifically target online
libel. As a few of the netizens
quoted below noted, this means that traditional media, such as radio,
television, and newspapers (all of which are controlled by the Party), are not
subject to these new laws. In this
regard, the message is clear: the Party will continue to take down corrupt
officials, but activists and journalists should not seek to expose corruption
themselves. If they attempt to ‘slander’,
‘libel’, and ‘cause societal panic’, then they could face legal
consequences. As was the case with Luo
Changping, who exposed the corrupt official Liu Tienan, previous accusations
brought against Liu were derided as mere rumors. When the Party announced months later that he
was under investigation, and Luo once again tried to publish his evidence, he
was silenced by Party censors and his social media accounts were deleted.
As one poster astutely noted, this new set of laws
allows the Party to consolidate its monopoly over the ability to shame and
slander officials. Through its complete
control of the media, the Party can easily direct public outrage and resentment
at whoever it chooses (be they political enemies, unruly protestors, or even
foreign countries). By establishing a
legal mechanism to silence journalists, protestors, and activists who try to expose
corruption, the Party can ensure that it retains complete and utter control of
the anti-corruption campaign. One need
only look back to the scandals that arose last year, when it was revealed that
Bo Xilai, Xi Jinping, and Wen Jiabao had all gathered vast sums of wealth in
hidden assets. Though all three were
exposed, Wen and Xi were protected by Party censors, allowing Wen to retire in
peace and Xi to ascend to the very top of the Chinese political ladder. Bo, on the other hand, was culled from the
Party and will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. Put simply, these new anti-libel laws are
just a means to expand internet censorship and the ability of the Party to
control what information is allowed on the web (particularly information that
could expose Party corruption).
Chinese
netizens hotly debate the phrasing of online libel regulations
Last updated: September 9th, 2013,
GMT 11:27 AM
Two high-level courts hold
press conferences explaining the new regulations concerning online libel
China’s highest court of law
and the highest inspections court introduced and explained new regulations on
Monday (September 9), “if the same link to libelous information is clicked on
over five thousand times or is shared over five hundred times” it will be
recognized as a ‘serious case’ of libelous activity, thus establishing a
quantifiable measure for libel in the standards of law.
In addition, at the September
9th 3:00 PM press conference, the “Two High Courts” published
relevant explanations of how to handle cases of online libel.
Many Chinese micro blogging
platforms saw a large number of comments appear regarding the information. There was no small number of posts supporting
the regulations, but BBC Chinese’s journalists discovered that most of the
posts displaying their support seemed to come from official accounts of the
Ministry of Public Security and local police stations.
However, there were some
netizens who supported the idea, such as user lwyhf: “We must launch a
significant strike against online libel, it must not be tolerated!”
However, in response to the
introduction of these regulations, the majority of comments opposed the
comments of supporters and expressed doubt.
A blogger named Qinzhou Jiangyu
pointed out that fighting online libel is good, but the government must not
dismiss voices that it does not want to hear as slanderous posts.
WoXXJie said: “I support
punishing libel, but adding ‘online’ before this word seems rather sinister in
intent…what I mean is: libel is libel; does adding this attribute mean we will fo
after online slander but let traditional media go?”
Maimaiti posted: “Online
libel is given a qualitative explanation, and the government says they’ll fight
libel without punishing people, but what can make us commoners believe you? Besides, who can represent us in the
monitoring? How can we trust you? Haha, I knew that you were just using your
power to make us believe you, it’s just a part of Chinese history that hasn’t
changed. Whatever you say is nonsense;
the facts speak more loudly than your words.
“Libel and Politics”
Beijiulundao pointed out “They
should strictly distinguish between online libel, online scams, and political views. Online libel should be limited to acts that
cause social panic, attacks on individuals, and false information. Online posts that expose corrupt officials
should be encouraged.
Another poster, Wang
Xiaoshan, posted “I wonder, if the high courts had released the online libel
regulations sooner, then what would be the fate of Luo Changping? He reported Liu Tienan, but his information
was rebuffed by the government as rumors.
Who will the authorities believe?
For those who say libel should be prosecuted privately, if Liu Tienan
had reported Luo Changping, then would the authorities detain Luo
Changping? What about all the statements
on the Central Discipline Commission’s website about Wang Qishan? Will these be counted or not?”
A blogger named Tanggula said
that in the in the cases of both Wang Jun and Liu Tienan, online libel was
eventually proven to be true. How could
this not insight panic and anger among officials? The true motives of these laws are to deprive
the people of the right to report officials and preserve the government’s
monopoly on libel.
Another netizen named XY
stated “Online libel can be sentenced for five-hundred shares, but when CCTV5
reports rumors that Japan was out of the running for the 2020 Olympics, and
Xinhua even announces that they would be hosted in Istanbul, how should these
cases be judged? Hundreds of millions of
people saw these false reports; how can they account for this mistake?”
Poster Liyu said: “The
more I see the more things seem similar to North Korea. The next step is burning books!!!!”
Compiler : Lin Bin , Chang
Qing
Translator : Paul Orner
No comments:
Post a Comment