Advertisement

Lawyers and journalists debate tough new guidelines for online posts

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
Lawyer Pu Zhiqiang's sarcastic reaction to the new guidelines has been shared more than 2,000 times overnight. Screenshot from Sina Weibo

China’s new judicial guidelines threatening jail sentences for people making libellous online posts have angered the country’s law practitioners and journalists.

On Monday, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued a joint legal interpretation setting out the terms of criminal liability for information shared online. The country’s top judges and prosecutors said jail sentences of up to three years could be handed out to those posting slanderous information on micro-blogs.

The new guidelines say that “rumour-mongering” Sina Weibo posts which are re-shared by 500 people, viewed by at least 5,000 or which hurt China's national interest can result in such jail sentences.

Advertisement
A photo of a silenced actor Hugh Laurie shared by Southern Metropolis Daily and re-shared thousands of times. Screenshot from Sina Weibo.
A photo of a silenced actor Hugh Laurie shared by Southern Metropolis Daily and re-shared thousands of times. Screenshot from Sina Weibo.

The guidelines come after hundreds of people have been detained for spreading rumours online over the last month across the country for "spreading rumours" or "stirring trouble" with online posts or comments. The authorities argue that the new guidelines are needed to crack down on misinformation.

Advertisement

Many critics reacted with sarcasm. “I really, really love the Communist Party,” Beijing-based lawyer Pu Zhiqiang wrote on his Sina Weibo microblog post on Monday night, along with a photo of him holding a bouquet of red roses. Dozens of people - among them several prominent lawyers - replied calling him a “rumour-monger”. “Can’t I slander myself?,” lawyer Pu retorted.

He is not alone in questioning the guidelines. Prominent lawyers Liu Xiaoyuan and Li Fangping both challenged the court and the prosecutors’ right to issue such “legal interpretations”.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x