Several human rights lawyers expressed concern about the legal basis of the government`s « anti-rumour » campaign, pointing to the damage it could cause to freedom of expression, particularly given the lack of a legal definition of what constitutes a rumor. In an interview with Radio Free Asia, human rights lawyer Sui Muqing explained that rumours are hardly affected by the existing law. « The Penal Code and the Penal Code evoke rumours in two places where open, intentional and direct damage was inflicted on society, » he said. Sui called the current campaign « the biggest step backwards for the rule of law in China since economic reforms began in 1979. » 8. Capital, technological and administrative support for defamation, provoking social unrest, extortion and exploitation of illegal trade are prosecuted as « conspiracy » for criminal acts. Fear is commonly used in psychological warfare to influence a target population. The tactic is often to defame an enemy through smear campaigns. False flag attacks were in many cases used as a pretext to start war, including the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the bombing of Mainila, and Operation Himmler. 9. If the criminal act of defamation, causing social unrest, extortion and operation of an illegal business causes real damage to the business and incites social violence, the penalty shall be more severe. 7. [Companies that make a profit] by providing message deletion services and spreading false information with a business volume of up to RMB 50,000 yuan for individuals and RMB 150,000 for businesses will be prosecuted for « illegal business operations. » Social actors of all kinds often use fear as a tactic in competition for attention, as the following examples show.

[2] [4] State media, for example, have not been punished for rumors – recently, China`s Central Television and Xinhua News Agency falsely reported that Istanbul won the bid for the 2020 Olympics when Tokyo actually won. Netizens scoffed at the error and pointed to the state and partisan monopoly on the dissemination of falsified information. « The authorities have not yet clarified a precise definition of rumours, but the campaign has evolved into a national movement. This has led to different approaches to enforce the campaign by different local police departments. A recently published judicial clarification [zh] attempted to change what constitutes a damaging rumor under the current law. The following provisions now define what is considered a « rumour » and address related aspects of how rumour mills are handled by the courts: While court guidelines provide some clarity on the definition of « rumour, » few believe they will change the arbitrariness of detention and prosecution for spreading rumours in China. With the recent escalation of arbitrary arrests and prosecutions for « spreading rumours » online, Chinese authorities are facing criticism from law enforcement and legal experts in China. Fear or alarmism is a form of manipulation that causes fear by using exaggerated rumors of imminent danger. [1] Fear can have powerful psychological effects, both intentional and unintentional.

One hypothetical effect is the middle-world syndrome, in which people perceive the world as more dangerous than it actually is. [5] [6] Fear can cause people to fear the wrong things, and it consumes too many resources to avoid rare and unlikely dangers while ignoring more likely dangers. For example, some parents have kept their children at home to prevent kidnapping, while paying less attention to more common dangers such as civilizational diseases or road accidents. [7] Alarmism can create a rally around the flag effect by increasing support for incumbent political leaders. For example, official warnings about the danger of terrorist attacks have led to increased support for the US president. [8] [9] In order to create a legal basis for prosecuting accused rumors, China`s Supreme People`s Court and the Supreme People`s Procuratorate issued a decree on September 9. September issued a new legal directive stating that anyone who deliberately publishes lies and defamatory rumors against individuals or the government faces up to three years in prison if their messages are shared more than 500 times or seen by more than 5,000 people. The directive targets the « virality » of such messages and violates the fundamental laws of online sharing. In 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expands the federal definition of hate crimes, improves the legal tools available to prosecutors, and increases the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to support our state and local partners. This law removed legal barriers that then existed to the prosecution of certain racial and religious violence and added new federal protections against crimes based on sex, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation. Before the Civil Rights Division prosecutes a hate crime, the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General must certify in writing that (1) the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) the State has requested the Federal Government to assume its jurisdiction; (3) The sentence or punishment obtained on the basis of charges brought by the State did not manifestly justify the interest of the Federation in eliminating harmful violence; or (4) the U.S.

prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to provide substantive justice. Author Ken Ring has been accused of scaremongering by New Zealand politician Nick Smith. The almanac vendor in Auckland has made predictions about earthquakes and weather based on lunar cycles, and some of its predictions have been taken seriously by some members of the public in relation to the 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand. [17] The Directive will have the greatest impact on online opinion leaders, many of whom have tens of thousands of followers. Any unfounded message posted by them automatically reaches the legally defined extent of damage – 500 retweets and/or 5000 views. In response to the new rule, social commentator Hugo satirically posted: The economy is not good. The 500 retweets could have an economic counterpart. According to a conservative estimate, politics can lead to economic growth of 1%, and the reason is simple: the more people are prosecuted, the more society needs lawyers, judges, prosectors; The more people sent to prison, the more prisons had to be built and the more policemen there were.

This can certainly improve employment, construction and construction. A smart decision.