But that does not an that illegal acts go unpunished. Similar actions are, according to regulations, subject to administrative detention for one to fifteen days. However, in the actual enforcent process, although regulations specify a minimum of one day for administrative detention, in practice, it is generally from five to fifteen days. Detention isn’t in a regular jail but in a public security detention center. By comparison, the treatnt and environnt are much better.
It’s ti to prepare to file charges under other offenses.
Taking a deep breath, Qin Mu returned to the nursing ho and began gathering evidence concerning Xia Qingqing’s act of releasing the video. The video’s content violated his rights to personal privacy and reputation, among others. This was not rely an illegal infringent; the act itself constituted a cri.
First, the widespread distribution of the video constituted the cri of infringing on citizens’ personal information. In criminal law, the cri of infringing on citizens’ personal information refers to the act of stealing or otherwise illegally obtaining personal information. This information is typically acquired by state agencies or units in sectors like finance, telecommunications, transportation, education, and dical care while performing their duties or providing services. The cri involves selling this information or illegally providing it to others, particularly in severe circumstances. Strictly speaking, this offense targets agencies, organizations, or individuals who traffic in personal information. For severe cases, sentencing includes fixed-term imprisonnt of up to three years or criminal detention, possibly with an additional fine. Particularly severe cases can result in three to seven years of fixed-term imprisonnt and a fine.
However, judicial interpretations have broadened this definition and added a catch-all clause. Exposing soone’s privacy online, if it leads to serious consequences, can result in criminal liability for infringing on citizens’ personal information.
In modern society, the sale of citizens’ personal information remains rampant. One’s mobile number can be leaked almost imdiately after logging onto a website. Even on online marketplaces, personal identity information is blatantly sold, with data packages costing as little as 60 yuan. This data can include nas, birthplaces, educational backgrounds, schools of graduation, marital status, residences, delivery addresses, and mobile numbers. It is openly priced and sold with utter brazenness.
Generally speaking, those who buy this information are either interdiaries or scam gangs. Interdiaries do so to find potential clients and facilitate transactions. Scam gangs do so to find potential victims for targeted, precision scams. Due to the low cost of obtaining personal information and the hassle involved in pursuing such cases, these phenona have never ceased.
Xia Qingqing, by publicizing the identity information of the four individuals in the video, caused its wide distribution. This has already led to serious consequences and thus constitutes the cri of infringing on citizens’ personal information. According to judicial interpretations, individuals who sell or disseminate others’ identity information generally face fixed-term imprisonnt of up to three years or criminal detention.
Secondly, while the video’s content was based on facts, it involved the widespread dissemination of a court’s judgnt. This was aid at countering the verdict and influencing public opinion. Such actions also violated the "Public Security Administration Punishnt Law," constituting malicious incitent of public opinion, exploitation of netizens, and deliberate disruption of public order online. These offenses warrant administrative penalties. This ans a fine plus administrative detention for five to fifteen days.
Indeed, criminal law does not include a specific charge for inciting public opinion. Only actions like instigating online conflicts and certain fan culture behaviors can be administratively punished. In contrast, criminal penalties are often too severe for such acts, while administrative penalties are too light. This disparity is why instances of problematic fan culture, instigation of online conflicts, and incitent of negative sentint are so prevalent.
Finally, beyond the two points ntioned, the video’s widespread circulation across various platforms also constituted the cri of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. This is also a rather obscure charge. Many people are aware of the cri of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, but most believe it applies only to violent incidents like brawls and fights. That is not the case.
In criminal law, the definition of this cri is very special. It initially evolved from the cri of hooliganism. The criminal charge of hooliganism itself has since been abolished. Decades ago, however, the cri of hooliganism was dreaded. Hooliganism specifically referred to openly scorning national laws and social morals, assembling crowds for brawls, picking quarrels and provoking trouble, insulting won, disrupting public order, and other acts of severe misconduct. In other words, any act that violated social morals and was condemned by society was considered hooliganism. For example, publicly harassing a girl on the street could lead to her suing for hooliganism. The penalties for hooliganism were increased multiple tis, with the maximum sentence being the death penalty.
Decades ago, there were cases where individuals engaged in promiscuous sexual relations were prosecuted for hooliganism, sentenced to death, and imdiately executed by firing squad. Now, however, people engaging in promiscuous behavior or harassing won are commonplace. Decades ago, such individuals would have been invariably arrested and executed by firing squad.
The main reason for abolishing this statute involved nurous considerations, one of which was the severity of its sentencing. Sentencing soone to twenty years’ imprisonnt rely for verbal harassnt would undermine the utilitarian deterrent value of criminal law. Criminal law aims to deter the ergence of criminal acts, not to te out cruel punishnt to criminals.
Therefore, in subsequent judicial practice, this broad offense was broken down into several specific cris. These include forcibly molesting or insulting won, molesting children, engaging in group licentiousness, participating in mass brawls, and picking quarrels and provoking trouble, among others.
User Comments
0 comments from readers