【新唐人2013年08月31日訊】自中共當局以打擊「網路傳謠」的名義進行網路言論打壓以來，先後有多名網路名人被警方以「尋釁滋事罪」拘捕，其中包括網路推手秦火火（本名秦志暉）、立二拆四（本名楊修宇）、廣州記者劉虎以及湖南記者格祺偉等等。對此，法律界諸多律師提出，劉虎等人的行為完全不符合「尋釁滋事罪」的任何法定情形，當局以此為由隨意拘留網路人士的做法已經超出了法律的規定。
廣州《新快報》記者劉虎因「涉嫌尋釁滋事罪」被北京警方拘捕後，他的律師周澤和斯偉江8月29號在網路上向當局發出聯名律師意見書。提出當局對劉虎的一系列指控，根本無法構成「尋釁滋事罪」。
此前，劉虎曾經在微博上實名舉報中共國家工商總局副局長馬正其，陝西公安廳長杜航偉等四位副部級高官和其他官員涉嫌貪污腐敗。律師們認為，劉虎的網路實名舉報是正常行使了一個公民監督權。
東南大學法學教授張讚寧：「因為劉虎他是個職業記者，他是履行自己的職責，而且他還有舉報貪官的行為，這是國家允許的，是他的職責範圍內的一些行為，以『尋釁滋事罪』拘留他完全是沒有道理的，這可能是中國的一大發明吧！」
法律界認為，劉虎所謂的「犯罪事實」都是言論，而「尋釁滋事罪」是針對行為制定的法律，言論和行為二者性質完全不同。而且《刑法》對「尋釁滋事罪」發生的場所的規定，也僅限存在於現實世界的公共場所而不是虛擬空間。
張讚寧：「尋釁滋事根據中國法律的解釋就是指肆意挑釁、隨意毆打擾亂他人，或者任意損毀、侵佔公私財務，或者在公共場所起鬨鬧事，嚴重破壞社會秩序的行為。這四個情節他一個也沒有，也不存在。」
劉虎的律師還表示，劉虎對貪官的網路實名揭發是有根據的。根據萬州區相關國有企業員工的舉報材料，劉虎經過調查後發現了馬正其存在濫用職權的重大違法犯罪嫌疑，並對此事跟蹤了八年時間。他在無法通過媒體公開報導的前提下，不得已通過網路進行實名舉報的。
外界認為，公民在網路上的言論，即使所傳的信息有些不準確或誇大，只要沒有對社會或者個人造成實質性傷害，就不應該定為造謠、傳謠的罪名。
北京社會活動家胡佳 ：「網路是個言論空間，它裡邊所謂炒作並不違法，尤其在網路上批評政府，哪怕證實某些話語是謠言，不準確的，或者不存在的，不管是甚麼目的，但這個話語主要起到監督政府和政府官員的這樣作用的話，都不能夠成為政府的報復對像。」
網路上造謠、傳謠的現象的確時有發生，一般多為涉及侵犯名譽權或誹謗罪，比如捏造事實對他人進行誹謗污衊，給對方造成名譽傷害，按照司法解釋，雙方應該自行通過法律程式解決，官方是無權主動參與的。
張讚寧：「像秦火火造謠啊，從官方媒體公布他的罪名來看，甚麼誹謗雷鋒啊、說雷鋒是假的，雷鋒本來就是假的嘛，早就受到社會上廣大的質疑。而且謠言的話，起訴人不應當是官方，應當是受害人，如果你造謠侵害了某個個人的權益，比如侵害了雷鋒的權益，那應當是雷鋒的家屬來起訴他，而不應當官方、警方來介入這個案件，我想這是沒有依據的，也是違法的。」
法律界奉勸當局，不要因為要打擊「網路謠言」而置法律於不顧，也不要用莫須有的罪名公然強加在網路異議人士的身上，這樣只會讓民眾對當局封殺網路言論的行為更加反感，使政府的公信力喪失殆盡。
採訪編輯/張天宇 後製/李智遠
Chinese Communist Party Imposes Crimes On Netizens;
Legal Profession Supports Netzien Liu Hu
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) recently
cracked down on internet speeches.
Since then, several well known netizens have been
arrested for “creating troubles".
They include network push hand Qin Huohuo (real name
Qin Zhihui), Lierchaisi (real name Yang Xiuyu),
Guangzhou journalist Liuhu,
Hunan journalist Ge Qiwei, and others.
Many lawyers say the netizens’ actions don’t match the crime,
and it’s beyond the law to detain them arbitrarily.
Beijing police arrested new Express Daily journalist Liu Hu,
suspecting him of committing “crimes of creating trouble".
His lawyers Zhou Ze and Si Weijiang published a joint letter
to the CCP over the internet on August 29.
They indicated the accusations to Liu Hu don’t constitute
a “crime of creating trouble".
Liu Hu once reported online about the corruption of
Business Administration deputy director Ma Zhengqi,
Shanxi Safety Bureau director Du Hangwei,
and two other high level officials.
The lawyers believe that Liu Hu’s action of reporting official
corruption are citizens’ rights to oversee the government.
Southeast University law professor Zhang Zanning:
“Since Liu Hu is a journalist, he was performing his duty.
His action of reporting corrupt officials
is allowed by the nation.
It’s not reasonable to detain him
on “crimes of creating trouble"
because his actions are within the scope of his duty."
The legal community believes that the so called
“facts of the crime" of Liu Hu are all speeches.
But “crime of creating trouble" is talking about actions.
Speech and action have different characteristics.
Criminal Law defines “crime of creating trouble" as actions
carried out in real public places instead of virtual space.
Zhang Zanning: “Chinese law defines the
“crime of creating trouble" as provocation,
beating or disturbing others,
destroying or taking public property,
creating disturbances in public places,
and seriously undermining public order.
Liu Hu didn’t do any of that."
Liu Hu’s lawyer also indicates that
Liu’s report has evidence to support this.
According to sources from a state owned company
in Wangzhou District,
Liu Hu found out that Ma Qizheng is believed
to commit serious abuse of power.
Liu investigated the case for 8 years.
Finding no way to publish his investigation through the
media, he could only report about it on the internet.
The outside world says civilian speech on the web
shouldn’t be considered a crime of making or spreading rumors,
if it doesn’t harm society or individuals,
even if the information isn’t precise or is exaggerated.
Beijing rights activist Hu Jia: “The web is a place for speeches.
Speculation online is not against the law.
Especially critiques to the government, even if
some are rumors, not precise or don’t exist.
If the speeches are effective in supervising the CCP and
officials, they shouldn’t become the CCP target of retaliation."
Creating and spreading rumors online happens often,
but it’s usually for reputation infringement or defamation,
such as fabricating facts to ruin one’s reputation.
According to judicature, the two sides should solve
the problem through legal procedure, and the CCP has no rights to interfere.
Zhang Zanning: “About Qin Huohuo making rumors,
CCP media published that he defamed Lei Feng,
saying Lei Feng is fake.
Lei Feng is fake, which is questioned by
the society long ago.
Also, if someone creates rumors, it shouldn’t be
the government who brings a lawsuit, but the victim.
If one harms another’s rights and benefit,
such as Lei Feng,
it should be Lei Feng’s family suing Qin
not the government or police.
I don’t think it’s justified, and it’s illegal."
The legal community advises the CCP not to crack
down on “internet rumors" and ignore the law.
Not to charge unfounded crimes on internet dissidents.
The action of blocking internet speeches can only
irritate people, and lose the government its credibility.