【新唐人2013年09月11日訊】美媒：「兩高」司法解釋荒唐而殘酷
中共最高法院和最高檢察院（「兩高」）日前公布的《關於辦理利用信息網路實施誹謗等刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》，繼續受到海內外輿論譴責。
《美國之音》評論說，「兩高」推出的這個司法解釋是一個笑話，是在為中共當局的警察國家做法提供法律掩護。
美國《個人電腦世界》雜誌（PCWorld）則向讀者介紹說：「根據中共兩高推出的新舉措，互聯網用戶的網路貼，假如被觀看了五千次以上或被轉發五百次以上，就有可能面臨誹謗指控，假如被判罪名成立，有可能獲得高達三年的刑期。」
《美國之音》在引述這段報導時說，中共兩高司法的解釋像開玩笑一樣荒唐而殘酷。
民眾：「官謠」比「民謠」危害性更大
這個所謂「誹謗信息」轉500次，就可判刑的「兩高」司法解釋，也引起大陸民眾的強烈反彈。
除了大批律師指出「兩高」越權違法外，一些媒體和媒體人也發聲反擊，他們指出﹕由中共政府發佈的誤導性信息，危害性比「民謠」 更大，打擊網路謠言更應該從治理「官謠」做起。
而普通網民則找出中共當局歷年發佈的虛假信息大量轉發，要求對「官謠」治罪。
四川網友「擺古論今」舉例說：「 央視義正詞嚴的宣稱：『歐美制裁使敘利亞4500 萬個家庭遭災！』 敘利亞總人口才2219.8萬﹗」
大陸作家羅志淵則說，《新華社》、《央視》擺烏龍，把東京說成了伊斯坦布爾，害慘全國報紙，《長沙晚報》連夜追回幾十萬份報紙！官方造謠，應該如何處理？
一名廣州律師（「我要法網」）也表示，不能把造世界謠、奧運謠的《新華社》、《央視》新聞責任人抓進去，就不是好解釋，就是護官謠、打民謠的雙重標準！
郭飛雄法律後援團已達百人
大陸維權人士郭飛雄，8月8號，被廣州市公安局天河分局以涉嫌「聚眾擾亂公共場所秩序罪」刑事拘留，之後，由大陸律師王成、唐吉田、江天勇等人發起的「郭飛雄案法律後援團」，8月17號啟動。截至9月9號，聯署參與這個「法律後援團」的各地維權律師和法律工作者已有108人。
上海七訪民天安門撒千張傳單
9月9號，上海盲人陳永成、胡義忠等7名訪民，在北京天安門東拋撒了近千份傳單，講述自己的冤情，揭露當地政府的腐敗。
事後，他們被十多名警察和特警抓捕，目前，已被遣返回當地。
7人中，除了盲人陳永成，是因為殘疾人福利待遇和基本合法權益，長期被黃浦區政府剝奪而喊冤，其他人都是因暴力拆遷上訪。
編輯/周玉林
VOA: China Judicial Interpretation of New Measures
CruelAnd Nonsensensical
China’s Supreme Court and top procuratorate jointly issued
interpretation on new regulations for online rumors.
It was continuously condemned by public opinon
at home and abroad.
Voice of America (VOA) reported that this interpretation is
nonsense.It provides legal support for the regime’s police.
PC World magazine in the US reported that China’s judicial
interpretation of “new measures said, internet users can face
defamation charges if their online posts have been read 5,000
times or reposted 500 times.
If found guilty, users could face jail for up to three years.”
VOA said that China’s judicial interpretation of the new
measures is nonsense and cruel.
Official Rumors Do More Harm Than Netizens
Judicial interpretation of “defamation information reposted
500 times incurs charges” caused widespread netziens’debates.
Lawyers pointed out that the Supreme Court and highest
Procuratorate violated the law.
There are also some voices from the media against this.
They said the Chinese regime had published many fake news
stories which were misleading the public.
These did more harm than netziens’ online rumors.
To clear out online rumors it should start with clearing out
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rumors.
Netizens dug out many fake news made by the CCP in the past.
They were widely reposted, and netizens requested charging
the officials who created the rumors.
Netizens in Sichuan said China’s Central Television(CCTV)
claimed that “European and US sanctions over Syria had
brought 45 million families disasters. Netizens questioned that
Syria only has a population of 22.4 million!
China-based writer Luo Zhiyuan said that Xinhua news and
CCTV are producers of lies.
Recently, they issued fake reports saying that Istanbul was the
winning city for the 2020 Olympic Games.
Actually it is Tokyo. Changsha Wanbao had to recall several
hundred thousands newspapers.
Lou questioned that the CCP created rumors, so
how to punish them?
A Guangzhou lawyer said that if the CCP doesn’t punish the
people creating rumors in Xinhua news and CCTV, it will be
hard to justify implementing the new measures for online rumors.
It will obviously only be used for protecting officials but
applying suppression to public expression.
Hundreds Of lawyers Join Legal Support Group Of
Guo Feixiong’s Case
On August 8, activist Guo Feixiong was detained by Guangzhou
police on allegations of “gathering crowds, disturbing social order”.
Later, Lawyer Wang Cheng, Tang Jitian, Jiang Tianyong and
other supporters formed “Guo Feixiong’s case legal support group”.
It started on August 17. By Sept. 9, 108 lawyers and legal workers
signed their names to join the group.
Seven Shanghai Petitioners Threw Thousands Of
Flyers Into The Air In Beijing
On Sept. 9, seven Shanghai petitioners including a blind man
Chen Yongcheng threw thousands of flyers into the air in Beijing.
The materials are about their mistreatment,
and exposing their local government’s corruption.
Later, they were detained by police. Now they are being taken
to their hometown.
Blind man Cheng Yongcheng appealed that his disabilities
benefit had long been deprived by the local government.
Other petitioners appealed for their homes
being forcibly demolished.