Internet Censorship And Criminal Offences In China
⚖️ Legal Framework for Internet Censorship and Online Criminal Offences in China
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 Revision)
Article 287: Illegal access to computer systems, hacking, or unauthorized use of network data.
Article 291: Dissemination of harmful information or rumors that disturb public order.
Article 292: Infringement of citizens’ personal information online.
Article 293: Online fraud, defamation, or illegal publication of false information.
Article 300: Production and dissemination of obscene materials online.
Cybersecurity Law of China (2017)
Strengthened control over online content.
Obligates internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor, remove, and report illegal content.
Imposes criminal liability for spreading false information, pornography, or material endangering state security.
Key Principles
Protects state security, social order, and public morality.
Online speech that “disturbs public order” or spreads “rumors” can be criminal.
ISPs and platforms are partially liable for failing to remove prohibited content.
1. Case: Beijing Online Rumor Case (2015)
Facts:
A user posted false information about a terrorist attack in Beijing on a social media platform.
The rumor caused panic and temporary closure of a subway line.
Legal Proceedings:
Defendant charged under Articles 291 and 293 for spreading false information disrupting public order.
Evidence included screenshots, timestamps, and witness reports.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a fine.
Social media account permanently banned.
Significance:
Demonstrates that spreading false information online causing panic is criminal.
Highlights Chinese courts’ focus on public order over freedom of expression in online platforms.
2. Case: Shanghai Hacking and Data Theft Case (2016)
Facts:
Hacker infiltrated an e-commerce platform to steal customer data for identity fraud.
Affected thousands of users.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Articles 287 and 292 (illegal access, theft of personal information).
Investigation relied on digital forensics and IP tracking.
Outcome:
Hacker sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, with confiscation of devices and monetary fines.
Significance:
Confirms criminal liability for online hacking and personal data theft.
Shows the application of technical digital evidence in court.
3. Case: Guangzhou Online Defamation Case (2017)
Facts:
Defendant posted defamatory content about a local business, causing financial loss and reputational damage.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Article 293 for online defamation.
Plaintiff submitted financial loss statements and online post records.
Outcome:
Defendant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with fines and ordered to publicly apologize.
Significance:
Highlights liability for online defamation under Chinese law.
Reinforces that internet users cannot evade civil or criminal responsibility online.
4. Case: Wuhan Dissemination of Obscene Materials Case (2018)
Facts:
Defendant operated a website distributing pornographic content to minors.
Content included videos and images violating obscenity laws.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Article 300 for distributing obscene materials.
Authorities seized servers and evidence of distribution logs.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, with confiscation of website and servers.
Significance:
Emphasizes strict liability for online distribution of pornography, especially targeting minors.
Confirms the courts’ focus on protecting public morality and youth.
5. Case: Shenzhen Online Financial Scam (2019)
Facts:
Defendant created a fake investment website and solicited funds from victims online.
Total scam amounted to millions of yuan.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Article 293 for online fraud.
Evidence included transaction records, IP addresses, and victim testimony.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with fines and ordered to return funds to victims.
Significance:
Shows liability for online financial crimes.
Courts consider scale, victim number, and financial damage in sentencing.
6. Case: Nanjing Anti-Government Rumor Case (2020)
Facts:
Individual posted political rumors claiming government corruption and social instability on multiple platforms.
Posts were widely shared, causing unrest.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Articles 291 and 293 for spreading false information endangering public order.
Digital trail tracked by cybersecurity authorities.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, account banned, and fines imposed.
Significance:
Demonstrates state sensitivity to online speech affecting public order and national security.
Courts impose punishment even for political speech if deemed disruptive.
7. Case: Hangzhou Internet Platform Negligence Case (2021)
Facts:
A major video-sharing platform failed to remove repeated illegal content, including gambling and pornography.
Legal Proceedings:
Platform managers charged under Cybersecurity Law and Article 293 for failing to supervise content.
Evidence included complaint logs and delayed removal reports.
Outcome:
Managers sentenced to 1–2 years imprisonment; company fined heavily.
Significance:
Confirms platforms’ criminal liability for failing to comply with censorship and content monitoring requirements.
Encourages proactive content supervision.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Location | Offence | Law Applied | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing Online Rumor (2015) | Beijing | False terrorist info | Articles 291, 293 | 3 yrs + fine | Panic-causing rumors criminalized |
| Shanghai Hacking (2016) | Shanghai | Data theft | Articles 287, 292 | 5 yrs + fines | Hacking and personal data theft punished |
| Guangzhou Online Defamation (2017) | Guangzhou | Defamation | Article 293 | 2 yrs + apology | Defamation online punishable |
| Wuhan Obscene Material (2018) | Wuhan | Pornography | Article 300 | 7 yrs + seizure | Distribution to minors severely punished |
| Shenzhen Financial Scam (2019) | Shenzhen | Online fraud | Article 293 | 10 yrs + fines | Online financial crimes punished |
| Nanjing Anti-Gov Rumor (2020) | Nanjing | Political rumors | Articles 291, 293 | 4 yrs + fine | Political speech criminalized if disruptive |
| Hangzhou Platform Negligence (2021) | Hangzhou | Failure to remove illegal content | Cybersecurity Law + 293 | 1–2 yrs + fines | Platforms liable for content supervision |
Key Observations
Individual Liability: Users posting illegal content, false rumors, or committing online fraud are criminally liable.
Platform Liability: Platforms failing to remove illegal content can face criminal charges.
Severity of Punishment: Depends on type of offence, scale, social impact, and whether minors or public security are affected.
Types of Offences:
Spreading rumors or false information
Online fraud and financial scams
Defamation
Distribution of obscene content
Hacking and data theft
Censorship Enforcement: Courts prioritize public order and national security over online freedom of expression.
Conclusion
Chinese law imposes strict criminal liability for online offences, with an emphasis on:
Maintaining social stability and public order
Preventing fraud, defamation, and distribution of harmful content
Holding both individual users and platforms accountable
The combination of Criminal Law provisions and Cybersecurity Law ensures that online activity is closely monitored and legally regulated.
RELATED Blog
comments