Like Tree505Likes

China is a basket case....

Reply
Page 62 of 63 FirstFirst ... 54 59 60 61 62 63 LastLast
  1. #611

  2. #612

  3. #613

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,478
    https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-...e-disappearing

    It seems clear that the SPC views certain kinds of cases as embarrassing to the Party: Some of the purged cases highlight official corruption or illustrate the Party’s use of the criminal justice system to crack down on its critics. Other cases present an unflattering view of Chinese society, and have likely been removed for that reason. In other words, the SPC wants its transparency mechanisms to paint a picture of a fair and benevolent CCP, and a healthy and wholesome Chinese society. Many verdicts that cut against that idyll have been removed.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, criminal and administrative cases have faced the heaviest censorship. These cases often highlight behaviors that the Party wants to obscure from view, and also shed light on the Party’s use of the criminal justice system to punish critics of the regime. Take criminal cases related to “picking quarrels and stirring up trouble,” for example. The picking quarrels provision of China’s criminal code is vague enough to be used against a range of actions that local officials deem objectionable, including everything from street altercations to online criticism of senior CCP leaders. A search for picking quarrels cases we conducted in May 2020 yielded tens of thousands of cases. Today, a similar search yields none.

    The conviction of Luo Daiqing for “picking quarrels” is one case that has been removed. Luo, then a student at the University of Minnesota, was detained in his home city of Wuhan in July 2019, over Twitter posts that made unflattering comparisons between senior Chinese leaders and various cartoon characters. Luo was found guilty of picking quarrels and sentenced to six months by a local court in October. He was released in January 2020. Per the SPC’s 2013 regulations, the verdict in Luo’s case was posted on CJO soon after it was issued. Just weeks later, Western media outlets reported on the court verdict, in some cases linking directly to the text of the decision on CJO. Today the verdict no longer appears.

    Other targeted searches we conducted—as well as those by other researchers—over the past few months reveal a similar pattern of large-scale purging of cases, and also highlight exactly which terms and which crimes the court system has targeted for removal. First, judgments containing key terms that China’s leadership deems “sensitive,” such as “Twitter,” “freedom of speech,” “rumor,” “feminism,” and “national leaders,” have been almost completely eliminated from CJO. Second, many verdicts involving certain kinds of crimes have been removed, including not just “picking quarrels,” but also political crimes such as subversion and morally fraught crimes such as blackmail. Third, many controversial cases have been removed. This seems especially true for cases that have been the subject of public scrutiny in ways that reflect badly on either the Party itself or on Chinese society as a whole. One district court in Anhui province went even further: It simply removed all of its criminal cases from the database.
    A June 2021 judicial corruption case from Shandong province, initially posted to CJO but removed less than two weeks later, is one of many cases that cast an unflattering light on the Party-state. On June 8, a vice president and two fellow judges in the intermediate court in Jinan, the capital of Shandong province, were convicted of bribery after taking millions of renminbi from over 60 lawyers from different law firms over several years. The case highlighted systemic judicial corruption that included a number of key players, including judges, lawyers, large corporations, and state-owned enterprises. Lawyers caught up in the scandal included top members of the provincial-level lawyers’ association and well-known legal academics, which suggested that bribery had permeated both the court system and the legal profession up to the very highest levels in the province. After the scandal attracted national media attention, the verdicts in the case were removed from the CJO database, and further media reporting on the case abruptly ceased, most likely on orders from the propaganda authorities.
    The latest observations likely to annoy the “is China really so bad (and I’m sure the West must do it too) brigade”.
    Last edited by AsianXpat0; 04-02-2022 at 10:06 AM.

  4. #614

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,478
    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...nt-over-wechat

    “WeChat has become an essential part of daily lives [in China]. Deleting the account wasn’t just a hindrance to online communication with friends but made transport, shopping and public health code screenings impossible,” He wrote.
    “I started a fifth account in October and stayed away from any politically sensitive topics in WeChat Moments and group chats. There was nothing but fragmented chatter far from reality but even that was not enough to spare it from being axed on January 8,” he said.


    He then registered his sixth account “Old Crane” but it too was deleted on January 31.

    “Who has given the administrators of Tencent, a private corporation, such a powerful right to implement the law and make unquestioned rulings against civilian speech by arbitrarily terminating clients’ accounts without providing any means for appeal?” He wrote.

  5. #615

  6. #616

  7. #617

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    FØROYAR
    Posts
    1,262

    Looks like one of his body doubles.


  8. #618

  9. #619

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,478
    https://chinamediaproject.org/2022/0...chinas-heroes/

    China’s superior governance model.

  10. #620

Reply
Page 62 of 63 FirstFirst ... 54 59 60 61 62 63 LastLast