【新唐人2014年11月01日訊】11月1號結束的中共第十二屆全國人大常委會第十一次會議，審議了《刑法修正案（九）草案》，草案增加了網絡犯罪的條款，不僅「編造和傳播虛假信息」被正式納入刑事罪範圍，相關網站也可能被波及刑事責任，顯示網絡言論空間被進一步壓縮。另外，對於保障法院審判權的相關修改，也使人權律師擔心，維權案件的辯護將更加艱難。
大陸民眾在網上的言論，一旦被官方認定是「編造、傳播虛假信息」，就可能構成刑事犯罪。而相關的網站，如果沒能及時管控刪貼，或者沒能保留好相關證據，也可能受到刑事處罰。這是中共人大常委會27號開始審議的《刑法修正案（九）草案》的修改重點之一。
之前當局控制所謂的「網絡謠言」，行政處罰手段一般是警告和罰款。在2000年中共人大常委關於維護互聯網安全的決定中，第五條提到，利用互聯網的行為構成犯罪的，「依照刑法有關規定追究刑事責任」。不過，實際上在《刑法》中很難找到與之相銜接的條款，也沒有定罪量刑的規定。
而這次的《刑法修正案（九）》增加了「編造和傳播虛假信息犯罪」，聲稱是針對在信息網絡或者其他媒體上惡意編造、傳播虛假信息，嚴重擾亂社會秩序的情況。
另外，《草案》還增加了網站的責任，規定網絡服務商如果不履行網絡安全管理義務，經提醒拒絕執行措施，致使違法信息大量傳播、用戶信息泄漏，造成嚴重後果的，或者致使刑事犯罪證據滅失，嚴重妨害司法機關追究犯罪的，都可追究刑事責任。
其中，對「證據滅失」要追責也是第一次寫入刑法，以前這類情況一般只會受到行政處罰，現在涉及刑事處罰。
原河北人民廣播電臺編輯朱欣欣：「現在等於說又把網站的責任進一步加大了。如果網站負有這個責任的話，那它就可以以違法的名義來處理網站的有關負責人，或者是封網啊、暫停啦。等於說進一步收緊了網絡的環境。」
原河北人民廣播電臺編輯，自由撰稿人朱欣欣認為，持續嚴格打壓網絡言論，對於國家文化、民間社會發展不利。
朱欣欣：「壓制了真實的聲音，人們很多的精力、注意力，就會不得不轉向追求物質，對精神、文化的追求就會降低。同時，權力也就更加不受監督了。沒有輿論的監督，不可能真正做到依法治國。」
除此之外，《草案》的另一個修改重點，是在所謂勞教廢除後，加強社會治理的方面，其中為保障法院審判權做出的修改，也遭到法律界批評。
《草案》擴大了「擾亂法庭秩序罪」的範圍，如「侮辱、誹謗、威脅司法工作人員或者訴訟參與人，不聽法庭制止」等行為，也將構成刑事犯罪。
廣東律師隋牧青：「很明顯是刻意的針對人權律師，對法庭的非法行為的抗爭而來的，一種出臺的規定。因為尤其『擾亂法庭秩序』這樣一個說法，從立法技術上，它就非常模糊和抽像。它適合於法庭隨意的解釋，隨意的給律師入罪。」
代理丁家喜律師案的廣東律師隋牧青，今年4月在一審庭審時，他指出案件程序多處重大違法，退庭抗議，被法官處以罰款，剝奪一審辯護資格。因此他表示，如果《刑法修正案（九）草案》通過，法官的處理可能就更隨意。
隋牧青：「這個都是很明顯的法治倒退。那麼如果按照這種標準，我在『丁家喜案』當中，他們就完全可以以這個罪名來抓我。」
《草案》還規定，辯護人、訴訟代理人或者其他訴訟參與人，泄露依法不公開審理的案件中不應當公開的信息，造成信息公開傳播或者其它嚴重後果的，也構成犯罪。
隋牧青律師說，人權律師已經發現，目前在法庭進行專業辯護起不到作用，訴諸社會大眾的支持才是唯一的利器，而當局的這項修改就是要剪除人權律師的利器。
代理維吾爾族學者伊力哈木案的律師劉曉原，也向香港媒體指出，在庭審辯護時，法院不停提醒他，案件涉及分裂國家，不能向外披露證據，但另一方面，中央電視臺卻播出對伊力哈木不利的證據，他認為這是「雙重標準」。
採訪/朱智善 編輯/尚燕 後製/蕭宇
China Criminal Law Amendment Tightens Internet Censorship
and Defeats Human Rights Lawyers
The ninth draft amendment to criminal law was discussed
in the eleventh National People’s Congress (NPC) meeting.
The cybercrime, “fabricate and spread false information"
was formally introduced as a criminal offense;
Websites may also be held criminally responsible.
The freedom of expression on the Internet
is being further supressed.
Changes to protect juridical power of the court
have also been introduced.
It imposes tough procedure for human rights lawyers.
Once the online remarks are officially recognized
as “fabricating, spreading false information", it may
constitute a criminal offense.
The corresponding websites’ failure to monitor the content
or withhold relevant information as evidence may also be
subject to criminal penalties.
These are the major changes in the ninth draft amendment
to criminal law submitted to the NPC.
An administrative penalty such as warnings and fines was
used to be the measure for the so-called Internet rumors.
In the NPC ‘s decision on Internet security article five,
those who commit crimes via the Internet will be held
“criminally responsible in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the criminal law."
However, provisions on conviction and sentencing
or relevant articles were not defined.
The crimes of “fabricating and spreading false information"
in the ninth amendment draft claimed to target
fabricating and spreading of malicious and false information
that cause disruption of social order.
The responsibility of websites is also added in the draft.
Network service providers are in charge of cyberspace
security and maintenance.
Damages caused by massive spreading of illegal information
and leakage of personal information or loss of criminal
evidence which could complicate the judicial investigation
will be held accountable for criminal offense.
Holding the website accountable for “loss of evidence"
has been written into the criminal law for the first time.
Similar situations were subject to administrative penalties.
But, now it is involved in criminal penalties.
Former Hebei People’s Radio Editor Zhu Xinxin:
“It increased the responsibility of the Websites.
With such a responsibility, service providers can be regulated
in the name of the law and the sites can be blocked or closed.
The Internet is further tightened."
Zhu Xinxin does not believe the tightened online censorship
is beneficial to developments of the culture or society.
Zhu Xinxin: “When the true voice is suppressed, people will
divert their energy and attention to the pursuit of material.
The standard of spiritual and cultural pursuit will be reduced
and the power will be further unsupervised.
Without supervision, the rule of law will never be achieved."
Another change adopted by the draft is the modification
that secures the court jurisdiction in order to strengthen
social governance after the abolition of the labor camp.
The scope of the “disrupt court order" crime was extended
to include the activities that “insult, slander, threaten judicial
officers or participants in the proceedings, refuse to stop
as demanded by the court" as criminal offense.
Guangdong lawyer Sui Muqing: “It is obviously
and deliberately targeting the human rights lawyers’
opposing the illegal acts of the court.
Technically, ‘disrupt court order’ is a very vague
and abstract description.
It provides free will to the court
to arbitrarily incriminate lawyer."
Lawyer Sui Muqing once protested the major illegal
procedure during a first instance trial this April
and retired from the court.
He was later fined by the judge
and deprived the qualification to defense.
He indicates the passing of the draft
could grant judges more free will.
Sui Muqing: “This is obviously backwards of law and order.
With such standard, they could arrest me during my defense
for Ding Jiaxi’s case this April."
The draft also provides that should counsel, litigation or other
litigation participants disclose information of cases that go
through closed-door trial or if the disclosed information
lead to serious consequences also constitute a crime.
Sui Muqing says that human rights lawyers have realized
that professional defense severs no effect in court.
Resorting to social support is the only weapon.
But, this modification of court authority is to cut off
a human rights lawyer’s weapon.
The Uygur scholar Ilham Tohti’s defending attorney
Liu Xiaoyuan also pointed out to the Hong Kong media that
the court repetitively reminded him that the case involves
splitting the state, and no evidence can be disclosed.
But, the regime mouthpiece CCTV aired evidences
unfavorable to Ilham Tohti.
He believes that this is a double standard.
Interview/Zhu Zhishan Edit/ShangYan Post-Production/XiaoYu
