Self-Media for the Weak: Where are the boundaries of freedom of speech?

The end of sharp criticism is prison.

This is the curse of many people in the media, and the curse of many civilians.

In recent times, Hunan has caused a public discussion about the incident caused by media agent Yin Jinggan, which has also caused a lot of media people to sweat cold.

What brought Yin Jiang-gan a disaster was his August 11, 2025 issue of the "Liu Liang, secretary of the Party Committee of the County Chongqing Town, intended to lead to the government's "trust violation"."

This article tells the story of a farmer woman named Chen DeJen, who was forced by the local government to "hardly grieve frostbite" in order to recover her remaining 100,000 bricks.

In the article, Yin Jiangqian, with a sharp pencil, did not pay attention to the scene and the secretary of the Party Committee of the county of历阳镇, Liu Liu.

The article says –

Liu Liu rides on the people for the benefit of the people, and in the "interception of intercepting visits" in the "two-sided" monopoly.

Liu Liu played the "trick" of heated power expansion with his own private and public power, causing tensions and deterioration in party relations.

Yin’s criticism is very earsome.

After the article was published, local officials called Yin Jianggan and asked him to remove the article.

Yin was severely rejected.

The reason is that public opinion surveillance is a legitimate right conferred on citizens by the Constitution.

Faced with Yin's ignorance, the local police directly mobilized and caught him and threw him into the custody.

The offence is: provocation.

After Yin Jiangguan was arrested, he was interrogated for six years.

Relevant parties have verified more than 450 articles he has published since 2019.

The ink that has been sharply criticized by officials has become a crime.

The public prosecution alleged that Yin Ying-gen, between 2019 and 2025, carried out "deliberate insult and contempt of the image" against the administrative organs and cadres of more than ten cities in five provinces such as Hunan and Hubei.

The "crimes" of Yin Jenggen, I have read in several articles.

He wrote in the article, mostly a story of a visitor, a defender of the crying blood.

In the article, he did not accuse the “green bag secretary”, did not accuse the “bandi” and did not accuse the “fuck” ...

Yin Jiang-Kong exclaimed, is "riding on the people to bless", is "power assertion", is "the official is not better to be a people's master than home to sell potatoes."

Yin Jianggan believes that this is freedom of speech, it is public opinion supervision.

Yin Jianggen said in his first-trial statements that many visitors' problems have not been resolved year after year, and that he has spoken out for justice, and the written content has evidence to support it.

Proof of this thing is often public opinion, the wife is right.

The final decision is in the hands of the judge.

During a 14-hour trial, Yin Jiangzen told the story of a visitor in a few rare places.

As I said, Yong's tears fell down.

Per already anticipated his end, Yin Jiangkun wrote in a sentence after the court, "They can grab a pen, but can not hide the sunlight of the pen. That light, has been lit into the hearts of countless people, it will eventually penetrate the smog, light up the spring, light up every corner of this world."

Yong’s expectations have become reality.

After the trial, the court determined that there were a large number of "untruths" in Yin Jiang-gen's 75 articles on the rights of defenders, involving a total of 16 facts in many provinces such as Anhui, Hunan, Hubei, Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Fujian.

Eventually, Yin Jianggen was convicted of provocation and was sentenced to two years and three months in prison.

Following the first-instance judgment, two major discussions emerged on the network:

Is the “voicing for the weak” self-media behavior touching the red line of criminal law?

How are the boundaries of public opinion supervision and the right of citizen expression defined?

At the time of the upcoming trial in the second instance, Yin Jianggen's agent lawyer Zhang Xuang-hue said in the microblog, "The nine cases of first-instance identification of the use of network information to humiliate relevant public officials, confuse the difference between criticism and personal attacks, equate the sharp criticism of citizens to humiliation, not in accordance with the party's policy requirements, serious lack of due diligence."

Zhang lawyer also said, "The strict control of the judicial organs on the behavior of the code book, the conflict with the status quo of the low cultural presence in the society, the inability to write, injury to social stability and development, is a serious challenge to the media industry, the second-instance court must not ignore."

Were Yin’s actions, in fact, the citizens’ rights to express themselves under public opinion supervision, or the execution of cadres’ actions of “willful insulting and degrading the image”?

I don't know what the court of second instance will give an outcome?

CFMEDIAANCHOR 1