After 18 days of imprisonment: the land glorious case reveals the logic of "leaving prison is not equal to freedom"

According to Human Rights Network on September 11, Guangzhou rights activist Liu Xiaobo at the end of 4 years and 6 months in prison, home only more than ten days, was again controlled by the police.The Human Rights Network quoted outgoing overseas human rights defenders Liu Xiaobo and informed news said that the Liu Xiaobo on September 4 went to Guangzhou Guangzhou friend Shui Xiaobo accommodation and online for help, the next day both were arrested by local security personnel, currently detained in Guiping detention, suspected of "violence".

From August 17th to September 5th he was arrested, with only 18 days in between. These 18 days are the most critical measure of time to understand the event. A person who has executed the sentence determined by the court judgment should have regained ordinary citizenship and basic rights; however, he has just returned to society, and has sought online help to re-enter the criminal detention procedure.

18 days of freedom: the end of the sentence, why does the punishment not end?

Long has previously been prosecuted for years of political and social commentary, calling for constitutional reform, concern for the rights and interests of peasants and workers, and the "Iron Chain Woman" incident.On November 20, 2022, he was sentenced to four years and six months in prison for "incitement to subversion of the state regime" and a sentence of imprisonment until August 17, 2026, followed by serving in Guangzhou state prison.

August 17 sentence means that the sentence previously determined by the state sentence has been executed.The Defense Network said that the land glorious returned to Guiping home on August 18; September 4 stayed at a friend's house, and September 5 was arrested again. From regaining freedom to again losing freedom, only 18 days.

Will a person, after serving his sentence, become a full-fledged citizen again, or enter another period of surveillance without a definite period of time?

“The Provocative Incident” Returns: From Speech to Criminal Prosecution

He faced the charges of "provocation" during his first imprisonment. Public reports showed that he was detained by Shenzhen police in 2018 in a case involving his dissemination of political comments through QQ groups, WeChat and emails; in April 2020 he was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. After his sentence expired in January 2021, he continued to appeal and participate in public affairs, and was arrested again in 2022, after the charges escalated to "inciting subversion of the state regime".

This time, the Defense Network revealed that Liu Xiaobo was once again caught on suspicion of “provoking evil.” From the “provoking evil” in 2018, to the “provoking subversion” in 2022, and to the “provoking evil” in 2026, Liu Xiaobo is faced with a chain of criminal prosecution that revolves around political expression, public issues and external assistance. When online expression, political opinion and advocacy are once included in the scope of criminal strikes, the criminal law is no longer just a tool to punish specific harmful acts, but becomes a means of suppressing objection and creating a cooling effect.

The glorious past case has formed a clear time chain:

• 2018: imprisonment on suspicion of “provocation” and other online articles;
• 2020: imprisonment for “provocation” for 2 years and 6 months;
• 2021: first sentence release;
• 2022: again taken away by the police;
• 2022: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment on suspicion of “incitement to subversion of the state regime”;
• 17 August 2026: second sentence;
• 5 September 2026: Again arrested on suspicion of “provocation.”

Poverty and isolation after imprisonment are also part of punishment.

The report revealed a detail that was easily covered by the “catch” of the news: only after land glory was released from prison to learn that his mother had died on March 8 this year; he was only about 300 yuan issued by the prison and an old phone left by his mother, life was extremely difficult.

This means that when a long-term prisoner returns to society and faces more than just economic difficulties. When a friend visits is questioned, when normal relationships are pressured, when online help is sought, and when social relationships are caught again, social relationships themselves are included in control. The so-called “release” can therefore only mean that a person has left the prison wall but has not really escaped the surveillance and punishment of the stability system.

* Five questions to ask in the case of land glory *

• What compulsory measures have the public security organs taken against L. Gloria this time, have the legal documents been delivered to the family?
• What is the specific accusation of the "Provocation of L. Gloria" about what behavior?
• Can L. Gloria get the help of lawyers and regular meetings in a timely manner?
• Does he continue to be tracked, monitored or restricted during the 18 days after his sentence?
• What is the current state of S. Gloria, who was arrested with L. Gloria?

These questions directly relate to the personal freedom, the right to defence and the boundaries of the power of the public security, and also determine whether the case is actually a normal judicial procedure, or if the political repression is continued again by criminal means.

Fifth, focus on China's comment: the most cautious is that "punishment has no end".

He was previously sentenced to four years and six months in prison.The term of sentence expires, meaning that the previous sentence has been executed by the state. If a person continues to be monitored or arrested for expression, accessing the internet, seeking help or interacting with friends after the sentence expires, the sentence is in fact extended to a political control without a definite term.

The prison walls opened, but the punishment mechanisms did not stop. The cooling effect of this cycle would not fall only on the glorious person. It sent a clear signal to everyone who has ever been guilty of speech, participated in the defense of rights, or criticized power: being sentenced does not mean that you can speak freely again, but that you can still lose your freedom again.

The real exposure of the land glory case is the conflict between the punishment release system and the stabilization machine: on the one hand, the sentence period determined by the court sentence has ended, and on the other hand, the political surveillance and criminal prosecution has resumed. A person who has been sentenced to 18 days has been arrested again, revealing not the individual case accident, but the “leaving prison does not equal freedom” institutional trouble.