Ironic Mao Zedong sculpture sentenced to three years: Artist’s case highlights how “heroic protection” extends to political censorship

Chinese artist Cao Cao, for creating sculptures that ironic Mao Zedong many years ago, was sentenced to three years in prison by the Hubei City Court on August 25.Reports from Reuters, United States.</a>The case was found to constitute "violation of the honor and honor of hero martyrs"; he lived in the United States for a long time, and was arrested during a visit to relatives in China in

1. the core of the international attention of the case is that the work was created much earlier than the "Hero Martyrs Protection Act", implemented in 2018, and the trial was conducted in a closed-door manner.

From artwork to criminal cases

Cao Cao and his brother, Cao Cao, have long been engaged in contemporary artistic creation under the name of the "Brothers Cao", whose works often involve Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution, political power and historical memory. The works involved include the series of "The Crimes of Mao" created after 2009 and "Miss Mao", some of which present Mao Zedong's image in exaggerated, ironic and anti-heroic ways.

In August 2024, Gao was detained while visiting relatives from the United States to China. Earlier in 2026, he was sentenced to one-day closed-door trial in Hebei River City Court; on August 25, the court sentenced him to three years in prison.Reported by ReutersCao Cao’s wife, Zhao Yai, said the family was “irritated” at the verdict and said Cao Cao planned to appeal.

The most controversial part of the case is an artwork completed many years ago when the law was enacted, and a retrospective trial by the later established political memorial legal system.

When the law comes into force and becomes the key dispute point in the case

China's "Hero Martyrs Protection Law" came into effect in 2018 and clearly prohibits the distortion, scandalization, slander, and denial of hero martyrs' deeds and spirits.

China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) researchers criticizeThe authorities are pursuing earlier periods of artistic creations under the laws after 2018 and involve clear disputes over the applicability of retroactivity.The U.S. State Department also expressed "serious concern" over the verdict.The case allegedly occurred before the relevant laws were enacted.

Closed trial and family exit restrictions further expand disputes

Reuters saidThe trial refused to be heard by the family, and foreign diplomats were not able to enter the courthouse. The wife and her American son werely restricted to leave the country after the arrest.

These procedural arrangements enable cases to involve not only artistic expression, but also public trial, legal predictability and the freedom of movement of family members. In the framework of the rule of law, the application of penalties should be based on a clear, predictable and non-retrospective legal basis; in particular, politically sensitive cases require public proceedings to demonstrate the independence of justice from political will.

How “Protecting Angry Men” Expands to Protect Political Storytelling

The case shows that China's so-called "heroic protection" is not only aimed at cemeteries, memorial facilities or malicious lies, but has been able to cover artwork, historical evaluation and political irony. Mao Zedong is both the core figure of the establishment of the People's Republic of China, but also one of the highest political responsible in major historical disasters such as the Great Leap, anti-right and cultural revolution.

When the state establishes untouchable political figures and historical narratives in the form of criminal or pro-criminal law, artistic expression and historical studies can shift from public discussion to activities that require submission to political boundaries. This is directly linked to the freedom of expression, artistic freedom and historical research in modern society.

China’s Archival Watch: The responsibility lies not only in the courtroom, but also in the system itself that makes the banned areas.

The chain of direct responsibility for the case includes the detective organs, the prosecutor's organs and the city court of Three Rivers; the higher level of the institutional background, in recent years, is the continuously strengthened historical narrative management, hero martyr protection, ideological security and cultural censorship system.

Therefore, the case cannot be understood only as punishing an artist after “working beyond the boundaries.” The real need to be documented is: who has established political banned zones, who transforms these banned areas into criminal responsibility, who restricts the room for relief of parties and their families by closed-door trials and exits. When artworks can be punished for touching the dominant narrative, cultural censorship is no longer just an administrative, but a part of the state force.