[6] Part Three: Lawyer's Rights Defense Bravely Challenges the Legal Affairs Office

3. Suing the Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office

The Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office forced the Southern Daily to publish a report that appeared to be "truthful" on the surface, with all its content being factual. However, its headline highlighted "Wang Tengfeng," its content overlooked the reporter's work errors, and its format was a news report rather than the newspaper's own correction notice. Combining these factors, anyone with normal reasoning ability who read both reports would naturally conclude that Wang Tengfeng, pretending to be the municipal government's legal advisor, "made reckless remarks" and was now publicly exposed and embarrassed by the government!

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's "tough words" during his negotiations with the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office and Southern Daily were by no means a bluff. On April 30, 2011, Lawyer Wang Tengfeng filed a civil lawsuit with the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court, suing the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office, Guangdong Southern Newspaper Media Group Co., Ltd. (later changed to Southern Daily), and Guo Biao for defamation of reputation, demanding that the defendants publish an apology in the same section of Southern Daily and pay 1 yuan in compensation for mental damages (later changed to 10,001 yuan) (Figures 108, 109). On May 19, 2011, the Futian District People's Court accepted Wang Tengfeng's lawsuit under case number (2011) Shen Fu Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 2299. While Guo Moumou's "Sea Palace" administrative litigation case had not yet gone to trial, and it was not even certain that Lawyer Wang Tengfeng would be appointed as the litigation agent, Wang Tengfeng himself had already initiated a reputation infringement lawsuit over the "Sea Palace" incident against the Shenzhen municipal government functional agencies and the officially backed media Southern Daily.

Figure 108: Scan of the first page of the "Civil Complaint" submitted by Lawyer Wang Tengfeng to the Futian District People's Court on April 30, 2011.

　　Figure 109: Scan of the second page of the "Civil Complaint" submitted by Lawyer Wang Tengfeng to the Futian District People's Court on April 30, 2011.

In this reputation lawsuit, although there were multiple defendants, the real confrontation was mainly between Lawyer Wang Tengfeng and the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office. Southern Daily had previously succumbed to government pressure, losing the responsibility and independence that a serious media outlet should have, which was truly frustrating. However, based on litigation strategy considerations, Lawyer Wang Tengfeng did not make it the main target. Southern Daily, aware of its own shortcomings, maintained a "soft stance" throughout the litigation process. Although it did not admit to infringement, it did not actively or strongly refute the plaintiff's claims. The other defendant, reporter Guo Biao, was in an awkward position, feeling particularly sorry for Lawyer Wang Tengfeng. Therefore, aside from providing some evidence to Lawyer Wang Tengfeng, Guo Biao adopted a completely passive strategy and never appeared in court to respond.

On June 8, 2011, the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office formally submitted its "Reply" and evidence (Figures 110-114). In the "Reply," the Legal Affairs Office first emphasized that its act of publishing a response statement in the newspaper (i.e., the act being sued) was triggered by the Southern Daily reporter's erroneous reference to the "municipal government legal advisor" identity, which caused a severe negative social impact, and was a "legitimate act to eliminate the negative effects of the error." However, in elaborating on this point, the "Reply" detailed the logic behind its so-called "legitimate act": the report "The Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Advisor: The 'Sea Palace' Case May Be Winnable" was "seriously inconsistent with the facts, misled the public, and objectively caused a severe negative social impact. It also greatly affected the respondent's normal work. Since the respondent is responsible for the hiring and management of government legal advisors, after the report was published, the municipal government and relevant functional departments questioned the respondent about the identity of the viewpoint's author in the report." It turned out that the Legal Affairs Office's tough stance, disregarding Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's strong opposition and forcing Southern Daily to "correct the error" according to their prescribed format and content, was due to "questioning" from municipal government leaders. Why the questioning? Because the report was "seriously inconsistent with the facts, misled the public, and objectively caused a severe negative social impact." But the report only had a minor error in describing the interviewee's identity—why was it taken so seriously? In fact, as previously analyzed, this minor error, after being twisted and amplified by online clickbait, conveyed the message that "the municipal government legal advisor publicly declared the government's administrative actions illegal," which made the Shenzhen municipal government leaders lose face. To be fair, the municipal government leaders were too narrow-minded and had a too one-sided understanding of "government legal advisor." The basic principle of a rule-of-law country is that for the government, what is not authorized by law cannot be done; for the people, what is not prohibited by law can be done. Therefore, for a mature rule-of-law government, the primary duty of a government legal advisor should be to ensure that all government actions comply with legal provisions, not to "speak for" the government or support administrative power! Especially in China, where administrative power has already expanded so much, the main duty of the many government lawyers to be established in the future should be to ensure that "power is truly confined in the cage of law." It should be common sense for government legal advisors to oppose and prevent illegal government actions!

The Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office claimed in the "Reply" that there was no "administrative subordination relationship" between it and Southern Daily, so the plaintiff's assertion that the Legal Affairs Office had exercised "administrative hegemonic intervention" over Southern Daily was "purely subjective speculation, lacking any factual or legal basis." This was a bit too modest. Everyone on earth knows that Chinese government departments are the most powerful. On the positive side, they have strong social management capabilities and high efficiency; on the negative side, they monopolize and occupy all important social resources, forcing other social members to bow to them for a living. Exercising "administrative hegemony" does not require "any administrative subordination relationship"!

The "Reply Statement" finally emphasizes that the actions taken by the Municipal Government's Legal Affairs Office are "legal, reasonable, and involve no infringement, let alone any harm to the respondent," because "the respondent's responses throughout are statements of objective facts, with neutral and objective language, and do not make any evaluation of the respondent." This high-sounding claim completely ignores the fact that what lawyer Wang Tengfeng expressed in the first report, as an interviewee, was merely his personal opinion formed based on his understanding of the facts and laws related to the "Sea Palace" case, which should also be "legal and reasonable," without any intent or act of maliciously attacking the government. However, the municipal government leaders concluded that the report was "seriously inconsistent with the facts, misled the public, and objectively caused severe negative social impact," based on a combination of the mistaken identity of "municipal government legal advisor" and the actual dissemination effect amplified by clickbait-style distortion. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire; otherwise, repay in kind. In other words, we should also use the government's logic to analyze the information dissemination effect of its actions: the Municipal Government's Legal Affairs Office's response "throughout states objective facts" and uses "neutral and objective language," but considering the forced use by Southern Daily of a headline highlighting "Wang Tengfeng," the news article style, and the incisive "three points" argument, combined with the significant impact of the previous report, the actual dissemination effect is essentially equivalent to a direct personal attack like "Wang Tengfeng is a fraud posing as a municipal government legal advisor."

　Figure 110: First page of the "Reply Statement" from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government.

Figure 111: Second page of the "Reply Statement" from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government.

Figure 112: Third page of the "Reply Statement" from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government.

Figure 113: Fourth page of the "Reply Statement" from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government.

Figure 114: "List of Evidence" submitted by the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government.

　　(待续)