Sue the Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office! — The Ultimate Revelation of the "Sea Palace" Case (Part 28)
[6] Part Three: Lawyer's Rights Defense Bravely Challenges the Legal Affairs Office
3. Suing the Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office
The report that the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal Government forced *Southern Daily* to publish appears on the surface to be "truth-seeking and fact-based," and its contents are all factual. However, its headline prominently highlights the person "Zhiming Lawyer," its content omits the issue of the reporter's professional errors, and its genre is news reporting rather than the newspaper's own correction notice. Taken together, these factors would naturally lead anyone who has read both reports and possesses normal reasoning ability to conclude: Zhiming Lawyer posed as a legal advisor to the municipal government and "spouted nonsense," and is now being publicly exposed and humiliated by the government!
The "harsh words" that Attorney Zhiming uttered during his dealings with the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government and Southern Daily were by no means a bluff. On April 30, 2011, Attorney Zhiming filed a civil lawsuit with the Futian District People's Court of Shenzhen, suing the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government, Guangdong Southern Newspaper Media Group Co., Ltd. (later changed to Southern Daily), and Guo Biao for infringement of reputation rights, demanding that the defendants publish an apology on the same page 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 Attorney Zhiming's lawsuit under case number "(2011) Shen Fu Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 2299." On that side, the "Maritime Palace" administrative lawsuit of a certain Guo had not yet gone to trial, and it had not even been decided to retain Attorney Zhiming as litigation agent; on this side, Attorney Zhiming himself had already filed a reputation infringement lawsuit over the "Maritime Palace" incident against functional agencies of the Shenzhen municipal government and the officially backed media outlet Southern Daily!
Figure 108: Scanned copy of the first page of the Civil Complaint submitted by Attorney Zhiming to the Futian District People's Court on April 30, 2011.
Figure 109: Scan of the second page of the Civil Complaint submitted by Attorney Zhiming to the Futian District People's Court on April 30, 2011.
In this defamation lawsuit, although there were several defendants, the real confrontation was mainly between Attorney Zhiming and the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government. Previously, the Southern Daily had succumbed to the government's arbitrary power, losing the sense of responsibility and principle of independence that a serious media outlet should possess, which indeed left people feeling frustrated by its failure to live up to expectations. However, for strategic considerations in the litigation, Attorney Zhiming did not make it the primary target of attack. The Southern Daily, knowing itself to be in the wrong, also maintained a "flexible posture" throughout the entire litigation process—while not admitting to infringement, it neither actively nor forcefully rebutted or defended against the plaintiff's claims. The other defendant, journalist Guo Biao, found himself in an especially awkward position, caught in the middle and unable to please either side, and he particularly felt he had let Attorney Zhiming down. Therefore, apart from cooperating with Attorney Zhiming by providing some evidence, Guo Biao adopted a completely passive strategy and never appeared in court to defend himself throughout the entire proceedings.
On June 8, 2011, the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal Government formally submitted its Statement of Defense and evidence (Figures 110-114). In the Statement of Defense, the Legal Affairs Office first emphasized that its act of publishing a response statement in the newspaper (i.e., the act being sued in this case) was triggered by the severe negative social impact caused by the reporter of Southern Daily erroneously citing the identity of "government legal counsel," and was "a proper act carried out to eliminate the negative effects of the error." However, in elaborating this viewpoint, the Statement of Defense revealed in detail the logic behind its so-called "proper act": the report titled "Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Counsel: The 'Sea Palace' Case May Be Winnable" "seriously misrepresented the facts, misled the general public, and objectively created a severe negative social impact. It also caused tremendous disruption to the respondent's normal work. Since the respondent is responsible for the appointment and management of government legal counsel, after the report was published, the municipal government and relevant government departments all raised questions with the respondent regarding the identity of the person whose views were cited in the report." So, the reason the Legal Affairs Office took such a tough stance, disregarding the resolute opposition of the lawyer and forcing Southern Daily to "correct the error" in accordance with the format and content they prescribed, was because it had been "questioned" by the municipal government leadership. Why the questioning? Because the report "seriously misrepresented the facts, misled the general public, and objectively created a severe negative social impact." But the report only contained a minor error in the description of the interviewee's identity—why was it viewed so seriously? In fact, as analyzed earlier, after being distorted and amplified by online clickbait-style headlines, this minor error conveyed the message that "government legal counsel openly declared that government administrative actions were unlawful," leaving the Shenzhen municipal government leaders with no face to save. To be fair, the municipal government leaders were indeed too narrow-minded, and their understanding of "government legal counsel" was far too one-sided. The fundamental principle followed by law-based states is: for the government, what is not authorized by law shall not be done; for the people, what is not prohibited by law may be done. Therefore, for a mature law-based government, the primary duty of government legal counsel should be to ensure that all government actions comply with legal provisions, rather than to "speak for" the government or to bolster administrative power! Especially in China, where administrative power has already expanded so greatly, the primary duty of the large number of government lawyers to be appointed in the future should be to ensure that "power is truly confined in the cage of law." It should become common sense for government legal counsel to oppose and prevent unlawful government conduct!
The Legal Affairs Office of the Municipal Government claimed in its Defense Statement that there is no "administrative subordination relationship" whatsoever between it and Southern Daily, and therefore the plaintiff's allegation that the Legal Affairs Office exercised "administrative hegemonic intervention" over Southern Daily "is purely subjective assumption, lacking any factual and legal basis." This is being a bit too modest. Everyone on earth knows that Chinese government departments are the most powerful. At best, they are capable of managing society efficiently; at worst, they monopolize and occupy all important social resources, and other members of society have to bow to them for their livelihoods. Exercising "administrative hegemony" requires no "administrative subordination relationship" at all!
The "Defense Statement" finally emphasizes that the acts implemented by the Municipal Government's Legal Affairs Office were "lawful and reasonable, with no infringement whatsoever, let alone any damage caused to the respondent," because "throughout the respondent's response, all statements were merely recitations of objective facts, with neutral and objective wording, and no evaluation whatsoever was made of the respondent personally." Such a high-sounding assertion completely ignores the fact that what Lawyer Zhiming stated in the first news report by giving an interview was merely his personal opinion formed on the basis of his understanding of the facts and law of the "Sea Palace" case as a legal expert, which should likewise be "lawful and reasonable," containing no intent or act of maliciously attacking the government. Yet the reason the Municipal Government leaders concluded that the report was "seriously inconsistent with the facts, misled the general public, and objectively caused severe negative social impact" was a conclusion reached by combining the mistaken identity of "legal counsel to the Municipal Government" with the actual dissemination effect after distortion and amplification by the clickbait-style headline. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire; otherwise, one should repay in kind. In other words, we should also use the government department's logic to analyze and judge the information dissemination effect produced by the government department's acts: the Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office's response "throughout all statements merely recited objective facts" and used "neutral and objective wording," but when combined with factors such as the headline prominently featuring "Lawyer Zhiming's" name that it compelled the Southern Daily to adopt, the news reporting style, and the ruthlessly piercing "three points" argument in the text, and further considered alongside the significant impact already generated by the preceding report, does the actual information dissemination effect ultimately produced not amount to a direct personal attack equivalent to saying "Lawyer Zhiming is a fraud impersonating the Municipal Government's legal counsel"?
I'm ready to help translate your Chinese legal content into professional English for the Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm website. Please provide the Chinese text you'd like me to translate.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.
(To be continued)
