Speaking Out for Justice Invites Government Crackdown! — The Ultimate Revelation of the "Sea Palace" Case (Part 27)
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.
Part III: Lawyers' Rights Defense and Brave Challenge to Legal Affairs Office
2. Speaking out for justice has led to government suppression
Ever since the public opinion storm over the "Sea Palace" broke out, Zhiming Law Firm has been closely monitoring the developments of the case. Later, witnessing the irrational bombardment and relentless pursuit by the media and public opinion against the "Sea Palace," and seeing government departments utterly lacking in principles and a sense of responsibility—instead losing their footing under the weight and coercion of public opinion, committing a series of illegal administrative acts—and particularly observing many so-called renowned legal scholars and prominent lawyers currying favor with the powerful, pandering to popular trends, and publishing "expert commentary" on various media platforms that lacked independent legal spirit, missed the point, and were specious, the lawyers at Zhiming Law Firm could no longer contain themselves and felt compelled to speak out. Finally, during a telephone interview with Guo Biao, a reporter from Southern Daily, they unequivocally pointed out the illegal administrative actions of government departments. The next day, April 12, 2011, the Southern Daily published an article titled "Legal Advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government: The 'Sea Palace' Case May Be Winnable" (Image 100) as the headline piece on page "AII04 Shenzhen Observation • People's Livelihood," quoting their views in detail. Such a clear-cut stance, swimming against the tide of media and public opinion, such outspokenness without sparing any face for government departments, combined with the Southern Daily's adoption of an eye-catching "clickbait" style, caused the report to be widely reposted by online media immediately after publication, sparking a major uproar.
Figure 100: Part of the lead photo on the "AII04 Shenzhen Observation • People's Livelihood" page of Southern Daily, April 12, 2011.
Although reading the subtitle and main headline of the report together might objectively lead one to conclude that "even the government's own legal advisor believes the government department could lose the case," the layout of Southern Daily did not highlight Attorney Zhiming's identity as "Legal Advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government." Instead, it was set in smaller type as a subtitle, clearly distinguished from the larger-type main headline. However, because the report touched on a hot topic at the time and contained the dramatic element of "a citizen suing the government," it was widely reposted by numerous online media outlets shortly after publication. And the internet is precisely where sensationalist headline writers run rampant. As a result, the subtitle and main headline of the report were "naturally" juxtaposed, whether intentionally or not, forming a single headline capable of grabbing attention and creating a sensational effect (Figures 101, 102).
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 101: This is a screenshot of the web page of Xinhua Net on the morning of April 12, 2011, reprinting the report from Southern Daily. You can see the effect of the title after reprinting.
Figure 102: This is a screenshot of the webpage page reprinted by the "Nanfang Daily" on the afternoon of April 12, 2011. You can see the title effect after reprinting.
Unfortunately, the report contained an error that later proved to be "fatal." Due to the negligence of journalist Guo Biao, the professional titles held by the lawyer from Zhiming Law Firm—which could have demonstrated his relatively high status, position, and influence—were not properly verified. Instead, the inaccurate title of "Legal Advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government" was mistakenly used to bolster the authority of the viewpoints cited in the report. After being amplified through online reposts, it created a sensational effect suggesting that "the Shenzhen government was contradicting itself." Given that the Shenzhen government departments had already been battered, overwhelmed, and left on edge by media scrutiny, finding themselves in an awkward and untenable position, it was only natural that they would overreact to the error in the report.
On the morning of April 12, 2011, Attorney Zhiming saw a report in Southern Daily and found it somewhat inappropriate, so he called reporter Guo Biao to point out the errors in the report and requested that a way be found to correct them. However, at that time, neither of them realized the serious consequences the errors might lead to. Moreover, since the matter involved the internal decision-making mechanism of Southern Daily, it was practically impossible for them to determine at that moment how to correct the reporting errors. Also on that same day, a responsible official from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government called Southern Daily, pointing out the misdescription of Attorney Zhiming's identity in the report and requesting a correction.
On the evening of April 13, 2011, Attorney Zhiming, who was habitually working overtime at the law firm office, suddenly received a phone call from journalist Guo Biao, learning that the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal Government had required the Southern Daily to publish their drafted press release in the same section the following day, correcting the erroneous description of Attorney Zhiming's professional title in an earlier report. Upon seeing the layout and content of the "press release" forwarded by Guo Biao via email from the Legal Affairs Office, Attorney Zhiming keenly sensed that because he had so blatantly and unequivocally expressed views unfavorable to the government, he had struck a nerve among certain government officials, who were now seeking to retaliate and suppress him. In the vocabulary of Attorney Zhiming, a man accustomed to fighting for rights, there were no words like swallowing insults or submitting meekly to adversity. He immediately replied via email, conveying his firm stance to the Southern Daily: he agreed to the Southern Daily correcting the error in an appropriate manner, but strongly opposed any news report format featuring a headline that prominently highlighted his name. Subsequently, he also sent via email his own drafted correction content (Figures 103, 104, 105).
The communication, negotiation, and confrontation among Zhiming Lawyer, the Municipal Government's Legal Affairs Office, and Southern Daily dragged on until well past midnight. Trapped in the middle, unable to reconcile the two sides' positions yet unwilling to abandon its own principles, Southern Daily had no choice but to let Zhiming Lawyer speak directly with the relevant leaders of the Legal Affairs Office over the phone. The Legal Affairs Office leader insisted that Zhiming Lawyer was suspected of engaging in false hype to boost his own reputation, while Zhiming Lawyer maintained that the government department was attempting to retaliate against and suppress an innocent lawyer under the guise of an excuse. Neither side would yield, and the argument ended without resolution. As the call was finally hung up, Zhiming Lawyer left a resolute and forceful remark: "I will definitely take legal action to defend my reputation and personal dignity!"
The next day, April 14, 2011, Southern Daily succumbed to pressure from the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, publishing at the top of the "AII04 Shenzhen Observation • Comprehensive" section of the newspaper a follow-up report on "Dismantling the 'Sea Palace'"—"Spokesperson of the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office Responds to 'Sea Palace' Report: Zhiming Lawyer Is Not a Legal Advisor to the Municipal Government" (Figure 106). It was evident that Southern Daily fully complied with the demands of the Legal Affairs Office: the headline prominently featured the name "Zhiming Lawyer," adopted a news reporting format, and focused on the three-point statement from the office's spokesperson: "First, Zhiming Lawyer has never served as a full-time or part-time legal advisor in the Legal Advisory Office of the Shenzhen Municipal Government; Second, the Shenzhen Municipal Government has never hired Zhiming Lawyer as a legal advisor; Third, Zhiming Lawyer is also not a government employee." These three sentences repeatedly emphasized the same point—that Zhiming Lawyer was not only not a legal advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government, but not even a government staff member. The underlying implication was that Zhiming Lawyer had deliberately posed as a legal advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government, suspected of swindling, thereby leading the public to conclude that Zhiming Lawyer's so-called expert commentary not only lacked authority but also raised serious doubts about his personal integrity! This naturally further reinforced the government's authority and positive image throughout the incident, suggesting that all administrative measures taken to ban the "Sea Palace" were lawful and justified! For Zhiming Lawyer himself, the wording of the three-point statement from the Legal Affairs Office and the resulting social舆论 effect could truly be described as insinuating, malicious, and piercing to the core! At the end of the report, a brief mention that Zhiming Lawyer himself "had also called reporters" to point out errors was clearly Southern Daily's acknowledgment that the content and format of the news piece were both illegal and infringing, yet they had to publish it out of deference to the Shenzhen Municipal Government's authority, while also feeling a sense of guilt toward Zhiming Lawyer, prompting them to subtly hint at the truth. However, under the news dissemination pattern where readers often only glance at headlines and openings, this concluding hint at the truth was rendered meaningless. Even those patient enough to read to the end would likely perceive it as mere polite face-saving for Zhiming Lawyer.
Figure 106: Part of the front-page photo of the "AII04 Shenzhen Observation • Comprehensive" section of Southern Daily on April 14, 2011.
Media outlets and netizens, who have always enjoyed watching a good show regardless of how high the stakes are, were somewhat excited. Such an obvious clash was a spectacle too good to miss, and major websites rushed to repost the news article from Southern Daily (Image 107). Leaving aside the reactions of the general public, it first drew questions and concerns from the many friends and relatives of Attorney Zhiming across the country. To protect his reputation, Attorney Zhiming had to repeatedly explain and clarify himself for a long time afterward, exhausted and drained from the constant responses.
Figure 107: Around 9 a.m. on April 14, 2011, Xinhua Net reproduced the full text of the report from Southern Daily. This is a screenshot of the reprinted webpage.
(To be continued)
