Hate Speech And Criminal Law In China
🔹 1. Overview: Hate Speech and Chinese Criminal Law
Unlike many Western jurisdictions, China does not have a specific “hate speech” statute. However, hate-motivated speech—especially that which incites ethnic hatred, ethnic discrimination, or undermines national unity—can fall under several articles of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), particularly:
Key Provisions:
Article 249 (Inciting Ethnic Hatred or Discrimination)
Punishes acts that incite national, racial, or ethnic hatred or discrimination, if serious.
Penalty: Up to 3 years imprisonment, or up to 10 years in serious cases.
Article 105 (Subversion of State Power)
Speech that “incites subversion” or attacks the state and ruling party may be treated as political hate speech.
Article 293 (Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble)
Frequently used for online speech that creates social disorder or insults specific groups.
Cybersecurity Law (2017) and Public Security Administration Punishments Law
Administrative penalties (fines, detention) for spreading rumors or harmful online content.
Cultural and Political Context:
China’s regulation of speech is grounded in maintaining social harmony (社会和谐) and ethnic unity (民族团结).
Hate speech cases often overlap with political speech, online defamation, or ethnic tension cases, especially in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia.
🔹 2. Case Law and Illustrations
Let’s go through five detailed cases showing how courts and authorities have handled hate or discriminatory speech.
Case 1: “Hu某 Weibo Hate Speech Case” (2016, Inner Mongolia)
Facts:
Hu, a Han Chinese netizen, posted multiple Weibo messages mocking Mongolian ethnicity and calling them “barbarians” and “parasites” who “should be expelled.” His posts went viral and caused anger among Mongolian users.
Legal Basis:
Prosecuted under Article 249 for inciting ethnic hatred and discrimination.
Judgment:
The People’s Court of Hohhot found that Hu’s speech had “seriously damaged ethnic unity” and “caused public disorder.”
Sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.
Significance:
The court emphasized that freedom of expression is limited by the duty to protect ethnic unity.
Set precedent for online ethnic insult being treated as a criminal offense, not just administrative.
Case 2: “Tibetan-Han Online Forum Case” (2018, Sichuan Province)
Facts:
An online forum administrator allowed repeated posts calling for “resistance” against Tibetans entering Han-majority neighborhoods. Posts included calls to “boycott Tibetan stores.”
Legal Basis:
Charged under Article 249 (Inciting ethnic hatred).
Forum also investigated under the Cybersecurity Law for failing to remove content.
Judgment:
The administrator received 2 years imprisonment.
Website fined and ordered to shut down temporarily.
Significance:
Highlighted platform responsibility.
Extended liability to content moderators and website owners.
Case 3: “Xinjiang Online Video Case” (2020, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region)
Facts:
Two young Han men posted a Douyin (TikTok China) video mocking Uyghur clothing and religious customs, calling them “terrorists.” The video gained 100,000 views in one day.
Legal Basis:
Prosecuted under Article 249 (inciting ethnic discrimination).
Also under Article 293 (picking quarrels and provoking trouble).
Judgment:
Each defendant sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, with 1 year probation.
Forced to issue public apology on Douyin.
Significance:
First time a short-video app case was used to enforce ethnic unity laws.
Courts emphasized the potential of viral media to inflame interethnic tension.
Case 4: “Online Islamophobic Group Case” (2019, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region)
Facts:
A WeChat group of 200 members circulated memes insulting the Hui Muslim community and Islam, calling for banning halal food. The group admin encouraged “anti-Islamic” action.
Legal Basis:
Article 249 (inciting ethnic hatred and discrimination).
Cybersecurity Law, for organizing online hate groups.
Judgment:
5 individuals convicted.
Group admin sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.
WeChat accounts permanently banned.
Significance:
Demonstrated state intolerance for Islamophobic or anti-religious hate speech.
Reinforced state policy of ethnic and religious harmony.
Case 5: “University Student’s Online Slur Case” (2022, Beijing)
Facts:
A university student insulted African students on Weibo, using racial slurs and implying they should “return to Africa.” The incident caused national outrage.
Legal Basis:
Punished under Article 293 (provoking trouble).
School also disciplined him under the Education Law and university code of conduct.
Judgment:
The student was sentenced to 8 months in detention.
University expelled him, citing “damage to China’s international image.”
Significance:
Shows that even non-ethnic Chinese racial slurs (against foreigners) can be punished.
Court’s reasoning invoked China’s role as an international partner promoting anti-racism.
🔹 3. Analytical Summary
| Dimension | Chinese Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Protected Values | Ethnic unity, social harmony, state authority |
| Free Speech Limitation | Speech that “endangers unity” or “creates discrimination” is criminalized |
| Main Legal Tool | Article 249 (Criminal Law) |
| Common Platforms | Weibo, WeChat, Douyin, forums |
| Trend | Increasing prosecutions since 2015; focus on online content |
| Penalties | 6 months – 3 years typical; 10 years maximum for serious cases |
🔹 4. Conclusion
While China lacks a Western-style hate speech law, incitement of ethnic hatred or discrimination is treated as a serious criminal matter. Courts and authorities take a broad interpretation, applying these laws to both interethnic and interracial contexts, especially in digital spaces.
The guiding principle remains that speech cannot harm ethnic unity or social stability—making China’s approach both punitive and preventive in managing hate speech.
RELATED Blog
comments