Analysis On The Case Of Mr.Chen Picking Quarrels And Provoking Troubles

While the Internet technology is constantly updated and iterated to bring convenience to the daily life of the public,some new criminal behaviors emerge,such as the huge amount of network rumors and fake information flooding in the Internet platform.Some users in internet spread and fabricate rumors and fake information deliberately to hyped hot social events maliciously in order to cash in network traffic and gain economic benefits,which bringing serious adverse social impacts.For the sake of regulating such behaviors effectively,the Supreme People’s Court and the procuratorate of China issued the Interpretation on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases such as Online Defamation,in an attempt to guide netizens to return to rationality and crack down on the behavior of fabricating and spreading online rumors and fake information in 2013.Regrettably,the Online Defamation Interpretation has not only failed to reduce and eliminate any disputes existing in the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles,but also triggered new disputes due to some contents of the ambiguous judicial interpretation.The crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles has faced many difficulties since its birth.On the one hand,it started from the serious congenital deficiency of "hooliganism".On the other hand,its description of charges is not clear and specific,so it is often criticized as "pocket crime","Miscellaneous Provisions",which is a serious "acquired deformity".This paper tries to take the case of Chen who committed the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles as the view point,and summarizes the opinions and existing disputes among the defendant and his defenders,prosecutor and judge and combined with the existing different academic viewpoints.In the crime of network picking quarrels and provoking trouble,the first key to determine fabricating behavior is whether it has been substantially modified,and the target of spreading behavior should be considered,that is,whether it is "not specific or majority of people".At the same time,the primary consideration for the identification of the heckler is whether it is provocative,open and spreading,adhere to the objective point of view.Secondly,the judgment of false information should adhere to the falsity,fact,relevance and infringement of legal interests of its content,and at the same time put forward the reverse verification standard of false information identification.Finally,as a new product,network space has the property of public place,and its order has independent legal interest protection value.The identification of serious disorder in this crime can be carried out from two perspectives.On the one hand,its impact on the virtual network space,such as judging the breadth of its spread by browsing,clicking and reading volume,and identifying the depth of its spread by sharing,forwarding and following comments;On the other hand,when the behavior of fabricating and spreading false information to make trouble has a bad impact on real life and causes serious disorder in real public places,it can be regarded as a serious complex of this crime.