[Seasonal Rain in San Diego] We stand together with Xianzi: why Zhu Jun's "lynching theory" cannot be established

Two years ago, Xianzi accused Zhu Jun of sexual harassment . When I expressed my trust and solidarity with Xianzi on social media, a graduate student majoring in international relations at a well-known Chinese university replied to me that Zhu Jun is a famous Therefore, his denial should be treated with caution, and no conclusions can be drawn without a "real hammer"; in the Liu Qiangdong case that broke out in the following months, I also heard a lot of voices saying that the girl involved had various signs to prove that she did not Imperfect and the accusation that the girl involved is "ultimate", the implication is to excuse Liu Qiangdong of innocence. This bizarre logic reappeared in the public opinion field of Xianzi v. Zhu Jun this year.

A few days ago, Zhu Jun released a so-called response through his authorized online self-media, claiming that the public's denunciation of him was "recourse to lynching" on the basis of completely denying the allegations and claiming to "believe in the law" (at the same time, Zhu Jun has always been evasive in the face of Xianzi's request to appear in court.) Zhu Jun's remarks naturally received a lot of applause from his supporters, and for a while, Xianzi's malicious cursing in cyberspace was incessant. This is why I wrote this series of articles: to explain why I am willing to trust Xianzi unconditionally, and at the same time to explain why Zhu Jun's "recourse to lynching" theory is untenable. This is the first article, and I will focus on explaining why the so-called "recourse to lynching" argument is untenable, in other words, why the attitude of Xianzi supporters towards Xianzi v. Zhu Jun is not "recourse to lynching" , not to mention defamation.

The so-called "recourse to lynching" refers to an attempt to replace the judgment of the law with an act not authorized by the law. Disciplinary in one or some cases. None of these elements existed in Xianzi v. Zhu Jun.

First of all, Xianzi filed a lawsuit against Zhu Jun in full accordance with the framework of relevant litigation laws and regulations in mainland China, and did not try to avoid the trial procedure and directly punish Zhu Jun by corporal punishment, detention, property deprivation and other punishments, let alone outside the judicial organs. A private court was set up to deal with Zhu Jun. On the contrary, Xianzi v. Zhu Jun’s case compared to many other #MeToo cases in terms of technical means is that, while fully mobilizing and condemning public opinion, it has always firmly grasped the” The main line of "solving problems through legal proceedings" is the opposite of "recourse to lynching".

Secondly, it is true that Zhu Jun applied the "presumption of innocence" principle before the court made a guilty verdict on Zhu Jun, but the objects regulated by the principle of "presumption of innocence" mostly refer to state organs as public powers and judicial institutions that directly hear relevant cases. This means that before the crime is formally judged, Zhu Jun himself should be legally presumed to be an innocent free person, and his litigation rights and other civil rights enjoyed by those who have not been sentenced to deprive political rights should be fully respected. In fact, at least so far, Zhu Jun's rights have been fully guaranteed. However, it should be pointed out that the "presumption of innocence" does not prohibit other individuals, especially the plaintiff and his supporters who brought a lawsuit against Zhu Jun, from holding the claim that "Zhu Jun should be found guilty" before the court makes a judgment.

For example, when a thief is arrested and filed a lawsuit, before the court convicts him of theft, even if he has been detained by the police, his identity is only a "suspect" rather than a "criminal", which reflects the "presumption of innocence" principle; but at the same time, before the court makes a judgment, the public prosecutor, the victim and other members of the public can also hold the claim that "the defendant should be convicted/I think the defendant is a thief". It is also a protected right to express personal opinion on pending cases. Therefore, even though the case is still in progress, Xianzi himself and Xianzi's supporters express the views that "Zhu Jun should be convicted" and/or "I believe Zhu Jun is a sexual harasser" and seek support from others and even the judiciary for these views, There is absolutely no problem.

Third, the so-called "defamation" is even more nonsense. One of the elements required for the so-called "defamation" is "subjective intention". In other words, the disseminator of the information must know that the information is false, that is, he does not believe in the authenticity of the information, but still deliberately spread the information for some purpose, which is called slander and rumor. But in this case, Xianzi and his supporters (including myself at least) believed in Xianzi's accusation against Zhu Jun from the bottom of their hearts, not knowing that Zhu Jun was innocent and deliberately fabricated information to spread it. Therefore, taking a step back, even if the court finally rules in favor of Zhu Jun, the judgment cannot provide any support for the so-called "rumor and slander" argument.

In a nutshell, Zhu Jun's evasive defense is so weak and logically confusing. His so-called "opposition to lynching" completely expands the scope of application of the presumption of innocence, and elevates the procedural requirements for public power and judicial organs to Moral demands on the general public. I want to say to Zhu Jun, if you really believe that you have a clear conscience, then please face the lawsuit and tell the judge in court if you have something to say, instead of saying it to "audience friends" on the media. Refusing to appear in court to face the judge but trying to use his influence to make "audience friends" build momentum for him is precisely the color of avoiding judicial proceedings and seeking "lynching".

As for what "lynching" Zhu Jun was seeking? My answer is: use his influence, social status, and the unequal power discourse behind these to put pressure on Xianzi in a weak position, so as to reduce or even completely avoid the disadvantages of this lawsuit to him. impact and consequences. That's why #MeToo should be viewed as a structural, systemic issue under patriarchy, rather than an isolated case of individual ethics.