Commentary | If the "whistleblowers" are wrong, should we punish them?

Note: The usage of "whistleblower" here is the same as the usage of the word in the recent Chinese Internet world, and the meaning of "Whistleblower" in English is different. This article was also published on the public account Black Sheep Commune.

I walked down to the community garden and went to the vegetable market to buy vegetables. The situation of the vegetable market during the epidemic, especially the price, has never been seen before in my opinion. After I bought eggs and radishes, I left and went home. Zhang San saw from a distance that I was walking home, and stopped me: "Oh, it's rare to see you going out during the epidemic." I said yes. He said to me, "I heard that you always talk about liberalism and heresy, corrupting young people. I happened to meet you today, and I have some theories and want to hear what you have to say."

"Not so good," I said to him, "it just got blocked not long ago."

He rolled up his sleeves: "My dear friend, do you see whether I am strong or are you strong?"

"Yeah, it seems you are indeed stronger," I replied uneasily.

"Then," he said, "well, either you come and overcome me, or you stay and listen to me."

"Can't I convince you to let me go?" I asked.

"If I don't listen," he said, "can you convince me?"

I thought to myself, it looks like I have to stay. So we chatted.

.........

" Those whistleblowers were just lucky! " he said. " At the time, people didn't know anything about the virus, and neither did they. It just happened that they guessed right, and the blind cat hit the dead mouse. I think There's no need to pull them that high at all. "

"So, if it turns out that they are wrong later, we should condemn them, or at least not praise them; and this kind of behavior is likely to be wrong." I said, "In a hundred so-called warnings, Maybe only two times were right by chance, and the remaining ninety-eight times were inaccurate. So, even for these two flukes, we shouldn't let go of it, so we can fight more rumors Rumors. Is that so?"

"Exactly," he said

"That is to say, we should judge the whistleblower not on the right or wrong of the result of the whistle blowing, but on the act of whistling itself, right? "

"That's right."

"So what should we say about wrong whistle blowing, or the act of whistling itself?" I asked.

"They should be condemned and punished. They are no different from rumormongers. The so-called whistle blowing is just a glorification of rumormongers."

"Then why punish the rumour-mongers?" I asked.

"Because they spread false news, caused social panic and disrupted social order."

"Then do we punish rumormongers for spreading false news, or for spreading news that creates panic?" I asked.

"That seems to be the latter," he said. "After all, what the law maintains is social stability. If it is a harmless rumor, such as carrots and pumpkins that make soup together will cause cancer, I have never seen one punished. "

"In this case, we must punish those who are harmful to social stability. In your opinion, should those who spread the truth harmful to society be punished?" I asked.

"Of course not," he said, "because they are spreading the truth, not lies. If the truth is bad for society, then we have to bite the bullet and face it."

"In your opinion, when you get a message, do you know if it's true or false?" I asked.

He thought for a moment and told me, maybe.

"Are you 100% sure it must be true?"

He shook his head.

" So you never share news with your friends? Because you're not 100% sure that it's the truth, and some news obviously has an impact on social stability. Since you can't judge whether the news is true or false, you can't judge how it will affect the society. What impact will it cause, then the safest way is to not forward the news to friends at all.” I asked, “Is that so?”

He shook his head, "No."

"So what's it like?"

"First of all, I have a few sources of information that I trust more;" he said, "Second, sometimes I will go to different sources to cross-check to make sure that this report is not very different from the facts; finally, I Educated, I have my own rationality and judgment. After these few steps, I have a high degree of confidence that the information I am forwarding is relevant to reality.”

"So, you think that the average person just needs to do his due diligence, and he can forward the message properly. Even if it is later found that the message he forwarded is untrue or has caused a bad social impact, he should not be punished. Because he's done what he's supposed to do. Is that so?"

"I think so."

"Does the requirement to forward news also apply to news production?"

"Indeed."

"At the same time, it is also suitable for all information circulating in the circle of friends?"

"That's right."

"So," I said, "what kind of confidence do you think the whistleblowers have about their message when they blow their whistle?"

"I think they should have come to a conclusion based on what they have learned," he said. "They should have believed that the information they were spreading was true."

"If a person has exercised a reasonable duty of care and then spreads a false message, shouldn't he be punished?" I asked.

"It is so," he replied, "that the law does not punish the ignorance of men who are not responsible for it. "

"So we can say that if the whistleblower's whistle-blowing is done in good faith, he should not be punished regardless of the outcome, is that so?"

"If what is said above holds true, then I think it does."

"Can we push this conclusion one step further?" I asked.

"I don't understand what you mean," he replied.

"Look. If we just chat on social platforms, it's obviously different from writing articles and doing academics. We can't find the source of every word we say; as a modern citizen, we have our own affairs. To deal with it, it is impossible to verify every piece of news that you see. Is that so?”

"That's right. Sometimes I don't have time, or I want to be lazy, and I just share it on the Moments when I see the push," he said.

"So, for ordinary citizens, the threshold of punishment should be higher, and the threshold of guilt should be lower. We just said that as long as it is out of good faith, no matter what the result is, those who spread news should not be punished; We have to push this conclusion one step further: as long as it is not out of malice, then no matter what the result is, the person who spreads the news should not be punished. This malice means that it is known to be false, and it is deliberately spread to disturb the social order . Can we come to this conclusion?"

"I think so," he said.

However, he does not appear to be satisfied with this conclusion. After thinking for a while, he asked, "Then what if there is a social panic?"

"This question is too big," I said, "to write in conversational style."

He said, well, let's talk next time.

Notes:

Article 25 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates:

Whoever commits any of the following acts shall be detained for not less than five days but not more than 10 days, and may concurrently be fined not more than 500 yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be detained for not more than five days or be fined not more than 500 yuan:

(1) Spreading rumors, falsely reporting danger, epidemic situation, police situation, or intentionally disrupting public order by other means;

Whether the "spreading rumors" constituted here needs to be subjective and intentional, there are many theoretical disputes. Some people think that the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" deals with minor cases and should give priority to efficiency. As long as there is an objective behavior, it can be punished, and whether there is subjective intention or not can only affect the severity of the punishment; After similar laws in Austria and Germany, the principle of "no responsibility or no administrative penalty" should be drawn. I am too lazy to attach references, readers can study it if they are interested.