To protect Mo Yan is to protect ourselves.
I have to say that Weibo is really a wonderful place. In the past two days, Weibo network name Mao Xinghuo and others have hyped up the matter of suing Mo Yan on the Internet, and the reason for the lawsuit is that Mo Yan's ** "Red Sorghum Family" and "Rich Breasts and Fat Buttocks" and other ** have found some chapters and sentences that catch the wind and catch shadows, and said that Mo Yan "beautified the war of aggression" and "belittled the Chinese people" and so on, and the lawsuit demanded that "Mo Yan apologize to the people of the whole country" and "compensate all the people for 1.5 billion yuan for the loss of reputation" and so on. Some people were really instigated by this kind of posting and went to court to hand in the indictment. also proudly showed off his court number on the Internet. 
What is even more shocking is that Zhang Luo's people actually held a poll on the Internet, and among the more than 10,000 voters, more than 9,000 were in favor of suing Mo Yan. 
After this news, many people were surprised by the strong malice towards Mo Yan on the Internet today - to tell the truth, among the more than 9,000 people who voted for it, I doubt that less than half of them have actually seen Mo Yan's **. But they are able to insist that Mo Yan is guilty after reading a big criticism article that looks for chapters and sentences, what kind of quality and moral person can do this? It's really suspicious. But what I think is even more chilling is the almost natural malice that incites the voters and those who vote for it – what if the person who instigated the matter himself feels that framing such a Nobel laureate is really a bit of a "bottom". So he set up a vote and put on a posture of "right and wrong, merit and demerit have its own public opinion", as if he had gathered nearly 10,000 votes in favor, he could say in a grand manner: "You see that Mo Yan's "insulting China" has caused public outrage, and it is right for me to sue him!" "Even I estimate that if those of us write articles to defend Mo Yan, some people will say in a weird way: "Democracy" is not good? Now everyone votes in favor of prosecuting Mo Yan, this is the practice of democracy! What, at this time you are going to double standard? If anyone really thinks so, then I wonder if I'm talking to a primitive person who has not received any humanities education. More than 2,000 years ago in ancient Athens, there was a strange law called the Law of Exile for Pottery Shards. It was a law enforced after the reforms of Cleistheni in the 5th century BC. The law states that if Athenian citizens believe that someone's authority in the city-state is strong enough to threaten Athenian democracy, they can write their name on pottery tablets and throw them in a particular square, and when the number of pottery tablets with someone's name in the square accumulates a certain number (usually 6,000), a certain trial process can be initiated to decide whether to exile someone, during which the unfortunate man's property will be protected, but he will be deprived of citizenship and cannot return to the Athenian city-state for five to ten years. 
Of course, compared with the farce of voting to sue Mo Yan on Weibo, I think the ancient Greeks two thousand years ago were more or less sensible, after all, the "pottery banishment law" is often only aimed at some political bigwigs, not against Mo Yan, who wrote a book, and what he temporarily deprived was only the political rights of this person, not to his death. However, we can still see in the method of banishment of pottery tablets that the Athenians have a childish and savage nature: they feel that the will of the group can be infinitely above the will of the individual, and wantonly deprive an individual of his or her rights. In other words, when a group of people doesn't like someone, even if that person doesn't do anything, the group still seems to be able to punish the innocent individual by a majority vote. This is the logic behind the banishment of pottery, and this logic goes further, which is the legendary "mob politics", and at the end of the Athenian Republic, the Athenians performed many ugly performances in the name of "democracy". For example, in the Peloponnesian War, ten generals were executed by referendum, and after the war, Socrates was executed in a referendum for corrupting the morals of young people, the latter of which is more famous in Western political history. 
Yes, the Athenian democracy was on the verge of its demise with a series of ugly performances, which directly led to the fact that the "democracy" did not have a good reputation in Europe for more than a thousand years. From Plato to Cicero to Machiavelli, Athenian democracy has always been seen as a very poor political system, not even as lovely as a monarchy. But it was much later that people realized that everyone had misunderstood democracy, and the root cause of the Athenian referendum farce was not democracy itself, but the Athenians abusing this system, allowing it to infringe on the private rights of an innocent individual without reason or bottom line. If a society has a bottom-line consciousness of the sanctity of individual rights, and only requires individuals to obey authoritarianism without a bottom line, then whether it is democracy or monarchy that holds this authority, its essence will be a kind of **. Society will be swept across the world at the unbridled wielding of unbridled power, and in the end no one will benefit from such a system. Therefore, Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Tocqueville will first call for another thing before calling for democracy - the rule of law, and they call for society to first establish a rigid, fair and just "group power boundary" that no one can cross. Because they know that a society that is detached from respect for private rights will be dangerous. In the end, how public power is to be realized, whether it is decided by the dictates of the monarch or by democratic vote, is less important than this. So what is more critical than democracy is the rule of law, which is common sense in modern society. As Montesquieu said in On the Spirit of the Law: "Injustice to one is injustice to all." Because the injustice to one person shows the "logic of the system", which can ultimately be used to treat everyone, no one can guarantee that he will not be harmed by this injustice in the end. "When it comes to Mo Yan's decision to be voted by 10,000 people to sue Mo Yan, one of the things we have to ask is actually this kind of use of a microscope to find a sentence or a word in other people's remarks, and then do everything possible to expand rich associations and carry out crazy framing and attacking. And then what kind of online voting to incite supporters to report this kind of thing, can it really happen in modern society? If you can, then now that the Internet is so developed, and you say so many things in the circle of friends every day, who can guarantee that every word you say can withstand such microscopic scrutiny? But if someone wants to frame you, take out a few words from you, and make such a lawsuit against you, what should you do? And believe it or not, even if you are not as famous as Mr. Mo Yan, if you really want to make those framers make the climate, when the time comes, it will be a matter of minutes for you to give you a referendum on prosecution and gather tens of thousands of support. Because for those who point to "support", destroying you costs almost nothing to them. So once this kind of climate becomes the climate, it will eventually destroy all of us - we will either become everyone in danger, and everyone will not dare to post on social media, or even dare to express themselves in art and literature. The air will die under this stupid and spontaneous suffocation. Otherwise, we will be caught up in the endless mutual attack and framing of each other, and once you find out that someone wants to "rectify" you like this, the only way for you to do this is to go out and "rectify" him first, which is the so-called "war of all against all". Or, these two disasters will befall at the same time, and everyone will live cautiously in the pursuit of their own safety and the malicious scrutiny of others. Excuse me, is this what we want? Therefore, to protect Mo Yan is to protect ourselves, the mistakes made by the ancient Greeks more than 2,000 years ago, we use them to make them again today, does it seem that we are too low? One more question, such a Nobel Prize master in literature has finally come out, can we be a little nicer to him? Please protect Teacher Mo Yan and protect Mo Yan in this "scum chorus", which means protecting our own private rights. I didn't want to write about this topic after the full text.,I feel a little sensitive.,It's not very knowledgeable.,But I still wrote this article.,Because some words are not spit out and unhappy.,Posted on Virgil.,I hope you like it.,Support please three times.,Thank you.。