It's a big deal! Committee member proposes to crack down on malicious and seditious whistleblowing Who gave her the power to do so?
Recently, during the two sessions, an obscure so-called committee member put forward a controversial proposal to crack down on malicious and seditious reporting. For a while, it sparked heated discussions on the Internet, and the public discussed what is called malicious and seditious reporting? Who gave her the power to make such a proposal?
According to common sense, whistleblowing is to complain to the relevant departments or break the news to the public about something unfair or controversial. So a report is a report, and there is no such thing as malicious reporting and inflammatory reporting!
First, there is no sufficient legal basis to support pressure to crack down on malicious seditious reporting. Even if there is an exaggeration of facts, framing of false accusations, or false accusations and reports, the law has long been clearly stipulated. If the framing and defamation constitutes a violation of the law and is also punished by the public security, procuratorate, court and other departments in accordance with the law, there is no need to propose the formulation of duplicate laws.
Second, how do you define malicious and seditious reporting? But if a reasonable and legal channel can be found for a complaint, who wants to maliciously seditious and incendiary reporting? When fairness is not guaranteed, justice is not served, and there is no correct channel to safeguard legitimate rights and interests, everyone will lose the moral bottom line. What is bad faith? What is seditiousness? If it is not in the interests of interest groups, it is a malicious report? Revealing the truth to the public is an incendiary report?
I advise these so-called spokesmen to be cautious in their words and deeds, and to be a good representative who can truly represent the interests of the majority.