FEBRUARY 27, 2015 5:26 AM February 27, 2015 5:26 am
In a political environment where public discourse is constrained by layers of censorship and self-censorship, Kong Qingdong, a neo-Maoist literary scholar at Peking University and an avid blogger, has long attracted attention with his vociferous commentaries.
Mr. Kong, who says he is a descendant of Confucius and who gained international notice when he co-sponsored a Chinese alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize named after the ancient sage, has criticized the people of Hong Kong for being “dogs of British imperialists,” dismissed Singaporeans as “completely ignorant,” cheered the death of Steve Jobs and denounced a corruption inquiry into the disgraced politician Bo Xilai as a “counterrevolutionary coup,” each time fueling debate in China.
But two recent court rulings and Mr. Kong’s refusal to comply with one of them have prompted a different kind of discussion — about the extent to which public figures can be held accountable for their statements, and about the right of citizens to criticize such figures.
In 2012, Guan Kaiyuan, a law student at the China Institute of Industrial Relations in Beijing, mocked the composition of a poem by Mr. Kong. Mr. Kong reacted by denouncing Mr. Guan as a “dog” and a “traitor,” in a reply shared with the more than two million people following his microblog.
The student sued Mr. Kong for defamation, demanding an apology and damages. The dispute attracted widespread attention and news media coverage when, a year later, the Haidian District People’s Court ruled in favor of Mr. Guan.
The court ordered Mr. Kong to publish an apology in a national newspaper and to pay Mr. Guan 200 renminbi, about $32, in damages, and to cover 1,000 renminbi in administrative costs.
Mr. Kong appealed the ruling.
Wu Xiaoping, a Nanjing television anchor, was among the many who faulted Mr. Kong for having overreacted to Mr. Guan’s critique of his poetry.
Then Mr. Kong filed his own defamation lawsuit — against Mr. Wu.
In December, Mr. Kong lost his appeal against the defamation conviction, as well as his defamation suit against Mr. Wu. In the process, the separate court rulings drew a distinction between what could be considered fair comment about a celebrity and insults against a more private citizen.
