作者：纪中久
编辑：韩立华 责任编辑：钟然 校对：林小龙
合议庭：
浙江左契律师事务所接受邹巍母亲的委托，指派纪中久律师担任被告人邹巍的辩护人。辩护人根据庭审质证、辩论情况，整理、总结如下书面辩护意见，供合议庭评议时参考：
一、起诉书称被告人通过“境外媒体自由亚洲电台等信息网络平台”散布虚假事实，这一表述违反了基本的网络常识，与事实严重不符。
自由亚洲主要通过广播的形式，向世界各国提供语音新闻信息。
www.rfa.org 是该电台的网站。该网站属于该电台的电子刊物，并不属于信息网络平台。
信息网络平台是基于互联网技术构建的网络平台，提供信息发布、共享及交互服务。信息网络平台与普通网站的区别是，在信息网络平台上，用户可以通过手机、电脑等终端设备登陆平台，自行编辑、发布消息。并借平台与其他用户互动，典型的信息网络平台包括微信、微博，境外的如推特等。
普通网站的编辑由网站开办处工作人员完成，其他人不能参与。网站编辑人拥有网站网络作品的全部著作权。由于信息的编辑、制作、传播都由网站工作人员完成，因网站内容涉及的刑事、民事等法律责任完全由网站编辑人员承担。邹巍没有使用手机、电脑等网络终端，参与信息的编辑、上传和信息的传播。
即使邹巍给该网站提供了若干语音片段，但如何编辑这些语音，把这些语音放在何处，甚至对语音进行技术修改，都是由自由亚洲电台网站编辑人员完成。邹巍没有办法对最终完成的文字及语音施加影响，也无法干预该信息的传播，让他对这些信息承担法律责任，不但在法律上行不通，也没有基本的逻辑基础。
二、合议庭应当注意到语音的编辑是一项早已成熟的技术，耳听为虚眼见为实。语音编辑、制作技术很早就已经有人进行研究和实践。早在1939年美国学者H.杜德莱开发了发音模拟系统，20世纪80年代非平稳参数分析法和非线性处理方法相继出现。目前由于智能科技的发展，语音的编辑和制作技术被更多的企业和专家人士所掌握。讯飞智作公司甚至开发了网络在线面对普通用户的网页版音频制作工具，详见：
https://peiyin.xunfei.cn/?ftype=22&bd vid=8789967394632941364eng
自由亚洲电台作为专业媒体应当有更为先进、专业的音频编辑软件。
目前侦查机关获取的远程数据是从自由亚洲电台网站上下载的，并非原始音频，而是经过自由亚洲编辑过的音频文件。这些音频文件如果是采集了邹巍的原始音频而编辑而成，当然具有邹巍语音的若干特征，但不能反映原始音频的全部、完整、准确的内容。经过编辑的邹巍语音甚至可能存在与邹巍原始语音表达语意相反的情况存在，更可能存在大概率偏差的可能性。
刑事诉讼法对证据的要求是“确实、充分”,涉案的主要证据从自由亚洲网站下载，且明显经过编辑，因此不属于原始证据。加之涉案的录音没有其他证据(证人及物证)佐证，公诉的人当庭的起诉事实得不到证据的支持，难以成立。
三、接受外媒采访，谈及国内民生，这样的行为不符合寻衅滋事罪的构成要件
刑法第293条第一款第(四)项规定在公共场所起哄闹事，严重破坏社会秩 序的行为，构成寻衅滋事罪。
公共场所应该是指物理、有形的场所。两高《关于办理利用信息网络实施诽 谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第五条第二款规定，编造虚假信息，或者明知是编造的虚假信息，在信息网络上散布，或者组织、指使人员在信息网络上散布，起哄闹事，造成公共秩序严重混乱的，依照刑法第二百九十三条第一款 第(四)项的规定，以寻衅滋事罪定罪处罚。
其中的手段是在信息网络上散布虚假消息，但损害结果仍然是要求对现实 中有形状的公共场所造成影响，导致公共秩序严重混乱。
两高《关于办理寻衅滋事刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》在车站、码 头、机场、医院、商场、公园、影剧院、展览会、运动场或者其他公共场所起 哄闹事，应当根据公共场所的性质、公共活动的重要程度、公共场所的人数、 起哄闹事的时间、公共场所受影响的范围与程度等因素，综合判断是否“造成 公共场所秩序严重混乱”。
可见，网络诽谤司法解释并没有对寻衅滋事案件司法解释的公共场所
作扩张解释。网络秩序并不属于刑法293条的公共场所秩序。
网络秩序与现实物理的公共场所秩序并不相同。互联网的特点是不同的信
息、矛盾的信息可以同时共存，而不会引发网络拥堵。人们通过网络了解事实
真相时，正是通过对不同信息的对比，发现真实的世界。
起诉书称被告人“将涉及国家和社会重大活动、热点事件等内容虚假的信息公开散布，损害国家形象，严重危害国家利益”,其中“损害国家形象严重危害国家利益”能否等于破坏社会秩序，值得商榷。“损害国家形象严重危害国家利益”并不是对事实的描述，而是对事实的定性。如果把这种情况认定为寻衅滋事，其实是在刑法和两高司法解释外自行另创了法律，显然这超出了公诉人和审理法官的权限。
辩护人认为公诉人在对国家形象、国家利益的理解上也存在问题。邹巍向媒体反映了一些具体的民生问题。对政府在具体事项如拆迁、扰民等问题进行了批 评，呼吁尊重他所认识的几个朋友的看守所和监狱内的人权状况。他的行为符合 我国宪法中依法治国和保障人权的基本规定和原则。公民对政府的建议、批评不 是减损了国家形象和利益，如果建议、批评的权利得到允许、容忍，还会提高国家形象，有利于国家利益。国家不是政府的国家，而是属于全体国民。维护每一 个公民的利益，就是维护国家利益。
四 、侦查机关在侦查取证违反法律程序，所获取的证据不能作为定罪依据
《计算机网络国际互联网管理暂行规定》第六条规定，计算机信息直接进行国际联网必须使用邮电部国家电信网络提供的国际出口信道。本案侦查机关自行使用软件，绕过国家互联网防火墙，窥探、收集公民言论，是典型的违法取证。我国宪法规定了公民的言论自由，收集公民在媒体上的只言片语，意图加之以刑罚，相关司法人员违背了宪法、公务员法、人民警察法、检察官法。辩护人希望合议庭法官履行法官宣誓誓言，保护宪法，保护公民权利，否定违法的侦查和起诉。
五 、辩护人希望合议庭法官重视寻衅滋事罪在现实中的滥用，以法律的角 度而不是政治的角度看待邹巍所涉及的问题。
在起诉书中，公诉机关称邹巍的动机“为了达到个人目的，寻求扩大社会影 响以引发关注效应”,这一说法没有证据支持，背离了事实，可能会对邹巍的个人声誉造成影响，在法律文书中，这样的春秋笔法是应该尽力避免的。两高《关于办理寻衅滋事刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条认为寻衅滋事案件的动机为“行为人寻求刺激、发泄情绪、逞强要横、无事生非”,邹巍显然不具有这样的动机。他关注民生事件，意在提醒政府加强国内的人权保护，保障民众利益。寻衅滋事罪的设立初衷处于社会治安综合治理方面的考虑，现在公诉机关用它来追究公民的言论，显然已经背离了立法机关的本意，是典型的法律适用错误。
在当庭，公诉人播放了八条录音。其中关于G20安保，公开资料显示志愿者有76万人。作为杭州居民，应该会了解到当时杭州安保人数众多，对百姓的出行影响客观存在。即使数字存在误差，总的事实是对。开一个具有全球影响的国际会议不可能一点对城市生活都没有影响。老百姓负面情绪存在，公开说一点意见，不能说“发泄情绪、逞强耍横”。
关于陈子亮的死亡，邹巍作为陈子亮的朋友当然会关心陈子亮的安危，怀疑陈子亮没有得到及时救治，并说出来情有可原。辩护人注意到陈子亮的病例，对于救助措施记载欠缺。被关押人在看守所死亡，是我们竭力要避免的事，事情发生了应该及时查找原因，而不是捂住老百姓的口。
关于吕耿松在监狱内没有得到及时医治、阅读受限制，这是吕耿松在会见家属时向家属说的。这样的言论会促使监狱管理方面更加注重对改造人员的权益保护，而不会引起公共秩序混乱。
杭州彭埠、笕桥、九堡三镇因杭州东站建设和城东新城建设开启大规模拆迁，
三个镇被撤销，设立街道(三个镇的面积涉及几十平方公里)。有些从事征迁基 层干部工作作风不正，在补偿方面不到位，工作粗暴，有批评的意见不是很正常吗?这些意见如果能够被上级领导获悉，正可以起到改进基层工作的效果，这不是应该得到支持才对吗？
毛泽东主席在《批评判与自我批评》一文说，对于批评的态度是“有则改之， 无则加勉”,在公诉人那里，则成了“有则改之，无则寻衅”。老百姓的口不能封， 公民的批评建议权不能被剥夺!
寻衅滋事罪属于结果犯，要求存在公共秩序严重混乱的后果。邹巍的很多 言论是多年前发表的，现在拱墅公安机关才采取侦查措施，我想这不是因为拱 墅区公安机关渎职，而是在当时这些言论没有产生紧迫的、现实的危害后果。关于公共秩序，这里的“公共”应当涵盖多层次、普遍的涉及公民共同的社会规则，“公共”的，就不是执政者所独有的私权。人民群众有对国家机关、公务人员的监督权，而不是反过来，由执政者监督民众的言论。我国签署了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》以及《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》 ,在宪法中明确承诺对人权的保护。来自每个公民对政府的批评和建议都得到保护， 而不是法律追究，这才是最大的公共秩序。目前对邹巍以寻衅滋事罪进行追 究，完全是本末倒置，与我国法律相冲突的。
合议庭，由于我国宪法规定了公民的言论自由权、批评建议权，任何国
家机关包括检察院、法院都无权对公民的言论进行审查，辩护人提出了对公
诉人、合议庭法官的回避申请，未获准许。辩护人呼吁既然检察官、合议庭 法官自愿参加审理活动，就应该更加积极地履行司法人员的公权，保护国家
宪法，保护公民权利，拒绝相关机关和人员对本案的干涉，对邹巍做出无罪
的判决。
此致
被告人：邹巍
辩护人：浙江左契律师事务所
纪中久
2025年9月20日
Defense Statement for Zou Wei Accused of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”
Author: (Defense Counsel) Ji Zhongjiu, Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm
Editor: Han Lihua Executive Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong
Date: September 20, 2025
Abstract
In August 2024, Chinese dissident Zou Wei was arrested by Chinese authorities on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” This document presents the defense counsel’s argument for Zou Wei’s acquittal.
To the Collegiate Bench:
Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm, entrusted by Zou Wei’s mother, appointed Attorney Ji Zhongjiu as defense counsel for the defendant, Mr. Zou Wei.Based on the evidence examined in court and the arguments presented during trial, the defense submits the following written statement for the court’s consideration:
I. The Indictment’s Description of “Spreading False Information through Foreign Media Platforms” Is Factually and Technically Incorrect
The indictment alleges that the defendant spread false information through “foreign media outlets such as Radio Free Asia and other online information platforms.”This statement reveals a misunderstanding of basic network concepts and is inconsistent with factual reality.
Radio Free Asia (RFA) primarily broadcasts audio news programs to global audiences.Its website, www.rfa.org, functions as an electronic publication, not an interactive information platform.
An “information network platform” is built upon internet-based technology that allows users to publish, share, and interact with content—examples include WeChat, Weibo, or Twitter.Ordinary websites, however, are edited exclusively by the site’s staff; users cannot directly upload or modify content. Therefore, any criminal or civil liability related to a website’s content rests solely with its editors.
Mr. Zou did not use a computer, phone, or any online terminal to upload, edit, or disseminate information. Even if he provided audio clips to RFA, the editing, placement, and publication of those materials were entirely handled by RFA’s editorial team. He neither controlled the final content nor influenced its dissemination.
Thus, holding Zou legally responsible for material edited and published by others is legally unsound and logically indefensible.
II. The Audio Evidence Was Edited and Cannot Be Deemed Authentic or Original
Audio editing is a long-established and highly developed technology. Since as early as 1939, U.S. researcher Homer Dudley developed speech-synthesis systems. By the 1980s, advanced nonstationary and nonlinear processing methods emerged.
Today, numerous companies—such as iFlytek—offer online voice-editing tools accessible to the general public. (See: https://peiyin.xunfei.cn)As a professional media organization, RFA naturally possesses even more sophisticated audio-editing software.
The investigative authorities’ evidence consists of audio files downloaded from RFA’s website, not original recordings. These files were clearly edited. While the edited voice may retain some of Zou’s vocal characteristics, it cannot accurately represent the original, complete, or unaltered content. Edited material could even distort or invert the speaker’s intended meaning.
Under China’s Criminal Procedure Law, evidence must be “authentic and sufficient.” Since the primary evidence was downloaded from a third-party website and lacks corroboration (no witness or physical evidence), the prosecution’s claim is unsupported and unproven.
III. Speaking to Foreign Media about Domestic Social Issues Does Not Constitute the Crime of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”
Article 293(1)(4) of the Criminal Law of the PRC defines this offense as “creating disturbances in public places, seriously disrupting social order.”
The term “public places” refers to physical, tangible spaces.According to the Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate’s Judicial Interpretation on Network Crimes (2013), even when false information is spread online, the charge applies only if it causes serious disorder in real, physical public spaces.
Network order and real-world public order are fundamentally different. The Internet allows diverse and even contradictory information to coexist without causing “crowding” or chaos. Citizens form judgments by comparing differing sources of information—an essential process in understanding truth.
The prosecution alleges that Zou “spread false information about major national and social events, damaging the image and interests of the state.”However, “damaging national image” is a political label, not a factual description. Equating such a claim with “disrupting public order” is a misinterpretation of law and an unauthorized expansion of criminal definitions beyond statutory limits.
Furthermore, Zou’s comments to the media concerned civil and human rights issues, such as demolition practices, residents’ grievances, and conditions of detainees. His actions align with constitutional rights to freedom of speech, lawful criticism, and human-rights advocacy.Criticism of government behavior does not harm national interests; in fact, open dialogue strengthens governance and public trust.
IV. The Investigation Violated Legal Procedure; Evidence Collected Illegally Cannot Be Used for Conviction
According to Article 6 of the Provisional Regulations on the Management of International Internet Connections, any access to foreign networks must use channels approved by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.In this case, investigators bypassed China’s national firewall to monitor and collect citizens’ online speech—an act constituting illegal evidence gathering.
The Constitution of the PRC guarantees citizens freedom of speech.Collecting citizens’ words from media platforms to criminalize them violates the Constitution, the Civil Servant Law, the Police Law, and the Procurators Law.
The defense respectfully urges the court to uphold judicial independence, reject illegally obtained evidence, and protect constitutional rights.
V. The Court Should Recognize the Widespread Misuse of the “Picking Quarrels” Charge and Apply the Law, Not Political Interpretation
The prosecution claims Zou’s motive was “to gain personal attention and social influence.”This claim is unsupported by evidence and damages his reputation through subjective inference inappropriate for formal legal documents.
According to the Judicial Interpretation on the Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble, the motive must be “to seek excitement, vent emotions, show off, or cause trouble without reason.”Zou’s motives were none of these. His focus was on public welfare and human rights advocacy.
At trial, eight recordings were presented by the prosecution. These included remarks about the G20 security operations, which, according to public records, involved 760,000 volunteers.Zou, as a Hangzhou resident, merely expressed concerns about disruptions to daily life—a reasonable civic comment, not an act of provocation.
Similarly, his concern over the death of Chen Ziliang, a friend who died in detention, and his criticism of poor prison conditions for Lv Gensong, reflected legitimate humanitarian concern, not disorderly conduct.
His remarks on forced demolitions in Hangzhou’s Pengbu, Jianqiao, and Jiubao—towns dismantled for the new Hangzhou East Station and urban expansion—constituted normal citizen criticism of administrative misconduct.Constructive criticism, if heard by higher authorities, would help improve governance rather than disrupt public order.
As Chairman Mao Zedong once wrote: “When there is criticism, one should correct it; when there is none, one should be encouraged.”Yet the prosecution seems to believe: “When there is criticism, call it provocation.”A citizen’s voice cannot be silenced; the right to criticize must not be stripped away.
The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires actual, severe disruption of public order.Most of Zou’s remarks were made years ago and caused no such disorder—a fact that invalidates the charge.
Public order belongs to the people, not to those in power.Citizens have the right to supervise the government, not the other way around.China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both affirming protection of free expression.
Therefore, prosecuting Zou for peaceful speech reverses the relationship between state and citizen, violating both domestic and international legal norms.
Conclusion
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees citizens freedom of speech and the right to make suggestions and criticisms.No state organ, including the procuratorate or the court, has authority to censor or punish citizens for lawful expression.
Although the defense’s motions for recusal were denied, we call upon the court to uphold the spirit of judicial independence:to protect the Constitution, to safeguard citizens’ rights, to resist external interference, and to acquit Mr. Zou Wei in accordance with the law.
Respectfully submitted,Defendant: Zou WeiDefense Counsel: Ji Zhongjiu, Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm
Date: September 20, 2025
