[Fasces]

A Chinese comedy troupe has been slapped with a 14.7m yuan ($2.1m; £1.7m) penalty over a joke about the military that invoked a slogan from President Xi Jinping.

The quip, which likened the behaviour of a comedian's dogs to military conduct, irked authorities.

They said Shanghai Xiaoguo Culture Media Co and comic Li Haoshi had "humiliated the people's army".

The company accepted the penalty and terminated Mr Li's contract.

The offending remark was made during a stand-up performance in Beijing on Saturday, when Mr Li alluded to two canines he had adopted which were chasing a squirrel.

"Other dogs you see would make you think they are adorable. These two dogs only reminded me of... 'Fight to win, forge exemplary conduct'," said Mr Li, whose stage name is House.

The punchline is part of the slogan that President Xi unveiled in 2013 as a goal for the Chinese military.

In an audio recording of the performance shared on China's Twitter-like platform Weibo, audience members can be heard laughing at the joke.

But it was much less welcome on the internet, after a member of the audience complained about it. Beijing authorities said they launched an investigation on Tuesday.

They then confiscated 1.32m yuan of what was deemed to be illegal income, and fined the company another 13.35m yuan, according to Xinhua.

Shanghai Xiaoguo's activities in the Chinese capital have also been indefinitely suspended.

"We will never allow any company or individual use the Chinese capital as a stage to wantonly slander the glorious image of the PLA [People's Liberation Army]," said the Beijing arm of China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism Bureau.

The audio went viral, with some nationalists saying they were deeply offended and state media also piling on. But others questioned if the reactions were over the top.

"I am patriotic and really don't like others to humiliate our country... But I really don't like this atmosphere where every word about politics is sensitive," reads a post liked 1,200 times.

Mr Li apologised to his more than 136,000 Weibo followers. "I feel deeply shamed and regretful. I will take responsibility, stop all activities, deeply reflect, learn again."

His Weibo account has since been suspended.

The incident sheds light on the challenging climate for Chinese comedians, who have been targeted by authorities and netizens alike.

In late 2020, stand-up comedian Yang Li was accused of "sexism" and "man hating" after making jokes about men. A group claiming to defend men's rights also called on netizens to report her to China's media regulator.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65618584

Thin skinned little emperor

The relevant text has been highlighted. BBC is underplaying it. Outside of state media and a few of the normal madmen online, everyone thinks this is absurd.

[Potemkin]

[Deutschmania]

The law regarding defamation, in the PRC , protects against harm to one's personal honor, and reputation, regardless of the accuracy of the information. So, any insult can result in a dire situation, in that nation.

Articles 101 and 102 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China (General Principle), enacted in 1987, and the interpretations of these two and related Articles of the General principles were the sole basis for Chinese civil defamation law.

Article 101 provides:

Citizens and legal persons enjoy the right of reputation. The human dignity of citizens is protected by law. It is prohibited to harm the reputation of a citizen or legal person by such means as insult or libel.

Article 102 provides:

Citizens and legal persons enjoy the right to honor. It is prohibited to illegally strip a citizen or legal person of his or its honor.

In Answers of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning Trials of Cases Involving the Right to Reputation (the 1993 Answers), the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) stated that defamation can be found if (i) there is an illegal act on the part of the defendant, (ii) there has been harm to the reputation of the plaintiff, and (iii) there is a causal relation between the illegal act and the harm to reputation. The three circumstances under which defamation can be found are:

Where any written or oral insults or libel against another person that causes damage to the reputation of that person;
Where unauthorized disclosure of personal information of another person causes harm to reputation of that person; or
Where a news report contains “gross error” and the error results in harm to reputation.
The 1993 Answers specifically address the issue of defamation litigation that arises out of the authoring or publication of an article that is critical [of a person]. The SPC stated that:

Where the article contains basically true information and is not insulting to another person, the author and publisher are not liable.
Where the article contains basically true information and is insulting to another person and causes harm to the reputation of that person, the author and publisher are liable.
Where the basic contents of the article are erroneous and cause harm to the reputation of another person, the author and the publisher are liable.
From the 1993 Answers, it appears that truth is not necessarily a defense in civil defamation litigation in China, particularly where the “offending” report is an article that is critical of another person. This is a marked difference from the defamation law of the U.S. and certain other Western countries (including the U.K.), under which truth is a defense generally.

Although there is no clear definition of what is defamatory in China, it is believed that defamatory statements must have the effect of lowering society’s or the community’s esteem for the plaintiff.

Another point worth noting is that the 1993 Answers permit close relatives to bring defamation suits on behalf of deceased individuals.

Neither the General Principle nor the interpretations of SPC distinguish between a public and a private figure. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-an ... -law1.html

But that's if the news story in the original post is telling the complete and acuurate story. There might be some details that got left out, in order to make the Communist Chinese government seem all the more repressively draconian. This has also happened in regards to events in Vietnam , another Communist party led government. But even as this video points out, starting at 16:21 , comparing public officials to dogs is considered to be highly derogatory in such Asian countries as China, and Vietnam, and the authorities will not look kindly upon people impugning the character of those in position of political power in this manner. Good faith criticism is permitted , welcomed even, but undermining the integrity of the state might get wind up getting someone punished in some way, so as to deter any subversion of the nation.

[Fasces]

But that's if the news story in the original post is telling the complete and acuurate story. There might be some details that got left out, in order to make the Communist Chinese government seem all the more repressively draconian

There aren't, not really. It is common to make jokes in Chinese culture using party slogans; this joke is by all accounts incredibly tame and the CPC response is widely viewed as an insane overreaction.

[JohnRawls]

Thin skinned little emperor

The relevant text has been highlighted. BBC is underplaying it. Outside of state media and a few of the normal madmen online, everyone thinks this is absurd.

It is what it is. If you create satire or comedy against the political class in a dictatorial society then what do you expect? Dictatorships usually have a bad sense of humour when it is done publicly. I know that you and I think that it is overboard but any dictatorial political class will take it as a challenge to the regime. And they can't have that. It is what it is.

[MistyTiger]

The Chinese are not known for having a sense of humor especially those in leadership positions. They take themselves very seriously. They must've thought the troupe was being very disrespectful and offensive. I pity those who do not know how to laugh at themselves.

[Fasces]

If not for the fine, no one would know about the joke so we can at least critique the dictator's incompetence.

[Unthinking Majority]

The CPC is very frightened and threatened by their own people, above anything.

[Potemkin]

The CPC is very frightened and threatened by their own people, above anything.

That was one tank crew who didn’t want to kill a defenseless civilian, not the entire Chinese government being terrorised by one man taking his shopping home. It makes for a good meme, and you can take it as being ‘symbolic’ of something or other if you wish, but it cannot replace rational thought, @Unthinking Majority.

[Unthinking Majority]

That was one tank crew who didn’t want to kill a defenseless civilian, not the entire Chinese government being terrorised by one man taking his shopping home. It makes for a good meme, and you can take it as being ‘symbolic’ of something or other if you wish, but it cannot replace rational thought, @Unthinking Majority.

The CPC squashes any dissent by the Chinese people. The only reason to do that is if they're afraid of them and are threatened by it. Do you think the CPC wants another Tank Man, or Tienanmen Square protests? Where's Tank Man right now? The CPC certainly didn't let him go free...because he's a threat. The Dalai Lama and Falun Gong are also a threat to their power, because the state must have ultimate power over the minds of the people.

They did the same to this comedian as Tank Man, though Tank Man had a more severe crime and therefore more severe punishment. They do not allow certain "rational thoughts" to be expressed.

[Potemkin]

The CPC squashes any dissent by the Chinese people. The only reason to do that is if they're afraid of them and are threatened by it. Do you think the CPC wants another Tank Man, or Tienanmen Square protests? Where's Tank Man right now? The CPC certainly didn't let him go free...because he's a threat. The Dalai Lama and Falun Gong are also a threat to their power, because the state must have ultimate power over the minds of the people.

They did the same to this comedian as Tank Man, though Tank Man had a more severe crime and therefore more severe punishment. They do not allow certain "rational thoughts" to be expressed.

Even a dictatorship must take heed of public opinion, @Unthinking Majority. And even a formal democracy is afraid of its own people. It’s a difference of degree, and a difference in how ruthless a regime is willing to be or even can be without triggering a civil war.

[skinster]

There are protests in China every day, Unthinking bloke. What are you talking about? A friend of mine who spends time back and forth from London to China has said the idea that Chinese people are meek servants of the state is cartoonish bs.

Where's Tank Man right now? The CPC certainly didn't let him go free...because he's a threat.

Citation needed.

The Dalai Lama and Falun Gong are also a threat to their power,

Probably because both are CIA/NED funded outfits to demonise and destabilise one-China. WikiLeaks exposed that about Falun Gong and the Dalai Lama even spoke about his involvement with the CIA in his autobiography. He has been on the CIA's payroll and has received multiple millions for his work. Why do people think he's popular in the West?

[Unthinking Majority]

Even a dictatorship must take heed of public opinion, @Unthinking Majority. And even a formal democracy is afraid of its own people. It’s a difference of degree, and a difference in how ruthless a regime is willing to be or even can be without triggering a civil war.

Yes both a dictatorship and democracy are afraid of their own people, as it should be. The difference is a democracy lets people have a voice, including the ability to put any politician to the curb every few years via vote.

[Fasces]

The CPC certainly didn't let him go free...because he's a threat.

Unfalsifiable statement. No evidence Tank Man was every captured; organizers of the Tiananmen Square protests (21 Most Wanted; you can look them up) are free men and women, most since the 90s, so why would Tank Man be any different?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27659475

[JohnRawls]

The discussion about the Tank Man is kinda redundant. This situation and Tank Man are kind of non-comparable in the first place. One is a protest and the other is a satire/comedy show. Comparing the two is like comparing a BB gun vs a nuclear bomb. I guess technically both can be describe as weapons but you get what I mean.

On another note, I heard China started cancelling concerts and other cultural exchange/performance stuff because of the situation. Lol Wut?

[Godstud]

Has anyone every considered that maybe the comedy was just really really bad?

[AFAIK]

If they can't take a joke how can they take Taiwan?

[skinster]

They ain't taking Taiwan. Taiwan is in China.

[Potemkin]

The discussion about the Tank Man is kinda redundant. This situation and Tank Man are kind of non-comparable in the first place. One is a protest and the other is a satire/comedy show. Comparing the two is like comparing a BB gun vs a nuclear bomb. I guess technically both can be describe as weapons but you get what I mean.

On another note, I heard China started cancelling concerts and other cultural exchange/performance stuff because of the situation. Lol Wut?

“Make them stop, make them stop, make them stop…!”

[Fasces]

I heard China started cancelling concerts and other cultural exchange/performance stuff because of the situation.

Source?