A German's Video Likens Mao to Hitler, and China Wants Him Punished
By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW January 11, 2016
Sim Chi Yin for The New York Times
A statue of Mao Zedong in Shenyang in northeastern China. Christoph Rehage's comparison of Mao to Hitler in a YouTube video prompted warnings that he could be punished under Chinese law.
BEIJING — When Christoph Rehage, a German writer and online satirist on Chinese affairs, joked on Weibo in July that the Communist hero Lei Feng and the female warrior Mulan could have a great baby together, reaction from some quarters was swift.
Mr. Rehage said he received death threats from Chinese who viewed his comments as a slur against cultural heroes. Sina shut his Weibo account, which he said had about 100,000 followers.
"It was a very tasteless joke that I made," Mr. Rehage conceded by telephone from Germany, where he has returned after studying Chinese and cinematography in Beijing.
But when Mr. Rehage called Mao Zedong "China's Hitler" in a YouTube video in December, he said, reaction became "ridiculous."
An influential Communist Party website called for him to be punished under Chinese law, despite the fact that Mr. Rehage lives in Hamburg. Coupled with events like the recentdisappearances of five people connected to a Hong Kong publisher of books critical of Beijing, the episode has raised questions about China's reach across borders.
The website, Communist Youth Net, which is owned by the Communist Youth League, published three commentaries accusing Mr. Rehage of "blaspheming" the founding leader of the People's Republic, who died in 1976. Such people should be "shown the bright sword," one read.
Mr. Rehage's statement was "subjective," meaning incorrect, and is therefore not protected speech, Zhu Wei, the deputy director of the Communications Law Center at the China University of Political Science and Law, was quoted as saying in one of the articles.
The party's own verdict in 1981 that Mao, under whose political campaigns millions died, did more good than harm, was "objective," meaning correct, Mr. Zhu said.
So Mr. Rehage broke the law with his statement, Mr. Zhu and an unnamed lawyer were quoted as saying, citing China's "Internet sovereignty."
Mr. Rehage said he found the experiences bizarre.
"When I was attacked on Weibo, it gave me sleepless nights," he said. "It's so direct, and they flood you with it."
"They" include anonymous online commenters known as 50-centers, who are paid to uphold the government line and drown out voices of dissent. Others who do it for no pay are known as volunteer 50-centers.
"People even called me, and that was really upsetting, because I don't give out my number," Mr. Rehage said. They uttered expletives, he said, and "made this guttural sound — guurrrgggg."
But the response to his comparison of Mao and Hitler provoked a more brittle reaction from Mr. Rehage.
"A lot of the points they made are just really ridiculous," he said. "I was bewildered by the fact that they would first shut me out of their Internet" — YouTube is blocked in the Chinese mainland — "and then say, 'What you say on the Internet is illegal! Our law governs what you said there,' " in Germany.
"They always say people aren't allowed to interfere in their internal affairs, but this is interfering in internal German affairs," he said.
Mr. Rehage then posted another video on YouTube, where he speaks in fluent Mandarin as "German Volunteer 50-Center," inviting his critics to come to Germany to debate him.
"I invited China Youth Net, the three experts, the neo-Maoists and the volunteer 50-centers," he said, adding, "Obviously, I can't pay for their tickets."
Mr. Rehage said he stood by his comments about Mao, made in response to a Weibo post by a popular Chinese actor, Wang Baoqiang, who wished Mao happy birthday on Dec. 26 and said he wanted to "kowtow" to Mao three times to show his respect.
Mr. Rehage called that irresponsible of Mr. Wang, because "tens of millions of Chinese" died under Mao's policies and Mr. Wang was "an influential guy."
"He's an actor everyone knows," Mr. Rehage said. Many of China's neo-Maoists and neo-authoritarians have said similar things, he said, but "they don't have the power that Wang Baoqiang has."
As evidence of Mao's failings, Mr. Rehage pointed to campaigns that left millions of Chinese dead, including the Great Leap Forward, which prompted a famine that may have killed more than 30 million.
"Hitler was crazier," he said. "Any historical comparison is always going to be flawed. It's going to be generalized, to make a point." But neither leader, he argued, could have cared less about his people.
In an interview, Mr. Zhu, the communications law professor, restated his accusations and insisted that those living outside China's borders could be bound to Chinese law for their online speech. Mr. Rehage, he said, had violated the so-called Seven Bottom Lines.
These are Internet speech rules laid out by the director of the Cyberspace Administration of China, Lu Wei, in 2013, Mr. Zhu said. They require Internet users to respect China's laws, state interests, socialist values, moral standards, social order, people's rights and the truth.
"If he compares Mao Zedong to Hitler, putting aside legal issues, I think he has violated the 'social order' or 'moral standards' of the Seven Bottom Lines," Mr. Zhu said.
He said that if Mr. Rehage made the video in Germany and posted it on YouTube and Facebook, also blocked in China, what would determine whether he violated Chinese law was his ultimate goal.
"We have to look at his intention," Mr. Zhu said. "If he meant the video just to be a commentary on something, without its being disseminated in China, then it has nothing to do with Chinese law. But if he made the video in order to have it disseminated on websites in China, or to have other people repost it in China, then he comes under Chinese law."
"President Xi has said that, although the Internet is virtual, there is sovereignty," Mr. Zhu said. "Internet sovereignty means that you can do things within your network as long as you don't harm me. But if you enter our network, you must obey Chinese law."
Even though Mao is dead, Mr. Rehage could still be violating the chairman's human dignity, a civil offense, Mr. Zhu said.
"In China, the 100 renminbi notes carry Mao's portrait," Mr. Zhu said. "There is a big portrait of Mao in Tiananmen. We have Mao Zedong Thought in textbooks from primary school on. He embodies the fundamental concepts or moral values of a considerable number of Chinese people." Following Mr. Rehage's logic, Mr. Zhu said, "the money we use everyday carries a portrait of Hitler. How do you think our people would feel?"
Mr. Rehage, who said that he usually visited China several times a year and that he was writing "an entertainment book about China," said that he had no immediate plans to apply for a Chinese visa, and that he would first wait for the situation to calm down.
"I'm not very concerned about the whole legal thing or them refusing a visa, or them grabbing me for a forced confession on TV," he said.
But he said he worried about the safety of any foreigners in China who might look like him. "I am a little concerned by the people who have been calling for my murder," he said.
Vanessa Piao contributed research.
Follow Didi Kirsten Tatlow on Twitter @dktatlow.
時報看中國
德國「網紅」拿希特拉比毛澤東激怒中國
狄雨霏 2016年1月11日
Sim Chi Yin for The New York Times
瀋陽的毛澤東像。克里斯托夫·雷克在YouTube上的視頻中將毛澤東比成希特拉一事，引發了可能會按照中國的法律懲罰他的警告。
北京——德國作家、網絡「段子手」克里斯托夫·雷克(Christoph Rehage)去年7月在微博上開玩笑說，共產黨標兵雷鋒和女將花木蘭可以生個很棒的寶寶，一些人做出了非常迅速的反應。
雷克說，他收到了死亡威脅，一些人認為他的言論有辱中國文化中的英雄。新浪封禁了他的微博帳號。雷克說自己在微博上有10萬粉絲。
「那是一個很沒品的玩笑，」雷克在德國接受電話採訪時承認。他曾在北京研究中文和攝影，之後回到了德國。
但是，當雷克去年12月在YouTube的一個視頻中把毛澤東稱為「中國的希特拉」時，他說，人們的反應變得「很可笑」。
一個頗有影響的共產黨網站呼籲根據中國法律來處罰雷克，儘管他住在漢堡。與此同時，在香港又有五人因和一家批評北京的出版社有關聯而失蹤，兩件事合在一起，引起了人們對中國在境外施展影響力的關注。
這個網站是由共青團主辦的「中國青年網」，它發表了三篇評論，指責雷克「褻瀆」1976年過世的中華人民共和國開國領袖。一篇文章說，這樣的人應該「亮劍」以待。
一篇文章引述中國政法大學傳播法中心副主任朱巍的話說，雷克的說法是「主觀的」，即不正確的，因此不屬於被保護的言論。
毛澤東的政治運動導致數以千萬的人喪生，中共自己1981年得出的結論是，毛澤東功大於過，朱巍說這個說法是「客觀的」，即正確的。
所以，文中引述朱巍和一位不願透露姓名的律師的話說，根據中國的「互聯網主權」，雷克的言論觸犯了法律。
雷克說，他認為這件事很離奇。
「在微博上遭到攻擊時，我晚上睡不着覺，」他說。「他們的攻擊非常直接，而且是鋪天蓋地的。」
「他們」包括匿名評論者「五毛黨」，他們在網上支持政府方針、淹沒異見者的聲音，可以據此得到報酬。沒有報酬也這麼做的人被稱為「自干五」。
「甚至有人給我打電話，這讓人很心煩，因為我沒有向外界透露電話號碼，」雷克說。對方咒罵他，他說，「喉嚨里發出guurrrgggg的聲音。」
但是，他把毛澤東比成希特拉的言論，引起的反應更加厲害。
「他們提出的很多觀點真是可笑，」他說。「讓我不解的是，他們先是把我逐出他們的互聯網」——YouTube在中國大陸遭到了封禁——「然後又說，『你在互聯網上說的東西是非法的！我們的法律可以管轄你在那邊上網說了什麼，』」也就是在德國。
「他們總是說不能干涉內政，但這是在干涉德國內政，」他說。
雷克後來又上傳了另一個視頻到YouTube上，他在視頻中講一口流利的普通話，自稱「德國自干五」，還邀請批評者去德國和他辯論。
「我邀請了中國青年網、三位專家、新毛派和自干五，」他說，並接着表示，「顯然，我沒錢給他們買機票。」
雷克說他堅持對毛澤東的評論。他的評論是對中國頗受歡迎的演員王寶強在微博上發表的一篇帖子有感而發。王寶強在12月26日祝毛澤東生日快樂，並稱他想給毛澤東「磕」三個頭，以示尊敬。
雷克稱王寶強的這一行為是不負責任的，因為「數千萬中國人」死於毛澤東的政策，而王寶強是一個「有影響力的人」。
「他是一個大家都知道的演員，」雷克說。他表示，中國很多新毛派和新威權主義者都說過類似的話，但「他們沒有王寶強那樣的影響力」。
作為毛澤東的過錯的證據，雷克提到了多場導致數以百萬計的中國人死亡的運動，包括大躍進。後者引起的饑荒可能導致3000多萬人喪命。
「希特拉更瘋狂，」他說。「任何歷史比較都會存在缺陷。會為了證明一個觀點而進行一般化。」但他表示，兩名領導人都對人民的生死毫不在意。
傳播法學教授朱巍在接受採訪時再度對雷克進行指責，並堅稱，生活在中國境外的人士的網上言論也會受到中國法律的約束。他說，雷克違反了「七條底線」。
朱巍表示，這些是中國國家互聯網信息辦公室主任魯煒在2013年提出的網絡言論規則。它們要求網絡用戶尊重中國的法律法規、國家利益、社會主義制度、道德風尚、社會公共秩序、公民合法權益和信息真實性七條底線。
「他把毛澤東比作希特拉，且不說法律方面的問題，我認為他至少違反了其中的『社會公共秩序』底線或『道德風尚』底線」朱巍說。
他表示，雷克在德國製作視頻，然後發佈到YouTube和在中國同樣被屏蔽的Facebook上，這種行為是否違法，要看他最終的目的。
「我們必須看他的意圖是什麼，」他說。「如果他製作視頻只是對某些事情進行評論，不在中國進行傳播，那就和中國法律無關。但如果他製作視頻是為了在中國的網站上進行傳播，或為了讓其他人在中國網站上重新上傳，那就屬於中國法律管轄範圍了。」
「習近平主席曾經說過，儘管網絡是虛擬的，但也存在主權問題，」朱巍說。「互聯網主權是指，你可以在自己國家的網絡上做任何事，只要你不傷害到我。但如果你進入中國的網絡，就必須遵守中國的法律。」
朱巍還表示，儘管毛澤東已經去世，雷克可能依然是在侵犯這位主席的人格利益。
「在中國，100元人民幣上印着毛的頭像，」朱巍說。「天安門城樓上掛有毛的大幅肖像。從小學開始，我們的教科書里就有毛澤東思想的內容。他代表着一些基本觀念，或說是相當多中國人的道德價值觀。」朱巍還表示，按照雷克的說法，「我們每天使用的紙幣上都印着希特拉的肖像。你覺得中國人對此會怎麼想？」
雷克表示，他通常每年去中國幾次，正在寫「一本有關中國的娛樂書籍」。他說自己短時間內不打算申請中國簽證，會先等事態平息下來。
「我不太擔心這整個法律上的問題，或是簽證被拒，亦或他們會把我抓起來，強迫我在電視上認罪，」他說。
但他說，他擔心那些身在中國看起來比較像他的外國人士的人身安全。「有些人喊着要殺我，我有點擔心會對他們不利，」他說。
狄雨霏(Didi Kirsten Tatlow)是《紐約時報》駐京記者。
Vanessa Piao對本文有研究貢獻。
請關注Didi Kirsten Tatlow的Twitter @dktatlow.
翻譯：紐約時報中文網
No comments:
Post a Comment