Rights Defense Network: Analysis of New Policies and Regulations: Four Departments Launch Special Campaign to Rectify Improper Marketing and Hype Involving the Military Online — Rectifying Military-Related Marketing: Vague Standards, a Blade Most Likely to Cut the Boundaries of Innocent People’s Speech

Guest Commentator: Zhang Haoran

On October 15, 2026, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission, and the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Central Military Commission jointly issued a notice announcing a two-month special campaign, beginning in October, to rectify improper marketing and hype involving the military online. The notice specifies that it will focus on screening and handling accounts on websites that violate the rules in 10 categories, including improper marketing and misleading the public by trading on identities such as veterans and military family members; livestreaming sales using fabricated military personas; distorting military-related policies for profit; selling military uniforms and imitations; and disseminating sensitive military-related information. The campaign aims to regulate the dissemination of military information online and uphold the good image of the armed forces and the veteran community. (For details, see: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2026-10/15/c_1793820656286917.htm)

Analysis: Rectifying Military-Related Marketing: Vague Standards, a Blade Most Likely to Cut the Boundaries of Innocent People’s Speech

On October 12, 2026, four departments jointly issued a notice launching a two-month special campaign to rectify improper marketing and hype involving the military online, targeting ten types of misconduct, including fraudulent military academy exam training, scams by people impersonating military personnel, and AI-generated feel-good military dramas. To be fair, profiteering from patriotic sentiment and committing fraud through fabricated identities are evils that a society governed by the rule of law should root out; no one would object to precisely targeting violations of laws and regulations. But what is truly cause for concern in this campaign has never been whether disorder should be addressed. It is that once the standards for addressing it are misapplied, those who should be least likely to be hurt are the ones most likely to be hurt first.

The most glaring problem with the notice as a whole is the inherent vagueness of its key concepts. What constitutes “improper marketing”? What amounts to “misleading public perceptions”? What does it mean to “affect the image of veterans”? The notice offers no clear legal definitions or quantitative standards. When such characterizations, with their vast built-in room for interpretation, are put into practice at the local level, they naturally invite a push to expand them at each successive level. The tendency of “campaign-style governance” has always been this: the higher-ups make a demand at one level, and those below intensify it tenfold; the higher-ups say to rectify disorder, and those below conduct a sweeping investigation. When “military-related identity” becomes a screening label, and “marketing and hype” can be interpreted at will, the normal online expression of tens of millions of ordinary veterans and military family members could at any time be classified as “improper.” Does a veteran sharing military life count as exploiting their identity? Does a military family member livestreaming sales to support themselves count as marketing by trading on their status? Could a veteran commenting on current affairs be deemed to be “misleading perceptions”? These questions should never have needed to be asked, but under vague standards they have all become Damocles’ swords hanging over ordinary people.

From the perspective of the fundamental human right to freedom of expression, the life of a right lies in clear boundaries. What the law does not prohibit is permitted: this is the baseline for citizens’ right to expression. Citizens have the right to disclose their real identities publicly, to discuss their real experiences, and to earn a living using their identities as long as they do not break the law. These rights should not be broadly curtailed or collectively penalized because of abuse by a small number of people. If the fact that a few people impersonate military personnel to commit fraud means all genuine veterans must watch what they say online; if the fact that individual accounts exploit their identities to drum up hype means millions of military family members dare not disclose who they are, then this essentially makes the innocent pay for the lawbreakers and trades the space for the majority’s rights for the convenience and efficiency of governance. As the ancient saying goes, “Cutting off the toes to fit the shoes is not the height of skill.” Shrinking the normal space for expression of an entire group to address misconduct by a small minority has never been good governance.

A deeper paradox is that the fundamental way to protect the honor of veterans and military personnel is never to clamp down on speech, but to deliver real support. In reality, what truly damages the community’s image and erodes society’s respect are the reduced benefits some veterans receive during resettlement, the failure to fully implement preferential policies, and the lack of accessible channels for veterans to defend their rights. Failing to make a serious effort to fulfill people’s rights while imposing strict controls on online speech; failing to address real problems while exerting force to rectify expression—this inevitably gives the impression of “mistaking the branch for the root.” Ultimately, the public’s respect for military personnel has never been built by silence and forced quiet; it is earned through real status, visible support, and a dignified life.

Address disorder according to the law; protect honor without harming civil rights. A truly well-run special campaign should punish every violation without wrongfully punishing anyone or letting anyone off: punish fraud as fraud, investigate counterfeit goods as counterfeits, and ensure every action is tied to proven unlawful conduct and every standard is clear and predictable. If the campaign is expanded under the principle of “better to kill a thousand by mistake than let one escape,” it will ultimately chill the hearts of millions of veterans and military family members and damage the credibility of the policy itself.