Rights-Protection Commentary: Concerns and Questions Surrounding the Anti-Cyberbullying Law (Draft for Public Comment)

Special Commentator: Yan Canghai

On July 29, 2026, the Anti-Cyberbullying Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Public Comment) was released for public consultation nationwide. Having witnessed countless human tragedies caused by doxxing, fabricated rumors and humiliation, and coordinated online attacks, the public hopes legislation will curb cyberbullying and safeguard personal dignity and the bottom line of human rights. The introduction of this draft is worthy of affirmation in its original intent. However, the value of good laws and sound governance lies in balance. A well-intentioned law does not necessarily mean that its implementation will not go awry. If the boundaries of its provisions are vague, placing greater emphasis on control than on rights, a law intended to protect ordinary people could very likely mutate into a tool for constraining public-opinion oversight and suppressing public expression. As the ancients said, “To guard against the people’s mouths is more dangerous than guarding against a flood; when a river is dammed and bursts, the harm to people is bound to be greater.” The risks concealed in this draft merit careful consideration by society as a whole.

Cyberbullying must be tackled with a heavy hand; this is a social consensus. Arbitrarily disclosing other people’s privacy, fabricating rumors to maliciously defame others, and persistently intimidating and harassing ordinary people trample on citizens’ personal rights and destroy the normal lives of countless individuals. It is urgently necessary for the law to draw a red line. But the greatest challenge in legislation is clarifying the boundaries: malicious personal attacks constitute cyberbullying, while well-founded public criticism does not; groundless abuse to vent anger constitutes cyberbullying, while persistent questioning concerning public affairs and public officials does not. The two are clearly distinct, yet under vague provisions they can easily be conflated.

A close reading of the draft for public comment makes its fatal shortcoming clear: many core concepts lack quantitative standards, leaving excessive room for flexibility. The draft classifies “the concentrated and sustained publication of information that incites opposition and infringes on rights and interests” as cyberbullying, yet it does not define how many comments count as “concentrated” or how long constitutes “sustained”; nor does it specify what constitutes “inciting opposition,” or distinguish in its provisions between objectively exposing problems affecting people’s livelihoods and deliberately creating group divisions. The law is like a blade without a scale: it can cut away abusive wrongdoing, but it can also be swung at normal expressions of public opinion at will. In reality, in numerous cases involving people’s livelihoods, multiple internet users collectively post questions about disorder in grassroots governance and expose problems in the performance of public officials’ duties, naturally satisfying the literal characteristic of “speaking out in a concentrated and sustained manner.” Once clear exemption provisions are lacking, legitimate public-opinion oversight will always face the risk of being brought within the scope of regulation.

Even more worthy of vigilance is the legislation’s emerging tendency to emphasize management while neglecting protection. The provisions as a whole focus on building a control system, specifying handling measures and consolidating platforms’ review responsibilities, yet lack rigid provisions protecting citizens’ freedom of expression. The current draft does not expressly establish a core principle: reporting, criticism and public-opinion oversight based on objective facts are not subject to accountability under this law. A survey of governance rules in mature systems of the rule of law shows that they have always clearly distinguished personal-rights violations from public discussion. Sharp criticism is not the same as malicious attack; persistent questioning is not the same as picking quarrels and provoking trouble; and heated discussion of viewpoints is not the same as inciting opposition. If the law fails to erect this “firewall,” discretionary power will very easily breed selective enforcement.

The lessons of history are plain to see: “When water is too clear, there are no fish; when people are too discerning, there are no companions.” When rules are vague and unclear, everyone will proactively tighten the limits of their expression. To avoid huge penalties, platforms will adopt the conservative strategy that it is “better to wrongly block a thousand people than to let a single case slip through”; ordinary internet users, worried that saying too much will lead to mistakes, will choose silence and wait-and-see in the face of social contradictions. Over time, the chilling effect will continue to spread. The public will not dare to question, will not wish to discuss, and will refuse to speak out, while channels for popular oversight will gradually shrink. We cannot help but ask: Is the endpoint of curbing cyberbullying really to leave “ten thousand horses mute”?

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right of citizens, and public-opinion oversight is an indispensable mechanism for society’s self-correction. In governing disorder, the goal is to eliminate verbal violence, not to eliminate different voices; in purifying the online environment, rational debate should be tolerated, rather than pursuing a high degree of uniformity in public opinion. The law should punish abusers who willfully harm others, not people who offer suggestions in good faith and seek the truth. If the boundaries of regulation are expanded without limit in the name of maintaining order, the result will ultimately be to block the outlet for public opinion and depart from the fundamental purpose of protecting human rights.

The public consultation on legislation is precisely the final window for refining the provisions and remedying loopholes. To create a good law that can withstand the test of history, legislators should face the public’s concerns and make up institutional shortcomings. First, quantify key concepts and clearly define the criteria for determining “concentrated,” “sustained” and “inciting opposition,” preventing broad interpretations; second, add dedicated exemption provisions, making clear that public-opinion oversight conducted in accordance with the law, as well as fact-based reporting and criticism, are not subject to this law; third, balance rights and responsibilities, improve channels for rights remedies, and prevent the unlimited expansion of enforcement powers.

“Those who listen to all sides are enlightened; those who heed only one side remain in the dark.” The online sphere should have room both for laws that punish wrongdoing and for diverse, rational voices. We hope this law can precisely strike at cyberbullying and safeguard the rights and interests of the vulnerable; even more, we hope legislators will uphold the balance of the rule of law and not allow governance measures to become barriers blocking the channels of speech. Only by punishing evil without harming the good, and curbing disorder without blocking speech, and by finding a solid fulcrum between order and human rights, can long-term sound social governance be achieved.