China issued guidelines clarifying the application of laws and policies related to cyber violence on Sept. 25, 2023. Photo: TUCHONG

In recent years, incidents of “cyber violence” have frequently captured public attention, sparking widespread concern across society. On Sept. 25, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued guidelines clarifying the application of laws and policies related to cyber violence. These guidelines outline how various acts of cyber violence align with existing crime categories, and call for stricter measures against offenders while protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining a healthier cyberspace environment.

Overview of past research

Academic discussions on cyber violence in China began in the early 2000s. Over the past 20 years, scholars across disciplines such as law, communication studies, sociology, political science, and education have delved into the issue, fostering a vibrant and diverse academic discourse. Research on cyber violence generally focuses on two key questions: “What is cyber violence?” and “How should it be addressed?”

The first question examines the nature and underlying causes of cyber violence. Scholars have characterized it as an invasion of personal privacy, a form of discursive violence, or even as “the tyranny of the majority.” Some attribute its origins to internal factors, such as the irrational and extreme tendencies of group psychology, often linked to “mob mentality.” Others highlight external factors, such as institutional and structural risks or the broader challenges of a society in transition.

The second question focuses on strategies for regulating cyber violence, an area in which opinions vary significantly. Some scholars suggest that the benefits and harms of behaviors associated with cyber violence are interlinked and caution against hasty reliance on criminal law. Others argue that cyber violence falls squarely within the realm of criminal law and should not be limited to civil liability. They advocate for expanded interpretations of existing legal provisions or even propose introducing a distinct crime category for cyber violence. In this light, some scholars have called for the enactment of a dedicated anti-cyber violence law.

Such observations provide a glimpse into the current state of academic research on cyber violence, which reveals a lack of clarity and consistency. While a substantial body of research exists, the field is characterized by conflicting perspectives and a lack of theoretical consensus. The release of the guidelines signals that the governance of cyber violence is increasingly moving toward a rule-of-law approach. However, the disarray in academic research does little to contribute to solving real-world problems.

It is therefore necessary to critically evaluate existing studies on cyber violence governance. Adhering to the principles of the rule of law, researchers should assess whether their interpretations of real-world cases are sound and reasonable so as to improve the quality of academic research, provide clear guidance for future studies, and offer robust theoretical support for the legal and regulatory efforts to address cyber violence effectively.

Methodology

This review of theoretical issues focuses on the normative principles, general theories, and logic of argumentation and analysis in scientific research. When examining the legal nature of behaviors involved in cases of cyber violence, this paper adopts the standard normative judgment, which refers to assessments grounded in legal norms.

To ensure the authority and representativeness of the cases, a search was conducted in the CSSCI journal database on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using the keyword “cyber violence” in article titles. This search yielded 86 papers, from which nine unrelated papers—such as those addressing “cyber violence in video games”—were excluded, resulting in 77 relevant studies. A detailed analysis of these texts reveals that research on cyber violence spans multiple disciplines. While some studies do not belong to the field of law, they still engage with legal norms, and their core conceptual analyses and arguments often rely on judgments about the legal nature of behaviors in specific incidents.

Despite differences in research paradigms and methodologies across disciplines, researchers frequently base their discussions and analyses on concrete cases, irrespective of disciplinary perspectives or methodological frameworks. Therefore, it is reasonable to extract cases commonly discussed in these 77 papers for a normative and theoretical analysis of cyber violence governance. This paper selects 55 cases with a degree of scholarly consensus as its research sample.

In this light, existing domestic research on cyber violence governance reveals significant academic challenges, which can be broadly summarized into three main flaws.

Three main flaws

First, existing research often overgeneralizes the identification of illegal or criminal behavior in cases, leading to an overly broad definition of cyber violence. Many studies classify behaviors in cases lacking judicial rulings as illegal or even assign criminal charges to them, theoretically aligning them with the characteristics of violent illegality and incorporating them into the category of cyber violence. However, such determinations neither conform to judicial realities nor constitute normative judgments; they are speculative at best.

Some researchers do not solely rely on the illegality or criminality of behaviors as the basis for identifying cyber violence, instead invoking theories of violence from disciplines such as political science and sociology. Yet, these theoretical frameworks often diverge significantly from the actual nature of the cases in question. Of the 55 cases analyzed, 26—comprising 47.23% of the total—demonstrate positive social significance in reality, including two cases of citizen expression and 24 cases of public opinion oversight. Labeling these instances of public opinion oversight as cyber violence is inconsistent with their actual nature.

In cases involving online rumors or events, while some individual statements by netizens may constitute infringements, categorizing entire events as cyber violence represents an overgeneralization that fails to capture their essence. Furthermore, there is no consensus in academic or public discourse regarding whether online attacks qualify as cyber violence. Thus, in at least half of the 55 cases examined, the behaviors in question do not meet the criteria for cyber violence, highlighting significant issues in researchers’ judgments.

Second, the theoretical basis for classifying behaviors as cyber violence in existing research is often unclear, misapplied, or flawed. Instances of theoretical misapplication are frequent, with some researchers relying solely on personal experience or intuition for analysis. Such unstructured methods undermine the scientific validity of their conclusions.

However, certain scholars have engaged in rigorous academic reflection, combining professional expertise with real-world conditions. These researchers advocate for clearer standards for criminalizing cyber violence within the framework of criminal justice, proposing the creation of a new “cyber violence crime” to address deficiencies in the current standards. These scholars accurately capture the complexity of contemporary cyber violence and the challenges it poses for judicial practice.

Nevertheless, the establishment of a new crime category remains controversial and may conflict with the existing legal system. First, the harmfulness of cyber violence is not equivalent to violent crimes under criminal law, such as intentional homicide, intentional injury causing severe harm or death, rape, robbery, or kidnapping. Second, under China’s legal framework, violence is defined by the necessity of “effective coercion,” emphasizing a significant power disparity and the unidirectional nature of violence between the perpetrator and the victim. In contrast, the internet is an open, public platform where, despite variations in the reach or influence of different social groups, individuals theoretically have equal opportunities to express themselves. Online communication channels are bidirectional or even multidirectional, which does not meet the “effective coercion” criterion.

In addition, the guidelines reflect a cautious approach to creating new crime categories. They emphasize the “accurate application of the law” and call for the strict punishment of cyber violence cases using existing legal provisions, such as those addressing defamation, insult, or infringement of personal information crimes. In other words, current laws should be fully utilized to regulate cyber violence, and there is no need to hastily “up the ante” by introducing a new crime category.

Third, existing research often provides overly simplistic and one-sided evaluations of behaviors in sample cases. Cyber violence is inherently complex, involving multiple dimensions that can yield vastly different interpretations depending on the perspective adopted. Due to this complexity, research should strive for objectivity and comprehensiveness, avoiding narrow viewpoints and focusing on the fundamental nature of cases.

However, some scholars tend to focus narrowly on a single detail or minor aspect of a case and draw general conclusions about its overall nature. In some cases, actions taken by individual netizens may border on infringement or illegality. Yet, when viewed as a whole, the positive significance of the public discourse in such cases far outweighs the negative. Some researchers label these cases as instances of cyber violence and criticize them, revealing a shallow understanding of their complexity and missing the primary contradiction. In doing so, they risk stigmatizing legitimate online public oversight and reducing “cyber violence” to an excuse for some individuals to evade criticism.

The shortcomings and even errors in existing research primarily stem from insufficient professional knowledge, low theoretical proficiency, or a lack of academic rigor, exacerbated by a somewhat impetuous academic climate. As a result, many studies fail to accurately determine the nature of behaviors in cases, while unjustly labeling legitimate expressions of online public opinion as cyber violence and subjecting them to unwarranted criticism.

Numerous studies demonstrate a superficial understanding of the essence and context of relevant theories or deliberately avoid addressing theoretical premises, leading to inappropriate theoretical applications and recurring errors. Some researchers disregard legal norms, subjectively attributing criminality to behaviors in cases without proper justification. This practice not only undermines judicial fairness but also negatively impacts societal rule of law.

Even when judicial determinations are available for reference, researchers often render inconsistent judgments without sufficient reasoning or justification. A review of 15 case studies involving judicial intervention reveals that, of the 26 “inconsistent and non-compliant judgments” identified, only two occurred before judicial determinations were made. In other words, 24 inconsistent judgments were made despite the availability of judicial rulings or documents for reference. This suggests that these researchers either failed to consult judicial announcements or judgments, or ignored them outright, neglecting their duty to provide substantiated arguments by making arbitrary conclusions.

Such issues warrant serious attention from both the academic community and society at large. Failure to address them could undermine the theoretical rigor of research on cyber violence governance and lead to significant misjudgments about real-world problems. Policy recommendations derived from such flawed research risk misguiding decision-making and judicial practices, obstructing the development of a rule-of-law framework for addressing cyber violence. This, in turn, could disrupt the normal functioning of online public opinion monitoring and hinder the creation of a rational, constructive online public discourse space.

Dong Tiance et al. are from the School of Journalism at Chongqing University.