Next year, will sending a lewd picture from husband to wife result in detention? Today I saw a topic from 'Southern Daily': regarding this topic—. Southern Daily states: the past public misconception that 'private dissemination of obscene information is merely a moral issue' is clearly corrected by the revised regulations. The new 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' Article 80 clearly includes 'using information networks, telephones, and other communication tools to disseminate obscene information' within the scope of public security penalties. Regardless of whether the dissemination scene is a public WeChat group or private chat, as long as there is solid evidence, detention of more than ten days but less than fifteen days may be imposed, along with a fine of less than five thousand yuan; those with lighter circumstances will also face detention of less than five days or a fine of more than one thousand yuan but less than three thousand yuan. Analyzing this means that previously sending lewd pictures among friends and family was trivial, but this will no longer be the case. Next year, sending lewd pictures among friends and family will be illegal and will result in detention. This morning, Baidu legal expert 'The Rhythm of the Wind Blows' raised doubts about this: | What's going on? In the public security law, what are the differences between the revised Article 88 (a typo, actually Article 80) and the previous Article 68? Is anyone looking at it? It only adds penalties related to minors. Is this creating contradictions where there are none? Bullying netizens who don’t understand the law and won’t look at legal provisions? | Take a look at the new Public Security Administration Punishment Law Article 80: 'Producing, transporting, copying, selling, renting obscene books, pictures, films, audio-visual products and other obscene items, or using information networks, telephones, and other communication tools to disseminate obscene information, shall be punished with detention of more than ten days but less than fifteen days, and may also be fined less than five thousand yuan; for lighter circumstances, detention of less than five days or a fine of more than one thousand yuan but less than three thousand yuan shall be imposed. If the obscene items or obscene information involve minors, heavier penalties shall be imposed.' Now look at the old Public Security Administration Punishment Law Article 68: 'Producing, transporting, copying, selling, renting obscene books, pictures, films, audio-visual products and other obscene items, or using computer information networks, telephones, and other communication tools to disseminate obscene information, shall be punished with detention of more than ten days but less than fifteen days, and may also be fined less than three thousand yuan; for lighter circumstances, detention of less than five days or a fine of less than five hundred yuan shall be imposed.' | Take a look, see, compare, is there a difference in the circumstances of the violation between the new and old provisions? No difference. So, where does this topic come from? If this behavior becomes illegal next year, why was it not illegal before? The expression of the violation in the new and old provisions is no different, does it mean it has always been illegal without consequence? If we must say there is a difference between the new and old provisions, it is that the old provision states 'using computer information networks,' and the new provision states 'using information networks.' This change reflects the broader coverage of current information and is in line with the times. As for the new provision adding minors and increasing penalties, it does not conflict with the original provision's violation composition. In other words, this topic is purely a non-issue; the old provision is Article 68, and the current provision is Article 80. The change in the sequence of the articles does not change the nature of the violation. | How it was before is how it is now, it's that simple. There was no issue in the world, the media is the one creating disturbances. This morning, The Paper brought an entertaining topic: 【Don't Misread!】 The red line of the law cannot be joked about. Recently, some media reported, 'Starting January 1 next year, sending inappropriate photos or videos to friends constitutes a violation of law, with a maximum detention of 15 days and a fine of 5000 yuan,' presenting it as a legislative highlight of the upcoming revised 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law.' Quite a number of media outlets have reprinted this report. However, 'sending inappropriate photos to friends counts as illegal' is neither a new addition to the 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' nor a future enforcement focus. This is a misinterpretation that could even lead to confusion in public opinion and anxiety among netizens regarding the new law. The Paper's coverage of this topic has sharply slapped Southern Daily in the face. | The law is about value judgment, it is about restraint. The statement 'from next year sending obscene information to friends is illegal' is pure nonsense, baseless, and a smear and mockery of legal value judgment. Looking back, Southern Daily had already blocked me long ago. Perhaps that is the reason I was blocked, surely it was my previous comments that displeased them. Honest advice is often unwelcomed, but I truly wish to help Southern Daily, unfortunately, they do not appreciate it. Regarding The Paper's topic today, Baidu legal expert 'The Rhythm of the Wind Blows' continued to follow up: 'The Rhythm of the Wind Blows': Sending inappropriate photos to friends being illegal is not a new addition to the law for attention; using fictitious 'legislative highlights' to incite opposing emotions, even creating an atmosphere of 'everyone is illegal,' is setting a wrong public agenda and deconstructing the seriousness of legislation, undermining the social consensus on the rule of law. Clearly, 'The Rhythm of the Wind Blows' is referring to Southern Daily. Regarding the issue of the illegality of disseminating obscene images, the new law directly copies the old law without any groundbreaking or revolutionary changes. What is Southern Daily stirring up this issue for? Could it be infatuated with 'young master said'? | Delving deeper into the analysis, 'disseminating obscene information' is a significant phrase, for example, one-to-one dissemination and one-to-many dissemination have fundamental differences. Furthermore, 'obscene' and 'inappropriate' also have certain distinctions, even fundamental differences. In judging substantive illegality, it is based on whether the dissemination is among specified individuals in a one-to-one context or among a broad and unspecified audience in a one-to-many context; these factors must certainly be considered, and this applies to the future as well as the past. Specific circumstances require specific analysis; this is the living essence of Marxism and the attitude of socialist rule of law. A one-size-fits-all approach is certainly not the attitude of socialist rule of law. Using a one-size-fits-all approach to drive public opinion is truly unkind!