【新唐人2013年07月29日讯】大陆摇滚歌手吴虹飞因为发微博“想炸建委”，而被当局以“涉嫌编造虚假恐怖信息罪”刑事拘留，可能被判处5年以下有期徒刑。舆论认为“吴虹飞无罪”的同时，更深一层指出，如何处置吴虹飞事件事关言论自由走向，一旦吴虹飞被重判，则代表着大陆最后的言论自由阵地也被攻陷。
吴虹飞的辩护律师李金星和陈建刚在27号发表声明说：“从目前掌握的情况来看”吴虹飞的言论没有达到刑事犯罪具有的标准及危害性，“显然不构成任何犯罪”。
大陆摇滚歌手吴虹飞代理律师陈建刚：“什么叫做犯罪，必须是有严重的社会危害性这才能构得上犯罪， 像吴虹飞，说了那么几句话，发表了一下个人的情绪，是我想，不是我要，不是我已经做了，这样根本不应该构成犯罪的。这个案件事关重大，事关老百姓说话的权利、事关厘清言论自由权和犯罪的权利。”
法律界认为，虽然刑法规定，编造、故意传播虚假恐怖信息罪，可以判处5年以下有期徒刑，但必须是在“严重扰乱社会秩序”的前提下，但显然吴虹并没有达到这个程度，甚至连《治安管理处罚法》中的“扰乱公共秩序”都没有达到。因此，两位辩护律师的观点，得到了舆论的普遍支持。
中国资深媒体人高瑜：“那怎么能危害社会啊，网上都说了嘛，中国人最爱骂人了，不管说‘弄死你’也好，还是那些国骂也好，你要那么定，就是全国人都有罪呀，就那些骂人的话啊，这个问题非常荒唐的。”
目前为止，大陆有近八成的网民认为，吴虹飞的微博虽然言辞不当，但很明显只是抱怨和宣泄的戏言，不会给社会造成不良影响，也不具有任何煽动性，更何况民众有表达自己的不满的自由。
中国网路媒体专栏作家刘逸明：“在吴虹飞那里，所谓的暴力语言不过就是说说而已，我们不相信她真的会去干出爆炸的事情。”
陈建刚：“每个人有发表个人言论的自由，这是宪法规定的权利，各国除非这种特别集权的国家，否则的话，一个正常的国家，老百姓是有说话权利的，有发牢骚的权利，甚至有骂人的权利。”
也有一成多民众认为，由于吴虹飞是公众人物，而且拥有12万微博粉丝，她的言论过激，可能会起到一定煽动作用，对社会造成负面影响。
刘逸明：“确实公众人物说话是应该慎重一些，但是你要是说一个人被煽动，那被煽动的方面很多，电视里面就没有煽动？那么多的反映中共革命的片子，包括很多古装剧里面官逼民反的，这实际上也可以起到同样的作用啊，你官方要是事情做的好了，让老百姓满意了，不管别人怎么煽动，也不会出现暴力事件。”
除去上述两种观点，只有极少数的人赞同当局处理吴虹飞的作法。
评论人士多认为，当局对付吴虹飞更大的目地是为了打压言论自由和异见人士，因此当局的做法才招致恶评如潮，因为这关系到了每个网民的切身权益。
刘逸明：“因为吴虹飞这个人是比较敢说话的，当局趁这个机会将她绳之以法。含有明显的打击报复，既可以惩罚吴虹飞，又可以起到杀鸡儆猴的作用。”
中国网路媒体专栏作家刘逸明指出，中国大陆现在有很多人对中共当局的统治非常不满，但在网上用言论发泄的人还是比较温和的，如果中共出于对这些言论的惧怕而持续打压网路言论自由，那么无从发泄的民众，将会从网路世界转移到现实生活当中，以实际的行动泄愤。
采访编辑/张天宇 后制/李智远
Chinese Rock Singer’s Detention Imperils Internet Freedom of Speech
Chinese rock singer, Wu Hongfei, wrote in her micro-blog
that “I want to explode the Construction Commission."
She was detained and charged with “fabricating
terrorist information", she may face 5-year jail term.
The public support Wu Hongfei as innocent, and said that
how the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) deal with
Wu Hongfei is an issue concerning freedom of expression in China.
Many believe that once Wu Hongfei is convicted criminally,
it will signal the end of the freedom of speech.
Wu Hongfei’s two lawyers, Li Jinxing and Chen Jiangang,
issued a statement on July 27.
It says that “based on existing evidence",
Wu’s remarks “clearly do not constitute any crime."
Lawyer Chen Jiangang: “What is a crime?
It should be an act causing serious social harm.
Wu Hongfei has made a few remarks,
just venting her personal discontent.
It was her sentiment, not an attempt at any offence,
nor was it an action that led to any offensive act.
So it is clear that this cannot
constitute a crime at all.
This issue is important, for it affects the matter of
citizens’ rights to freedom of speech.
Distinguishing the right to freedom of expression as
distinct from any criminal offense is what really matters."
Legally, fabrication and the deliberate spreading of
misinformation may mean a 5-year prison term.
Yet, it is premised on the assumption that
“disturbance of public order" will be caused.
This is clearly not the case with Wu Hongfei’s
supposed, “offense", lawyers say.
It was not even a “disturbance of public order"
in terms of public security administration.
The lawyer’s argument has gained wide public support.
(Veteran media professional, China) Gao Yu:
“How could such an utterance jeopardize society?
Today, the Chinese people love cursing, making charges
against persons or against society as a whole.
If it were to be deemed a crime, the entire population
would become criminals. The charge is utterly absurd."
Reportedly, about 80% of Chinese netizens take
Wu’s remark as a form of complaint, improper perhaps, though merely foolish.
They don’t think it could possibly affect
society adversely, neither is it really seditious.
Netizens have commented that citizens must have
the freedom to express their discontent.
(Cyber writer, China) Liu Yiming: “Wu Hongfei just
used unwisely violent language in her remarks.
We don’t believe that she would create a real explosion."
Chen Jiangang: “Anyone should have freedom of speech,
which is a constitutional right.
In any normal country, unlike such an authoritarian state,
citizens have the right of expression, to complain, and even to curse."
Under 10% of netizens say that Wu Hongfei is
a public figure, with 120,000 micro-blog fans.
Her radical remarks may play a role in instigation,
and in triggering a negative effect in society.
Liu Yiming: “Public figures should choose the words
they use so much more carefully.
But as for instigation, aren’t TV programs
inciting rebellious action?
There were so many films about the CCP revolution.
And lots of period TV drama series involved plots of
official oppression forcing the masses into revolt.
Weren’t they all the same,
in that they were seditious?
If the authorities can satisfy the people by
just and fair governance,
no matter how much anyone stirs people up,
there will be no danger of violence or unrest."
Only very few people agree with the CCP’s approach
to Wu Hongfei’s harmless banter.
Commentators mainly see the CCP’s taking down of
Wu Hongfei as merely the suppression of freedom of
expression and a warning to dissidents.
This explains why its approach has drawn fierce criticism,
since it has a bearing on every netizen’s rights and interest.
Liu Yiming: “Wu Hongfei is rather outspoken.
The authorities have taken this opportunity to punish her,
this smacks of retaliation.
This is a strategy for punishing Wu Hongfei
as a warning to others."
Liu Yiming adds that currently, there are many
Chinese people who are very unhappy with CCP rule.
Those who vent their discontent on the internet are
still careful and use relatively mild language.
If the CCP, for a fear of these remarks, continues to
suppress freedom of speech over the internet,
Liu believes that the masses, having their on line voice
muffled, will soon use violent action to vent their anger.
