Minitrue: Avoid Vicious Speculation on Ou Shaokun

The following instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.

All websites must delete reporting by Lubiao ( public account) on the “Uncle Ou prostitution case.” Strictly control related harmful information and commentary, and filter content which takes the opportunity to spread malicious attacks on our relevant judicial departments and system. In particular, strengthen the management of search engines and interactive elements to avoid vicious speculation. (April 25, 2015) [Chinese]

Post about Ou Shaokun on the public WeChat account Lubiao.

Post about on the public WeChat account Lubiao.

The WeChat public account Lubiao, or “Signpost” (WeChat ID @landmark163), has posted several articles about Ou Shaokun, the anti- activist who was detained for five days in March for allegedly soliciting a prostitute while in Changsha, Hunan. Ou denies the charge, claiming that he was framed by Chen Jialuo, a local businessman who took Ou to karaoke and sent the woman to his hotel room. Netizens turned the human flesh search engine on Chen, who many now believe is Captain Chen Jianluo of the Changsha Domestic Security Department.

Lubiao has posted several articles about Ou Shaokun and Chen Jialuo. One is an investigation of the four companies Chen Jialuo is said to manage, claiming that none of the enterprises are traceable in the public record. “Day Ten of Uncle Ou’s Release: They Tried to Pay Me Hush Money,” reads the headline of another post.

Earlier propaganda directives from March 30 and April 7 instructed websites to “cool down” their coverage of Ou Shaokun, but netizens and Ou himself have continued to clamor about the case.

Two of Lubiao’s posts are available at CDT Chinese.

真Since directives are sometimes communicated orally to journalists and editors, who then leak them online, the wording published here may not be exact. The date given may indicate when the directive was leaked, rather than when it was issued. CDT does its utmost to verify dates and wording, but also takes precautions to protect the source.