Ammar Sabilarrohman
The People’s Republic of China has reached a pivotal milestone in its digital governance strategy with the release of the draft Law on Countering Cyberviolence, currently open for public consultation through late August 2026. This legislative development marks the culmination of a multi-year effort to transition from fragmented administrative notices to a centralized, comprehensive statutory framework. As the nation’s internet user base exceeds one billion people, the draft law seeks to harmonize existing regulations while introducing more stringent requirements for online platforms, educational institutions, and various government departments. The move reflects an increasing state concern over the social consequences of online harassment, doxing, and the spread of defamatory information, which have, in several high-profile cases, led to real-world tragedies.
The Regulatory Path to the 2026 Draft Law
The path toward the current draft law has been characterized by a step-by-step expansion of legal authority. Understanding the 2026 draft requires a retrospective look at the normative documents that laid its foundation.
2022: The CAC’s Initial Framework
In November 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) issued the "Notice on Effectively Strengthening the Governance of Cyberviolence." This was the first major regulatory instrument specifically dedicated to the issue. It shifted the primary burden of prevention onto online service providers. The Notice mandated that platforms develop "early warning models" to detect potential surges in harmful comments and required the implementation of "one-click protection" features for victims. This period established the principle that digital platforms are the first line of defense in maintaining "online order."
2023: Judicial Clarification and Criminality
In September 2023, the focus shifted from administrative oversight to criminal and civil enforcement. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC), the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) jointly released the "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyberviolence Violations and Crimes in Accordance with Law." This document was crucial because it provided a bridge between the general provisions of the Criminal Law and the specific realities of digital harassment. It clarified how charges such as defamation, insult, and "infringing on personal information" should be applied when the conduct occurs in a digital space. Notably, it emphasized that "serious" cases—those resulting in mental illness or suicide—should be prosecuted with greater vigor.
2024: A Broadened Societal Mandate
By June 2024, the "Provisions on the Governance of Cyberviolence Information" were released. This was a joint effort by the CAC, the MPS, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the State Administration of Radio and Television. These provisions signaled a shift from purely reactive measures to a more proactive, societal approach. They began to integrate the roles of cultural and broadcasting regulators, acknowledging that cyberviolence often stems from entertainment trends and influencer-driven "troll armies."
Defining Cyberviolence in the Modern Era
A central challenge for Chinese lawmakers has been defining "cyberviolence" with enough specificity to allow for enforcement without being so broad as to stifle legitimate public discourse. The 2026 draft law maintains a definition that has evolved through the previous three years of regulation.
According to Article 2 of the draft, cyberviolence is defined by conduct that involves the illegal dissemination of information that injures an individual’s "personality rights"—a term encompassing reputation, honor, likeness, and privacy. The law identifies four primary categories of prohibited content:
- Defamation and Insult: Spreading falsehoods or using derogatory language to damage a person’s character.
- Infringement of Privacy: Doxing (the unauthorized release of personal data) and the dissemination of private or intimate images (revenge porn).
- Disruption of Order: Activities that incite mass harassment or create significant public alarm.
- Information Manipulation: Using technological means to amplify harmful content.
The draft law places particular emphasis on the "concentrated" or "continuous" nature of the conduct. This suggests that a single critical comment may not meet the threshold of cyberviolence, but a coordinated campaign or a sustained period of harassment will.
Key Provisions and Innovations of the Draft Law
The 2026 draft law integrates the mandates of previous documents while expanding the scope of responsibility to include departments for education, civil affairs, and telecommunications. This "all-of-government" approach is intended to create a safety net that follows the victim from the digital world into their physical lives.
Multi-Departmental Coordination
Unlike previous notices that focused primarily on the CAC and the police, the draft law enlists the Ministry of Education to implement anti-cyberbullying curricula in schools. The Ministry of Civil Affairs is tasked with providing social support and psychological counseling for victims. This reflects a growing recognition that the harm of cyberviolence persists long after the offending content is deleted.
Platform Accountability and Technical Prohibitions
Article 31 of the draft specifically targets the mechanisms used to scale up attacks. It prohibits:
- The use of automated "bot" accounts to inflate the visibility of harassing posts.
- The hiring of "professional troll armies" (known in China as shui jun or "water army").
- The exploitation of algorithm recommendations to push cyberviolence content into the "trending" or "recommended" feeds of users.
Furthermore, Article 32 addresses the "assistance" provided to perpetrators. This includes prohibiting technical support, such as server hosting or data scraping tools, to entities known to engage in cyberviolence. Financial intermediaries are also warned against providing payment or settlement services for "troll-for-hire" businesses.
Supporting Data and Context: The Human Cost
The drive for this legislation is rooted in a series of high-profile incidents that shocked the Chinese public. In early 2023, the suicide of a 23-year-old woman, who was relentlessly bullied online after posting a photo of herself with pink hair and her grandfather, became a catalyst for legal reform. Later that year, the death of a mother in Wuhan, who faced a barrage of criticism regarding her appearance and demeanor following the tragic death of her son in a school accident, further intensified calls for "iron-fisted" regulation.
Data from the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) indicates that as of late 2025, approximately 15% of Chinese internet users reported experiencing some form of online harassment. Among minors, this number is estimated to be higher, with nearly 20% reporting encounters with "malicious speech." The "Clear and Bright" (Qinglang) campaigns, periodic crackdowns led by the CAC, have resulted in the deletion of millions of harmful posts and the closure of hundreds of thousands of accounts, yet regulators argue that a permanent law is necessary to provide a long-term deterrent.
Official Responses and Expert Analysis
Government officials have framed the draft law as a necessary step for "social harmony." A spokesperson for the CAC stated that the law is not intended to restrict freedom of expression but to protect the "fundamental dignity" of citizens. "The internet is not a place outside the law," the spokesperson remarked during a press briefing. "The freedom to speak does not include the freedom to destroy another person’s life."
Legal experts in China have noted that the draft law attempts to balance the need for rapid response with judicial due process. Professor Zhang Ling, a digital law specialist at a leading university in Beijing, observed that the law’s structure—borrowing heavily from the Law on the Protection of Minors—provides a "familiar and intuitive framework" for both the public and the judiciary. However, some analysts point out that the draft law is less granular than the 2023 Guiding Opinions regarding specific criminal sentencing. This suggests that the Guiding Opinions and the 2022 Notice will continue to serve as vital supplementary documents, providing the "how-to" for the broad principles established in the new law.
Broader Implications and Global Impact
The enactment of a dedicated Cyberviolence Law will have significant implications for the global tech industry. Multinational companies operating in China will need to update their moderation algorithms and reporting mechanisms to comply with the strict "early warning" and "prevention" requirements. Compliance costs are expected to rise as platforms are required to hire more human moderators and invest in AI-driven sentiment analysis.
From a global perspective, China’s approach to cyberviolence is among the most interventionist in the world. While countries like the United Kingdom (via the Online Safety Act) and the European Union (via the Digital Services Act) have also moved toward stricter platform regulation, China’s law is unique in its direct integration of criminal penalties with societal education and civil support.
The draft law also serves as a signal to the international community about China’s priorities in the "digital sovereignty" debate. By codifying these protections, Beijing is asserting that the state has a primary role in defining and enforcing the boundaries of digital behavior to maintain internal stability.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The public comment period for the draft Law on Countering Cyberviolence is set to conclude on August 28, 2026. Following this, the National People’s Congress is expected to review the feedback and make final adjustments. If passed, the law will create a unified legal standard that replaces the current patchwork of administrative guidelines.
For the victims of online harassment, the law offers a more direct path to justice, including the ability to request that police assist in identifying anonymous perpetrators. For the broader society, it represents an attempt to civilize the "Wild West" of the early digital era. As the law moves toward finalization, the focus will likely shift to its implementation—specifically, how effectively local authorities can enforce these mandates against the sheer scale of the Chinese internet. The transition from normative documents to a centralized law marks a definitive end to the era of regulatory experimentation, setting a permanent standard for conduct in China’s digital future.
Reynand Wu
Nana Wu
