Summary of Key Points
The public consultation period for the draft anti-internet violence law is coming to an end, and the rapid pace of legislation reflects the urgency in addressing this issue. The draft consolidates previously scattered legal provisions, clarifying the responsibilities of platforms, the government, society, and the judiciary. However, legislation alone is not sufficient; judicial practice will be needed to refine the boundaries (for example, distinguishing between criticism and internet violence). Additionally, the root causes of internet violence involve human weaknesses and algorithmic recommendations, so societal guidance is also essential to truly solve the problem.
1. Why is the anti-internet violence law being enacted so urgently?
In recent years, there have been too many tragic cases of internet violence: Liu Xuezhou, a boy searching for his family, and Zheng Linghua, a girl with blonde hair, both lost their lives due to online attacks. Public demands for specific legislation have grown louder. In May 2026, the National People's Congress included anti-internet violence legislation in its agenda, and just over two months later, the Cyberspace Administration of China released the draft for comments. This speed indicates that we can no longer wait—internet violence has reached a point where it must be strictly regulated by law.
2. Who and what will the anti-internet violence law regulate?
The draft divides responsibilities into four main areas, creating a comprehensive framework:
- Platform Responsibilities: Platforms such as Weibo and Douyin are responsible for preventing and controlling internet violence (e.g., identifying malicious comments in advance, removing inappropriate content, and assisting victims in seeking legal redress by providing evidence).
- Government Responsibilities: Multiple departments, including those responsible for cyberspace affairs, public security, and education, will cooperate in enforcing the law; specific operational guidelines may be issued in the future.
- Social Responsibilities: Influencers and media companies (MCNs) have greater responsibilities due to their large followings and significant influence. Ordinary internet users must also refrain from using offensive language and engaging in cyberbullying.
- Judicial Responsibilities: The draft integrates civil, administrative, and criminal regulations. For example, victims of internet violence can request a "personality rights ban" (a court order prohibiting further attacks), and administrative measures such as warning letters can be issued. Criminal aspects of the law also detail how evidence should be collected and prosecutions initiated (in severe cases, victims can initiate proceedings themselves or have the prosecution assist them).
3. The anti-internet violence law is not a new invention but a consolidation of existing measures
The measures outlined in the draft are not entirely novel; for instance, the concept of a personality rights ban comes from the Civil Code, and criminal provisions are based on previous judicial documents. The purpose of this draft is to consolidate these scattered regulations into a comprehensive law, signaling to society that internet violence is a serious issue that the state is taking seriously. This approach is similar to the Anti-Domestic Violence Law, which not only conveys a stance against violence but also provides victims with practical tools for seeking protection (such as applying for protection orders).
4. The biggest challenge after legislation: How to implement the law in practice?
No matter how detailed the laws are, they cannot address all real-world issues:
- The fear of bureaucracy may render the law ineffective: If victims find the legal process too time-consuming (e.g., collecting evidence or filing lawsuits), internet violence may continue to occur.
- Boundary clarification is difficult: How to distinguish between criticism and internet violence? For example, does saying "That dress looks ugly" constitute internet violence? How should platforms decide whether to remove certain content? These issues will need to be clarified through real cases—just as the Anti-Domestic Violence Law became more effective with numerous protection orders.
- The risk of over-restrictive measures stifling free speech: If all sharp criticism is labeled as internet violence, it may discourage people from speaking out. For example, if someone reports a company's violation and it is labeled as internet violence, it could be unfair. Judicial precedents will be needed to establish clear standards that balance the prevention of violence with the protection of free speech.
5. Internet violence is not just a legal issue but also a matter of human nature and algorithms
While legislation can punish rumor-mongering and insults, it cannot address behaviors like sarcastic mockery and trend-following humor, which often stem from human weaknesses and algorithmic preferences (algorithms tend to promote controversial content that attracts more attention). Therefore, in addition to legal measures, two other approaches are necessary: educating people to respect others' dignity (e.g., through schools and families) and adjusting algorithms to promote positive content.
In conclusion, the anti-internet violence law is a first step, but to truly solve the problem, a combination of legal, judicial, social, and technological efforts is essential. None of these aspects can be neglected.