Chen Bi/Wen The draft of the Anti Cyberbullying Law (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Cyberbullying Law) will soon end its one month consultation on August 28th, completing an important link in the legislative chain.

In recent years, there have been many tragedies caused by rumors, slanders, malicious attacks, and human flesh opening on the Internet. For example, Liu Xuezhou, a boy looking for relatives, and Zheng Linghua, a girl with pink hair, paid the price of their lives for online violence. The voice of society calling for specialized legislation against online violence is becoming increasingly strong. In May 2026, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress released the annual legislative work plan, which included legislation to address online violence as a preparatory review item and entrusted relevant departments to conduct research and draft it as soon as possible. Just over two months later, on July 29th, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued an anti cyberbullying law to solicit opinions from the whole society. This pace of progress reflects the urgency of addressing online violence.

From the content of this draft, its governance work mainly revolves around platform responsibility, government responsibility, social responsibility, and judicial responsibility. This generally follows the approach of the "Regulations on the Governance of Cyberbullying Information" released by the Cyberspace Administration of China in 2024, where the platform is responsible for risk prevention and control, disposal management, and rights relief; The government level involves multiple departments such as cyberspace, public security, education, and telecommunications, and may jointly issue enforcement rules in the future; Social responsibility falls on mass organizations, schools, families, industry organizations, internet influencers, MCN institutions, and ordinary netizens. In other words, everyone has a responsibility to govern online bullying, and big Vs have a greater responsibility - because the louder the voice, the greater the responsibility.

The judicial responsibility has absorbed judicial documents such as the "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyberbullying and Illegal Crimes in accordance with the Law" issued by the Supreme People's Court and the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving the Infringement of Personal Rights and Interests by Information Networks (2020 Amendment)" issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2023, achieving the connection and integration of "civil execution". In the civil field, the injunction system for infringement of personality rights is a highlight; In the administrative field, the system of online violence warning letters has been introduced; In the criminal field, detailed provisions have been made for procedural matters such as case transfer, evidence transfer, initiation of private prosecution, assistance in evidence collection, transfer of private prosecution to public prosecution, and support for prosecution.

The above measures to combat online bullying are not new, but rather a systematic integration of governance tools that were previously scattered in various departments, administrative and judicial organs. At the same time, raising the legislative level demonstrates the determination and sincerity of the country in addressing online bullying. In this sense, the legislative logic of the Anti Cyberbullying Law and the Anti Domestic Violence Law is similar, both conveying a stance of protecting dignity and opposing violence to the whole society through specialized laws, while consolidating fragmented relevant rules from the Civil Code, the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, the Criminal Law, as well as various departmental regulations and judicial documents. It not only has a social declaration effect, but also aims to establish a system framework that can be remedied, punished, and litigated.

But we also need to see that although specialized legislation has established a set of norms such as platform obligations, personality rights prohibitions, and support for prosecution, paper legal provisions cannot resolve the practical dilemma of online violence. If there is a lack of sustained and rich individual cases to fill in the details of the legal provisions, relying solely on a written law, it is easy to encounter two situations: either the law is just an empty promise, or the law harms freedom of speech and public opinion supervision.

For the former, if most victims hesitate due to fear of trouble and only take up legal weapons when malignant extreme events occur, the effectiveness of legal protection will be greatly reduced, and online bullying will not decrease. For the latter, when the platform has the discretion in content governance, what situations should be intervened in and what situations should not be excessively intervened in? What is the boundary between criticism and humiliation? What are the criteria for inciting opposition? These complex boundary issues urgently need to be clarified through judicial precedents, in order to define a reasonable scope for the platform's review scale and effectively prevent harm to legitimate speech caused by excessive regulation.

The law can punish rumors and insults, but how can it punish ridicule and sarcasm? Nowadays, some online bullying is no longer organized hate attacks, but is manifested as mass entertainment, such as deconstructing, parodying, and spreading memes about the clothing, expressions, and past experiences of the parties involved. If we overly rely on administrative power to intervene in every morally corrupt online bullying scene, will it lead to the unlimited expansion of public power? Once inappropriate viewpoints or sharp criticisms are easily labeled as "cyberbullying", will it trigger a chilling effect and suppress normal criticism and reporting?

These are quite individual issues that need to be judged based on the background, motivation, and consequences at the time. After the enactment of the Anti Domestic Violence Law, there were also doubts about the limited punishment scenarios and the emphasis on value guidance. It is thanks to the fact that grassroots courts have accepted a large number of personal safety protection order cases and gradually refined and clarified the judgment standards in judicial practice that the "rights on paper" have truly been transformed into "rights in reality". The anti cyberbullying law will also go through a very similar process.

Legislation is never omnipotent, and the fight against online violence still requires the continuous cultivation of the judiciary. At the same time, cyberbullying is not only a legal issue, but also a social problem. The reason why online bullying persists is not only due to the lack of legal deterrence, but also due to human weaknesses and algorithmic manipulation. Therefore, in addition to improving the legal system, it may be equally important to reshape the public's reverence for human dignity and guide algorithmic rules towards goodness.

(The author is an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law)

(Author's Commentary)