China’s newly revised “Public Security Management Penalties Law” is set to officially take effect on January 1, 2026. According to media professionals in Guangdong, China’s social media censorship database now includes over 300,000 restricted keywords. Recently, the Licheng County Court in Shanxi sentenced twelve individuals, including Du, to detention or imprisonment on probation for reposting obscene content through WeChat.
The Chinese Communist Party continues to strengthen its monitoring of internet discourse. A senior editor, Xiao Yuan (pseudonym), from Guangzhou Dayang Net, revealed to Epoch Times that the revised Public Security Management Penalties Law targets expressions such as “lying flat” and “being extravagant” as “negative” online content. Xiao Yuan disclosed, “Our database of restricted words is updated daily, currently with at least about two to three hundred thousand banned words. Forbidden words include ’89,’ ‘Cultural Revolution,’ ‘group events,’ as well as terms like ‘rally,’ ‘petition,’ ‘democratization,’ and ‘party legitimacy.’ Even ‘Xi Dada’ is now prohibited. Social media platforms are banning more words, such as ‘lying flat,’ ‘fawning on learning,’ ‘being extravagant,’ and ‘slacking off.'”
Xiao Yuan stated that there is no clear legal definition of “negative speech,” and the inclusion of words in the restricted database is not based on any standard but is expanded according to the current situation and policy needs. He added that once a word is added to the banned list, it would not be removed, leading to the continuous accumulation of restricted terms. The exact scale of the restricted vocabulary lacks official public explanation, and no one knows the final number.
A Weibo platform manager with a doctoral degree also mentioned that their platform filters millions of posts daily through a screening process. “A few months ago, I saw that the backend had around 300,000 sensitive keywords and combinations, focusing mainly on politically sensitive topics and expressions of social discontent or emotional venting.” However, the precise number could not be independently verified since the authorities have not disclosed the complete database size.
In a recent amendment to the Public Security Management Penalties Law coming into effect from the New Year 2026, the dissemination of obscene materials through communication tools will be included within the scope of administrative penalties. Incidents of this nature have already begun to see judicial involvement, like a case in Shanxi province where individuals were convicted for continuously sharing obscene material via WeChat from 2021 to 2024. The court found that such ongoing and widespread dissemination constituted criminal behavior, resulting in convictions with suspended prison sentences and confiscation of all involved phones.
Legal experts noted a trend where cases involving the transmission of obscene material extend from “production and distribution” to “private dissemination chains.” Yet, the publicly accessible judgments are limited, making it challenging to show any systemic changes in scale. Observers in the industry believe the extent of such accountability widening further will depend on the future openness of additional court judgments.
Regarding these developments, Zhou Fei (pseudonym), who runs a small supermarket in Shandong, expressed surprise at the judicial handling of reposting behavior. “I knew that selling content on adult websites would be illegal, but I never expected that sending messages to friends via mobile could be a criminal offense. Most unexpectedly, private WeChat conversations could also become legal evidence.”
Mr. Song, a lawyer from Shandong, indicated a common misunderstanding among the public regarding the concept of “private.” He clarified that in criminal law, there is no absolute exemption for private space, and once information leaves one’s device and reaches another, it constitutes dissemination. He emphasized that the case in question did not lead to accountability due to a “one-time action” but because of a repeated, multi-party, lengthy, and substantial dissemination chain.
In recent years, judicial interpretations have shown an expansive trend. Many people mistakenly believed that a lack of profit motive and privacy would shield them from liability. However, recent judgments have made people realize the distinction between habits and the law. Mr. Song believed that this shifting boundary of norms offers law enforcement greater interpretational flexibility.