We know that things sometimes can get messier than imagined; that local officials sometimes forget there are limits to their authority; and, that the average citizen sometimes finds himself/herself defenseless in the face of abusive officials.

Still this appears too much. Eight villagers - seven, to be exact, for one is home on bail on ground of poor health - found themselves behind bars for disseminating information about alleged corruption by a village head. The charge is libel.

Libel as a criminal offense may qualify for imprisonment of less than three years, according to the Criminal Law. And the eight were sentenced to one to two years in jail. Which does not sound that bad.

But the verdict is untenable in the first place. In accordance with the criminal code, libel as a crime would not be investigated unless the victim files a lawsuit. An exception to the rule is permissible when the social order or national interest is seriously endangered.

We believe that charges against a village head, whether true or not, does not constitute a major threat to either the social order or national interest. Then there has to be a lawsuit registered by the "victim" (forgive us for the quotation mark), until he is proved innocent, at the court. Which never happened.

The village head did make complaints. But, to the police, and not to the court. Which is an important detail. Since there is no legal ground in this case for the involvement of public prosecutors, the court trial itself appears to us like a tree without roots. The "all-out intervention" by the local judiciary, as reported, is, therefore, quite unnecessary. It does not take a legal professional to see that here is a procedural problem.

We know the local administrators dislike troublemakers like the eight. And, in their eyes, they sabotaged "social order." But we, like most who find this case strange, have serious doubts about that judgment.

We also know that there was obvious exaggeration in the charges against the village head. In that sense, he was victimized. And, that there was a declared intention to destroy the village cadre's reputation and prevent him from being re-elected. Altogether, they accused the village head of 23 misdeeds, few of which have been confirmed by official probes. But nor do we see clear evidence that the accusations were all fabricated. The judgment cannot but be shaky and porous with lingering questions about evidence unresolved.

Yet the response from the local official in charge of legal affairs told us something about what was once unimaginable. If all villagers follow their example, the local election work will be in jeopardy, he was quoted as saying.

So, is it the same old trick of "killing the chicken and scaring the monkey"? Or, are we talking about the law here?

(China Daily August 25, 2009)