After almost a year, the National People's Congress has begun its second trial of "Laws on Reaction to Breaking Events".

Last year, the Standing Committee of the NPC was in the midst of its first round of deliberations on the law, which in article 57 said: "News media that violates regulation and reports on sudden or developing events in a false manner will be fined by the appropriate local governing body People's Government for no less than 50,000 and no more than 100,000 yuan."

After being announced by Xinhua, the news met with strong reaction. Nanfang Daily published a piece entitled, "Limiting the Media Reports on Breaking News is a Step Backwards" that said, "this law's rules amount to an abolishment of public supervision, it's undoubtedly a step backward, and is incomprehensible to many. First Financial Daily wrote an editorial pointing out that although the law may help government bodies coordinate their responses to breaking events, it is detrimental to the news media's ability to serve as a constructive role, and thus bad for the public overall. In the days that followed, the tide of criticism continued to swell.

The government responded swiftly. Nine days after the announcement, the State Council's press office held a press conference. Wang Yongqing, deputy-director of the State Council's Legal Office and a drafter of the law, explained that the two provisions in the law dealing with news disclosure had recently created a great amount of controversy, and that it was therefore necessary for some public communication and explanation. According to our understanding, it was the first time such a press conference has ever been held.

During the conference, Article 57 became the focus of domestic and foreign journalists' questioning. Wang Yongqing patiently explained: This kind of regulation was not a limiting factor, but something to influence journalists positively and ensure that they are reporting with precision and authority. The main objective of this law, he said, was to standardize and restrict governmental action, and was drafted with this in mind all along. "I frankly told everyone, [standardizing and limiting government behavior] in this law is a major step for Chinese democracy and strengthening of the legal system."

But the voices of doubt didn't stop there. Scholars pointed out that press rights stem from people's freedom of speech, a constitutional right. Any time this is under threat of limitation it must be dealth with the utmost caution. The law says that "going against regulation" will meet "punishment", but who's making up the "regulation"? This ambiguity could give those seeking to restrict free speech an opportunity,, and in the end, the public's right to know suffers.

What followed next made people even more mistrusting and suspicious: experts involved in the drafting said they were not aware of the article, one even saying, "I have no idea how this slipped in."